The Scenic Bridge - Badawi rebuts

Categories: Malaysia, Singapore

The Malaysian government yesterday rebutted former PM Dr Mahathir criticism regarding the bridge issue. Dr Mahathir had said that the government had surrendered Malaysia's sovereign when it decided to scrap the building of the bridge. He claimed that the law was on Malaysia side and therefore it could have brought the case to the International Court of Justice. Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi Abdul Razak, the former secretary-general of the Foreign Ministry, who lead the negotiations was asked by the Badawi government to explain the reasoning behind the scrapping of the bridge. This was published by New Straits Times today.

It is good for the Badawi government to explain the how the Cabinet has come to scrapping the project. This will allow the public to determine for themselves on the merit or otherwise. However few questions arises from the rebuttal.

Since Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi was the leader in the negotiation party when Dr Mahathir was still the Prime Minister, was the change in the position of the Singapore government after October 2002 and its legal implications made known to the former PM? Similarly was the legal opinion of Attorney-General office conveyed to him? And if the legal implications were conveyed, why did Dr Mahathir chose to ignore it?

Why was the opinion given by Dr Mahathir's former aide, Matthias Chang, contradicted with that of Tan Sri Ahmad? I am sure both officials must have had the relevant informations for their perusal. If so, why the difference in opinion?

What was the role of Syed Hamid, the Foreign Minister and Rais Yatim, the former de-facto Law Minister? Rais Yatim was named as one of the persons who was given a 14-volume report by Matthias Chang. Although Syed Hamid was not named, Matthias Chang however had thrown down the gauntlet when he dared Syed Hamid to sue him in court if what he said was not true. For him to openly challenged an UMNO minister, he must have some very good reasons.

The most pertinent question is why Syed Hamid, Rais Yatim, the Attorney-General Office and even Badawi himself could not have changed or at least voiced their concerns to Dr Mahathir with regards to its implications. Badawi himself was still talking about building the Scenic Bridge two weeks before he made the U-turn. Is the failure to stop the unilateral decision to build the bridge due to one man's pride; or was it a collective decision despite the clear legal implications? Or was it because of a bungled report from Dr Mahathir's aide?

It is good that Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi has decided to publish the events leading to this fateful decision. If this is the start of things to come, then I am sure Malaysians will have a brighter future because finally the government is talking about accountability. However, in the interest of accountability, the Prime Minister should not just stop there. He has to pursue the matter further and find out who was ultimately responsible for this debacle and take the necessary actions. This is because national pride has been dented and somebody must be answerable.


Related blog:
The Scenic Bridge
The Scenic Bridge no more
The Scenic Bridge - legal wrangle
The Scenic Bridge - Peek behind the scenes
The Scenic Bridge - Statement from Foreign Ministry
The Scenic Bridge - Dr Mahathir's Open Letter (English translation)