The Scenic Bridge - Wormie says

Categories: Malaysia, Singapore

It is good that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has instructed Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi, ambassador-at-large in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to explain to Malaysians why the government had scrapped the bridge project. This can be seen as a response to a scanting attack by the former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir through an open letter dated 19 April. After reading and trying to understand both transcripts, I have come to the following conclusions. I will based my views on the points brought up by Tun Dr Mahathir in his open letter.

1. Tun charged that "Singapore likes to publish correspondence between its leaders with Malaysian leaders with the intention of proving that it is on the side of truth." He raised the questions of legality of oral agreements and press conference statements that was not endorsed and agreed by the both parties. He gave as an example a letter (Appendix 1) written by the then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew to Tun Daim dated 24 August 2000. However he strangely also quoted from the same letter which SM Lee wrote:

"... To make it easier for us to write to each other, to test various options, all notes or letters I send 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".

Obviously, Tun has contradicted himself! Far from trying to quote unverified oral agreements as the truth, SM Lee had actually reassured Tun Daim that anything not verified and signed by both PMs are not legally binding. Therefore, as with Tun Dr Mahathir, SM Lee also questioned the legality of oral agreements and unverified press conference statements.

2. Tun Mahathir came to the conclusion that Mr Goh has agreed to the building of the bridge without any trade-offs by quoting a letter send by Mr Goh to him, dated 11 April 2002 (Appendix 5):

"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."

However if the whole letter is read in context, it is clear that Mr Goh was still under the impression that the agreement to the building of the bridge is based on the agreement of the package. Mr Goh has mentioned the word "package" a few times in the letter. Granted that under the heading of bridge, there was no mentioned of package but this was implied from the rest of the letter and also from his understanding up till 8 October 2002. This was reflected in the letter dated 14 October 2002 (Appendix 2) send by Dr Goh to Tun Mahathir:

"... As you wrote in the opening sentence of your letter of 7 October, you and I had reached a decision "on 27 December 1998 in Hanoi for Malaysia and Singapore to resolve, once and for all, the outstanding issues between our two countries in a package". In other words, we had agreed to trade off, in a package, the benefits to each other from the various items, namely water, POA, airspace, CPF, and the bridge to replace the Causeway."

Obviously, when Mr Goh agreed to the building of the bridge, he has the package agreement in mind.

3. On the issue of "Wayleave Agreement" I think Tun Mahathir is right for saying that Malaysia can proceed with alteration of the water pipes channelling water to Singapore after giving a six months' notice. At least in the paragraph quoted, there is no mentioned of Singapore having any right to reject any alterations after a notice is served. As I am not familiar with the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreement and without the benefit of the full Wayleave Agreement, my conclusions is based solely on what was quoted by Tun Mahathir.

4. Tun Mahathir stated that when the preliminary work on the bridge was carried out, there were no protests nor demands for sand or usage of our airspace. If he was referring to the building of the CIQ, then Tan Seri Fuzi had provided the answer when he said in para 11 and 14:

"In its Diplomatic Note dated 25 October 2003 Singapore referred to the Order of 8 October 2003 International Tribunal On the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the case concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johore and contended that Malaysia had made a unilateral decision in announcing the proposed construction of the scenic half bridge. It maintained that international facilities such as the Causeway cannot be demolished without its approval, agreement and involvement of both states and there should be mutual cooperation and consultation on the management of the Johore Straits."

"In a Note dated 29 November 2004 Singapore maintained that in facilitating its relocation of the water pipelines on Johore mainland, it was prepared to decouple construction of the new CIQ complex from the proposal to build a new bridge and treat the two projects as severable from each other. In other words, approval for the relocation of the water pipelines on mainland Johore was given by Singapore only upon obtaining Malaysia's clarifications that the relocation of the PUB water pipelines was solely for the construction of the new CIQ complex."

Singapore did make a representation when Malaysia unilaterally decided to go ahead with the building of the half bridge after awarding Gerbang Perdana the contract. Nothing was mentioned about trade offs but clearly Singapore's stand is that Malaysia cannot proceed with the bridge building without getting its agreement as mentioned by the Order of 8 October 2003 International Tribunal On the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). This ruling by ITLOS resulted from a case brought Malaysia regarding Singapore's land reclamation in and around the Straits of Johor.

I am not sure if Tun Mahathir was aware of this representation as those were the last days of his premiership before he stepped down. Making a representation is a form of protest albeit not a noisy one.

5. The issue of trade offs was proposed again either in December 2004 or March 2005 by Mr Goh (who by then was the Senior Minister) to the current Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi (who took over from Tun Mahathir in 2003). (Datuk Seri Fuzi's transcript, para 18). Tun Mahathir probably did not know about this as he was no longer in government.

This unfortunate sage has highlighted the followings:

1. Treating all outstanding issues as a package is illogical and impractical. Using an "all-or-nothing" approach is futile. Some issues are easier to compromise (eg railway) while others are not (eg use of airspace). I fully agree with Tun Dr Mahathir that tying everything to everything else is very impractical and therefore his decision to tackle each issue on its own merit is understandable.

2. Leaders of any country, should not proclaim any views which later cannot be retracted without affecting national pride. No matter how frustrated or angry a leader is, when dealing with a country with seige-mentality and non-compromising attitude, diplomacy should always takes centre stage especially publicly. This will help to avoid the conditions that triggered off the bridge saga in the first place.

In conclusion, PM Badawi is probably right in scrapping the building of the bridge as it is probably non-tenable legally. It is better to be red-faced now than be humiliated later on. Tun Mahathir reacted the way he did probably because he felt slighted by the current government and not aware of any new developments since his stepping down.


Useful links:
Water Agreements between Johor and Singapore
History of Water According to Utusan Malaysia

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 translations)


PS: I am personally interested in the Scenic Bridge saga because like Tun Mahathir, I am a proud Malaysian. I felt that Malaysia has lost, and someone should be answerable.