The Scenic Bridge - a translation on the Open Letter by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

Categories: Malaysia, Singapore

This is my translation of "Open Letter by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad" which was published by The Star Online in Malay. This translation hopefully will enable more people to understand the matter better. The original transcript can be obtained here. Readers who understand Malay are strongly encouraged to read the original transcript as the tone of the letter cannot be adequately translated.



Facts Regarding the Crooked Bridge


I wrote this open letter as a Malaysian citizen who love the country for whoever is interested in reading it.

I need to present the facts in this letter in this manner because of late not many of my statements were published, either through electronic mass media or publications, even though their representatives were present in my press conference.

Pertaining to the issue above, I had stated my view that the Malaysian government had failed to defend its sovereignty. As a result, the country suffered losses of billions of ringgit. This is the people's money.

I also wanted the people to understand Singapore's government behaviour with its ways and means as well as the Malaysian's government charges that it stopped the bridge building because of legal issues and because of the people's sentiment of not giving airspace and sale of sand to Singapore, and this was intentionally misconstrued as the people's rejection of the bridge. The people wanted the bridge but rejected Singapore's conditions, because it has no basis and not Singapore's right.

Singapore likes to publish correspondence between its leaders with Malaysian leaders with the intention of proving that it is on the side of truth.

Currently the Malaysian government believes that by not rebutting Singapore's campaign of twisting facts, the problem faced will solve by itself. However this is just wishful thinking that will not materialise.

In diplomatic norms, letters written by any party who quoted oral agreements which were supposedly reached between leaders in unofficial meetings, are not valid.

For it to be valid, negotiations must be written, recorded carefully, validated and signed by both sides. Statements made in a press conference by any one party without the verification of the other party, is also not valid.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when he was the Senior Minister of Singapore, liked to request for 4-eye meet without proper agenda and later recorded the outcome of the meeting in his letters to third party. (See Appendix 1)

Based on those letters, he hoped that his counterpart will agree to their contents and as a result bounded by the contents of the letters. He did not consider if his writing was not considered accurate and not verified.

I regarded anything that did not follow diplomatic norms as invalid. His assumptions are his alone, no more no less. His actions to publish his letters as prove that I had agreed did not mean anything at all. Only if I reply to the letter and verify specific facts, can the said facts be considered true. But whether it is valid and binding, depends on official verifications and agreements by both sides.

Waffling on what is considered "package" and the inability to achieve any agreement is because the impractical premise based on the package arrangement. If no agreement cannot be achieved on any one item, then there will be no agreement for all the items in the package.

Because of this reason, I suggested and Mr Goh Chok Tong agreed that we will settle each item in isolation. This was agreed to and accepted by Mr Goh Chok Tong, as the Prime Minister through a letter dated October 14 2002 (See Appendix 2) which among others said:

"Towards the end of our meeting (in Hanoi), you said that we should try to resolve the water issue, and the sooner it was done, the better. I agreed ....."

But in the same letter, Mr Goh Chok Tong said;

"I therefore did not expect to receive, on 10 October, your letter of 7 October, wherein you stated that "Malaysia has now decided to discontinue the package approach..."


BRIDGE

After rejecting the package approach, I was of the opinion that the bridge issue will not be tied to any other issues. I had high hopes when the bridge issue were mentioned in Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's letters.

In one of the letters (refer to Appendix 1, para 6) to Tun Daim Zainuddin, Lee said:

"On Mahathir's Causeway bridge proposal, my PM (Goh) agrees to it, but proposes that we do not demolish the Causeway."

Seems that the people of Singapore is more agreeable if both the new bridge and the Causeway are present. This does not make sense because the reason for building a new bridge is to open up the passage on both sides of Tebrau Straits to allow free flow of water. It was no meant to increase the relationship capacity between Singapore and Johor. If this is the case, it is coincidental.

Another interesting argument by Mr Lee was (if Singapore agrees to the building of the bridge):

"Singapore will reclaim land on its side of the territory up to its border with Malaysia (refer Appendix 3, letter from Senior Minister Lee to Dr Mahathir dated Sept 8, 2001).

The border between Singapore and Malaysia in the Tebrau Strait is the deepest part of the seabed. However, for the Causeway, its border is in the middle of the bridge. If Singapore were to reclaim the sea in its territory until the border, this means that only the sea on the Malaysian side would remain. So how does it address the concept of the border based on the deepest part of the seabed? In the same letter to Daim (refer Appendix 1, para 12), Senior Minister Lee said:

"I am keeping my PM informed of my initiatives. He said however that he will leave them to me until the final stage when he will study them carefully before agreeing."

Senior Minister Lee also wrote (Appendix 1, para 12): "all notes or letters I sent to you or Mahathir, or vice-versa, will be treated as Without Prejudice; that there is no agreement until all points are agreed and signed by the two PMs."

