The Scenic Bridge - legal wrangle

Categories: Malaysia, Singapore

The Malaysian government had made a U-turn and scraped the building of the Scenic bridge to replace the Causeway on April 12. Since then Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi had been criticised by the former PM Dr Mahathir with the most scanting attack which was quoted as "I never thought in my lifetime that this country would surrender its sovereignty to anybody." So who is right?

The official reasons for the scrapping the building of the bridge is because the people opposed to the selling of sand and letting the Singapore Air Force (SAF) to use Malaysian airspace as trade-off and because "of legal implications and complications should the project have gone ahead". This was done in the interest of the nation according to Syed Hamid, the Foreign Minister. He said that the Second Link is still under-utilised and the law is on Malaysian side if the building of the bridge were to go ahead. However a day later, Najib was reported as saying that "Malaysia does not have a sovereign right to unilaterally replace its half of the Causeway with a new half-bridge, because the structure will affect both countries".

The situation got more murky when Dr Mahathir got into the fray. He recounted that when he first proposed the project in 1996, there was no opposition either from Singapore or the people and there was no question of legal implications. Regarding the water issues he said: "Under the Separation Agreement, Malaysia can move the water pipes by giving Singapore six months' notice, after which Singapore would have to comply at its own expense. This has already been done with Singapore's Public Utility Board moving some of the water pipes on land near the Causeway to facilitate work on the CIQ complex." And if all else fails, he said Malaysia could have brought the matter to the International Court of Justice.

This was supported by his former aide, Matthias Chang, who accused Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar of giving "wrong advice" to the government over the building of a new bridge. He claimed that he had compiled a 14-volume report on the issue for Dr Mahathir with issues given to Datuk Rais Yatim, the then-de facto Law Minister, the Attorney General and other relevant parties. He claimed there was no issue of legal implications and quoted a letter from previous Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2002. In it PM Goh stated that ""Between a new bridge to replace the entire Causeway and one to replace just the Malaysian side of the Causeway, I like the former better... once the new bridge is completed, the Causeway can be knocked down, which I prefer to be done after 2007. But if you (Dr Mahathir) wish to proceed immediately to replace just your side of the Causeway with a bridge, I shall accept it, though I think this is not ideal". There was no discussion on any trade-offs.

So who is right - the former PM Dr Mahathir or the current PM Badawi?

According to 2 experts on international law, Malaysia had made the right move to avoid legal risk. One of them pointed out that the water pipes and railway track on the Causeway were subjected to bilateral agreements signed by Malaysia and Singapore and "under international law no country shall, on its own, amend or change anything which are dictated by bilateral agreements without prior negotiations with the other country" and "... under the Water Agreement between Johor and Singapore signed in 1961 and 1962, Malaysia was required to obtain prior approval from the Singapore government".

For PM Badawi to stop the building of the bridge and in the process dents Malaysia's national pride, there must be a very good reason; and to me is because Malaysia is on the wrong side of the law. Dr Mahathir had put national pride at stake when he announced that Malaysia has a right to build the bridge on its side of the strait. And PM Badawi had the unenviable task to handle the aftermath of a 'decree' given in a fit of anger. This is probably the best decision under the circumstances albeit a painful and maybe unpopular one. It is better to swallow some pride then to face bigger embarassment later on.

Another telltale sign that Malaysia may be legally disadvantage is the way ministers falling over each other trying to justify the cancellation of the bridge. Syed Hamid said the law in on Malaysia's side but the Deputy Prime Minister said that Malaysia does not have the sovereign right to unilaterally remove the Causeway. Syed Hamid had also used the under-utilisation of the Second Link as a justification. If this is the case, why the need to replace the Causeway in the first place? Since theoritically by building a new bridge, the daily traffic jam on the Malaysian side would be reduced and thus will encourage motorist to use the new bridge at the expense of the Second Link. No logic here.

Whatever is the reasons for cancellation of the bridge, only Abdullah Badawi and the cabinet knows the truth. National pride had been dented. As national sovereignty and dignity is involved, the government owes its citizen an explanation. Where has it gone wrong? Why was the decision so different despite having essentially the same Cabinet ministers? Is it because of one man's frustrations that national pride was put to the gamble? Or is it because of the weakness of one man, that national pride were traded? I therefore hope that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi will give a full picture so as to practice what he had preached - accountability. For like what Dr Mahathir said: "Singapore did not win but Malaysia lost".


Related blog:
The Scenic Bridge
The Scenic Bridge no more