Press Statement on Declassified Documents Pertaining to the Crooked Bridge

Categories: Malaysia


PRESS STATEMENT ON DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CROOKED BRIDGE

The Government has declassified several relevant confidential documents and extracts to allow Malaysians to understand why it has reached the decision to abort the bridge project to replace the Johor Causeway.

And in doing so, it has put the record straight on a string of allegations raised by the former Prime Minister, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, namely that:

- The Singapore government accepted Malaysia's proposal to build a crooked bridge.
- The bridge was not part of the package of outstanding bilateral issues.
- Malaysia is a“half past six country with no guts” by not going ahead with the crooked bridge project.
- Malaysia put the issue of selling sand and allowing the Republic of Singapore Airforce to use its air space on the negotiating table.

This is only the second time in recent history that information protected by the Official Secrets Act 1972 has been declassified and approved for public consumption – an indication of the Government's seriousness in wanting the people who voted it into power to have the full facts, so that they can appreciate why the Government decided to abort the bridge project.

In the package of documents released are correspondences between Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and two of Singapore's former prime ministers, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and Mr. Goh Chok Tong.

Also made public are extracts of the record of the meeting between Prime Minister Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Mr. Goh Chok Tong in Kuala Lumpur in March 2005.

The contents of these documents contain three key facts:
1. Discussions with Singapore on the airspace issue are not new and were not mooted by the current Government under Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad himself included this issue as a trade-off and as part of the package of issues to be resolved with Singapore during negotiations from 1998 to 2002. This is evident from Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's letter to Senior Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002.

This same issue was raised by Senior Minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong during a meeting with Abdullah on March 1 2005.

This fact nullifies the suggestion by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad that it was the present administration that offered RSAF jets use of Malaysian airspace.

2. The sale of sand to Singapore was raised by the Republic during a meeting between Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Badawi and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on March 1 2005.

This nullifies argument that the Government put the issue on sand on the negotiating table.

3. Comprehensive advice by the Attorney General’s Chambers showed that Malaysia should not proceed to build a bridge unilaterally without complying with our legal obligations.

In particular, Malaysia had obligations under the Johor-Singapore water agreements 1961 and 1962, the Wayleave Agreements and the Separation Agreement 1965.

The main obstacle was that the construction of the crooked bridge will involve the demolition of the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway. The said demolition would directly affect the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway and water pipelines straddling the Johor Causeway in which the ownership thereof vests with the Public Utilities Board of Singapore.

The Attorney General’s Chambers also stated that under the 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements, “Malaysia is required to obtain approval of PUB in relation to the alteration of water pipelines as a result of the construction of a full straight bridge or a scenic half bridge.”

The 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements are guaranteed under the 1965 Separation Agreement. The water pipelines located inside the Johor Causeway is governed by the 1961 Johor Singapore Water Agreement.

Therefore, the provisions of the Wayleave Agreements which is applicable to the water pipelines straddling along the Johor Causeway is not applicable to the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway.

These facts nullify the allegation that the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway could be relocated unilaterally after giving six months notice to Singapore.

Taking into consideration these facts, the present Government had to make a firm decision to reject Singapore’s quid-pro-quo proposal on sand and airspace as it would have compromised Malaysia’s national sovereignty.

It had to make the political decision to abort the bridge project as this was consistent with the sentiment of Malaysians and the interest of Malaysia.

In conclusion, the issue boils down to one simple fact – Malaysia wanted the bridge, and Singapore did not want it.

The full straight bridge that was proposed by Malaysia would have been a symbol of friendship and would have benefited both countries. Nevertheless, the responsibility for achieving this aim does not lie with Malaysia only.

Note: Please refer to Appendix A for further information.



*****
APPENDIX A
Former Prime Minister, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has raised several allegations on the Government’s decision to abort building a bridge to replace the Johor Causeway.

Below, the Government sets out facts and sketches the historical backdrop in which this decision was reached:

The Allegation: That the Singapore Government accepted Malaysia’s proposal to build a crooked bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway.

The Facts: On March 4 2002, Tun Dr. Mahathir wrote a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew regarding Malaysia’s proposal on the package of outstanding bilateral issues.

Among other things, he proposed to build a new bridge on the Malaysian side at its own cost while Singapore would build the bridge on the Singapore side at its own cost. Once the bridge was completed, the Johor Causeway would be demolished.

Tun Dr. Mahathir further proposed that if Singapore did not build a bridge on its side, Malaysia intended to build a bridge on its side. Once this bridge was completed, the Johor Causeway on the Malaysian side would be demolished.

On April 11 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong replied and agreed, although his preference was for a full bridge.

However, that proposal was made in the context of the package approach for the outstanding bilateral issues which would be further discussed at ministerial and senior officials’ level.

On October 7 2002, Tun Dr. Mahathir informed Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that Malaysia had decided to discontinue discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues as a package and to give the highest priority to resolving the long delayed water issue, particularly the price review of raw water supplied to Singapore.

This move came because there appeared to be no agreement in resolving the issues as a package.

On October 14 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong agreed to discontinue discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues as a package.
Singapore withdrew its agreement on the crooked-bridge in the context of the package and stated that its earlier agreement to the bridge project was now not applicable.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong wrote: “… I had been prepared to make concessions in varying the Points of Agreement (POA) with extra pieces of land, allowing early withdrawal of Central Provident Fund (CPF) deposits and building our part of the bridge to replace the Causeway at our expense, as trade offs, so that you give us airspace and future water at a fair price… Since you now want to deal with the water issue separately and discontinue the package approach, these trade offs are no longer possible.”

In effect, this letter signalled a return to a status quo position. Prime Minister Goh’s statement was not challenged by Tun Dr. Mahathir. In fact, there was no reply to Prime Minister Goh’s letter by Tun Dr. Mahathir.