It is clear that Senior Minister Lee was not empowered to decide on anything because he has to inform Prime Minister Goh for considerations before any agreement. If not, then there will be no agreement on all issues until verified and signed by both Prime Ministers.

In reply to my suggestion that the Keretapi Tanah Melayu terminal be build in Johor Baru, Senior Minister Lee, through letters dated 10 December 2001 (please refer Appendix 4, para 10), said:

"I hope you will also consider the long-term significance and value of the KTM rail service. Since 1923, the railway has been a valuable.... I believe keeping the railway link between Malaysia and Singapore benefits both countries..... However as the KTM is your railway, Singapore will abide by your decision."

In this letter, Senior Minister Lee pledge to abide by my decision. However, he could also say Prime Minister Goh did not agree and all our correspondence is without prejudice.

It follows, when he or Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and myself put our views in writing, it reflected our thinking. But because it is done without prejudice, we are not bound by what had been said.

Therefore, the issue of waffling and shifting goalpost did not arise. The position of the goalpost had not been determined. Since what was done was based on the concept of without prejudice, it was therefore nothing more than mere suggestions.

In a letter dated 11 April 2002 (refer Appendix 5) Prime Minister Goh said:

"I have now decided to handle directly our discussion on the bilateral package".

Only now someone with authority is talking (for Singapore).

In what can be considered the final commitment, Prime Minister Goh wrote (to me):

1. Bridge

"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 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."

What conclusions can we made from this statement? Nothing was said about sand from Malaysia nor opening of airspace to Singapore's military aircrafts. Nothing was also mentioned about nostalgia, only highlighting that the Causeway be demolished after 2007.

Now it was mentioned that if Malaysia touch the water pipes to Singapore, this will be seen as an act of war. Is this a war declaration?

The clause in the "Wayleave Agreement" with Singapore is very clear. Below is what had been agreed on the water pipes:

“That the Licensee (Singapore) shall take full responsibility financially or otherwise for any alteration to the pipeline that may become necessary by reason of any alterations or improvements made or to be made on the Johor Causeway and on receiving not less than six months previous notice in writing from the Licensors (Malaysia) shall thereupon carry out the alteration in accordance with such notice and shall have no claim for any compensation.”

This agreement did not touch on right of the Licensee (Singapore) on its rejection. The phrase "Shall carry out the alteration" is very clear. Singapore should carry out the alterations. If Singapore refuses, this may be seen as an act of war and not the other way round.

When the preliminary work on the bridge was carried out, there was no protests nor demands for sand or usage of our airspace. Now the building of the bridge on our territory seemed to be dependent on the condition that we sell millions of cubic meters of sand to Singapore to reclaim the sea and open up our airspace to its military aircraft. Where do all these conditions come from? What is the connection between the expansion of Singapore's territory and our building of a bridge within our own territory?

Singapore's demands to tie the building of the bridge in our territory to our sale of sand and opening up the airspace are totally baseless.

Why the need for the Malaysian government to sell sand and opening up the airspace to Singapore if it was not force to stop the building of the crooked bridge in our own territory is beyond my comprehension.

It is the Malaysian's right not to sell sand to Singapore or to open up the airspace to it. But the people never mentioned they were ready to sacrifice the bridge project. What they rejected was to give in to Singapore's demand that we sell sand and open the airspace. They wanted the bridge but they also wanted their Government to dispute Singapore's demands because legally Malaysia does not have to entertain Singapore's terms.

Singapore's actions were expected. But the Malaysian government failed to defend the nation's sovereignty. In addition, this has caused the loss of billions of the people's money.

Let the people of Malaysia, especially the Malays and namely those from Johor, to remember that the British had tricked the Sultan into handing over Singapore to them for free.

Like Penang, Lumut, and Melaka, Singapore should have been returned to us when the British relinquished their rights. But Singapore had become so foreign that it could not become part of Malaysia anymore.

Will Malaysia now gives more land to Singapore so that it can expand its territory and increase its population? To give up our seabed to Singapore is no different from giving our land to Singapore. The end result is the extension of Singapore's territory. This is no different from giving up parts of Johor for this purpose. Are we so poor that we need to sell a piece of our soil to others?

The coming generations of Malaysians, whether Malay or Johorean, will curse us if we do all these even though we have the right to build a bridge on our own soil and sea as an independent and sovereign country.

It is enough that we gave up Singapore (to the British). There is no need for us to give up more of our land to Singapore even though there are those who felt that we can build a bridge in our country only if Singapore agrees.

Malaysians had never shared the same opinions. Nobody should put words into their mouth just because that person is afraid to defend the rights and sovereignty of the country and the people.

Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad
19 April, 2006


Link:
The Scenic Bridge - Statement from Foreign Ministry