Singapore reiterated its position in a diplomatic note on November 29, 2004 while the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) Complex in Bukit Chagar was being built.

It said: “ … These negotiations on a package basis were unilaterally terminated by the then Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on 7 October 2002.”

With the termination of the negotiations on the package of issues, Singapore’s agreement for the construction of the crooked-bridge no longer exists.

Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Singapore accepted Malaysia proposal to build a crooked bridge within its own territory. Singapore’s acceptance for Malaysia to build a crooked bridge was at most a reluctant acceptance based on the package approach.


*****
The Allegation: That the letter from Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on April 11 2002 was the final commitment by the republic on the bridge proposal by Malaysia.

The Facts: During negotiations between the two countries, there was an understanding that any proposal would not become final unless it was concluded in an agreement signed by leaders of Malaysia and Singapore.

This was explained in a letter by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew to then Minister of Special Functions & Minister of Finance, Tun Daim Zainuddin on August 24 2000.

The letter read: “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.”

Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had given a commitment on the bridge in his letter on April 11 2002. There was no signed agreement between the PMs of Malaysia and Singapore on building the bridge.


*****
The Allegation: That the bridge was not part of the package of bilateral issues.

The Facts: At first, the outstanding package of issues only covered four areas – water, Central Provident Fund, airspace and the relocation of KTM’s CIQ complex in Singapore. This was agreed to by both countries in Hanoi on December 27 1998.

But later, the bridge project was inserted into the package of issues. Tun Dr. Mahathir did so in a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002 and the bridge issue became one of five issues in the package titled “MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE PACKAGE OF FIVE ISSUES – MALAYSIA’S PROPOSALS”

Conclusion: The bridge became part of the package of unresolved bilateral issues as a result of Tun Dr. Mahathir’s letter.


*****
The Allegation: That the government’s decision to abort the bridge project will cause billions of ringgit in losses.

The Facts: The total cost of building the CIQ, the crooked bridge and the new KTM line across the Johor Straits was RM2.379 billion.

At this moment, the Government is still working out compensation payment to Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd. But the fact is that the decision to abort the bridge was not an economic decision.

Once it became clear that Malaysia could not build the bridge unilaterally or accede to Singapore’s requests, calling off the plan to build the bridge was the most financially responsible decision to make.

Conclusion: It would not have been advisable to spend RM1.13 billion on a structure and be stuck in limbo over its use.


*****
The Allegation: That Malaysia is a “half past six country with no guts” by calling off the bridge project.

The Facts: Simply put, the Government had to make the right decision, taking into account the interest of Malaysians. It revisited the unilateral proposal by Tun Dr. Mahathir to build the crooked bridge but came to a finding that this was not an ideal solution.

A crooked bridge is not a legacy to leave for future Malaysians. In coming to its decision to abort the bridge project, the Government studied not only the Wayleave Agreements but also the Johor-Singapore Water Agreements 1961 and 1962, the Separation Agreement 1965 and took into consideration advice by the Attorney General’s Chambers.

This is what the Attorney General’s Chambers said: “ … the construction of the scenic half bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway must be studied in a holistic manner in view of the fact that the scenic half bridge would have international legal implications in particular environmental impact to Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor.

“Apart from the above, the construction of the scenic half bridge will involve the demolition of the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway. The said demolition would directly affect the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway and water pipelines straddling the Johore Causeway. In this regard, legal implications thereof would have to be studied based on the 1961 and 1962, Johor-Singapore Water Agreements, Wayleave Agreements and Separation Agreement 1965.

“Malaysia as a sovereign and independent state has complete power and authority over its territory and in exercising the said power and authority, no other state may interfere with its affairs. Nevertheless Malaysia cannot take unilateral action without taking into consideration international law principles and requirements, amongst others, taking into account the rights and interests of its neighbouring states.”

Conclusion: With so much uncertainly, it made sense for the Government to take a step back and do the right thing.

Running the government is not about scoring points or engaging in brinkmanship. It is about weighing the pros and cons and reaching a decision that is good for Malaysia.


*****
The Allegation: That Malaysia offered its airspace and sand to Singapore.

The Facts: The issue of allowing use of Malaysian airspace has been on the negotiating table between 1998 and 2002.

Tun Dr. Mahathir himself inserted this issue in a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002.

He offered it as a trade-off during negotiations on the package of unresolved issues. With the de-packaging of the bilateral issues, the proposal made by Tun Dr. Mahathir is no longer relevant.

Singapore used to enjoy five flight privileges until 1998. It sought all those rights to be re-inserted but the Government of the day was only prepared to offer Search and Rescue and the Northern Transit Corridor rights on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon.

The rights of Search and Rescue was offered on the basis of reciprocity and is consistent with international practice. As for Northern Transit Corridor, it only allows RSAF jets to transit over the South China Sea. The jets will not be allowed to roam the Malaysian airspace.

Conclusion: The use of Malaysian airspace was raised by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong during a meeting with Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on March 1 2005 in Putrajaya.

Singapore said that this issue was of importance to them and said that it would make selling the bridge idea to Singapore more palatable.

Remember, as far as the Republic was concerned, it did not see the need for a bridge to replace the Causeway. It wanted something in return for agreeing to the bridge deal and requested for sand and the use of airspace.

But once it became clear that the Malaysian public was strongly opposed to selling any sand or allowing RSAF jets to use its airspace, the government moved firmly and made the only acceptable decision – it aborted the plan to build the bridge.

Going ahead to satisfy the two conditions the Republic put forward would have meant going against the wishes of many Malaysians.

The Government has always stated that its decision is a political decision, based on the sentiments, sovereignty and integrity of the people of Malaysia.


PRIME MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT
PUTRAJAYA