Crooked People Will Always Give

Crooked Answers

On the Scandal Of the Crooked Bridge

A Point By Point Rebuttal

Of the Government’s Answers

To Tun Dr. Mahathir’s Questions

More Cover-Ups, Distortions

Misrepresentations & Misleading

Statements

Exposing

The Declassification Rubbish

BY

MATTHIAS CHANG



Point By Point Rebuttal

1. Declassification Exercise �" Fraud On The Public

On the 17th April 2006, soon after the scandal of the “Crooked Bridge”
gripped the nation, I called for a Press Conference to expose the
misrepresentations, misleading statements and distortions made by the
Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar.

I brought to the attention of the journalists the book “Water Talks?
If Only It Could” published by the Singapore Government which
contained many classified documents pertaining to the scandal of the
aborted bridge. In the circumstances, in law and in fact, these
documents are in the public domain and cannot be considered
“classified documents” anymore.

The New Straits Times on 15th July 2006 headlined “DECLASSIFIED �" What
the Official Records Tell” giving the impression that the documents
referred to in the accompanying articles are documents which have not
been referred to in the book published by the Singapore government.

Brendan Pereira of NST attempted to give credence to the
declassification exercise when he wrote in an article entitled “Why
this veil must be lifted” that the government “went into unfamiliar
territory and declassified confidential documents relating to
discussions on bilateral issues with Singapore.” The spin was obvious
- that the government is bending backwards to be truthful and
transparent and that these “declassified documents” will address and
answer Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s questions.

They have not. Instead They have given rise to more questions!

Brendan further commented: “Everyone can spout opinions, but there can
be only one set of facts. The moment you veer from those facts, your
assumptions are wrong, your views are skewed, and your protest hollow.”

If truth be told the comment should be directed to himself and the
entire editorial team of the New Straits Times, and the government.

If only the government and the NST took a few minutes to examine the
book, “Water Talks? If Only It Could” they would have realised that
the following letters, namely:

Lee Kuan Yew’s letter dated 24th August 2000

Dr. Mahathir’s letter to Lee Kuan Yew dated 4th March 2002;

Goh Chok Tong’s letter dated 11th April 2002;

Dr. Mahathir’s letter dated 7th October 2002;

Goh Chok Tong’s letter dated 14th October 2002

were in the public domain and therefore need not be declassified. It
is old news and the public is well aware of their implications. The
public is aware of these documents way back in April 2006 when I
brought them to their notice. But it took the government and the NST
boys almost three (3) months to come to grips with these documents and
yet they still cannot get it right!!

The spin which the government is making is a reflection of their
desperation. Because the government controls the mass media, the spin
doctors are banking that the public would accept their perverse
version of the events.

The government and NST must be taking us for fools! It is said that
the 4th floor of the prime minister’s office is staffed with bright
young kids from Cambridge and Oxford. If this is the best they can do,
they are in deep trouble. They are desperate, desperate enough to
distort and mislead.

2. Syed Hamid Albar’s Undertaking

On 13th June 2006, in his typical bravado fashion, the foreign
minister in his press statement said that he will declassify all
documents relating to the bilateral negotiations and lay bare the
truth for all to see. The public is still waiting for the
declassification of the relevant documents in particular the entire
minutes of the meeting between Pak Lah and Goh Chok Tong of the 1st
March 2005 and the minutes of the five rounds of negotiations between
senior officials of Malaysia and Singapore. In the case of the latter
minutes, it is clear that the offer to sell sand came from Malaysia.

No extracts. We want the full minutes of the meetings. Syed Hamid
Albar must deliver what he had promised on the 13.6.2006!

3. Syed Hamid Albar’s & Brendan Pereira’s Hollow Answers

Who is really veering from facts and making wrong assumptions?


Who is really barking up the wrong tree??

Who is trying to hoodwink the public??

Who is indulging in propaganda??

i) Agreement To Build the Bridge

Fact:

Goh Chok Tong wrote on 11th April 2002:

“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.”

Conclusion:

This is an express agreement and recognition by Singapore of
Malaysia’s right to build a bridge “just your side of the Causeway,”
that is to say the right to build a “half bridge” within Malaysian
territorial waters.

This is an agreement in writing signed by the then prime minister of
Singapore and accepted by the then prime minister of Malaysia via an
exchange of letters. Exactly, as Lee Kuan Yew wanted in his letter of
24th August 2004.

In law and in fact, agreements can be oral, and or part oral and part
in writing. In this case it was in writing. I am sure well informed
personalities like Brendan Pereira would not dare venture the argument
that an agreement cannot be concluded by way of exchange of letters.

Fact:

Singapore by way of a diplomatic note purported to “revoke” the said
agreement in 2004. Tan Sri Fuzi, the former Secretary General of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in his press statement:

“Singapore later further explained in a Diplomatic Note dated 29
November 2004 that the agreement by the then Singapore Prime Minister
was made in the context of the then ongoing negotiations between the
two governments as an overall package of bilateral issues.”

Conclusion:

Singapore has admitted that there was an agreement on the building of
the full bridge.

Fact:

Singapore aborted the said agreement on the grounds stated above.

Conclusion - Fact & Law:

Malaysia need not accept Singapore’s grounds for repudiating the said
agreement for the full bridge. Whether Singapore can repudiate the
agreement is a legal issue which can only be resolved through
international arbitration.

That is why Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said that if Singapore remains
intransigent, Malaysia should refer the matter to international
arbitration.

This dispute does not in any way affects the sovereign right of
Malaysia to build a half bridge within the territory waters of
Malaysia and which has been expressly recognised by Singapore in the
letter of 11th April 2002 written by Goh Chok Tong.

The Malaysian government is more concerned in accommodating
Singapore’s reasons for repudiating the agreement than asserting its
rights to build the half bridge.

The stand taken by the Government is simply �" Singapore’s views are
always right and proper. Malaysia cannot and should not challenge
Singapore’s views.

This was the stand taken by the government after the exposé that
Malaysia had agreed to sell sand to Singapore. This is still the stand
of the government as disclosed in the press statement issued on the
15th July and embellished on 16th July 2006.

But see the contradictions in paragraph (4) below for a detail analysis.

Fact:

Sand was never an issue in any discussions concerning the bridge
during negotiations between Singapore and Malaysia when Tun Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad was the prime minister. With the termination of the
package approach, airspace was no longer an issue that could be
leveraged by Singapore.

Conclusion:

The conduct of the Malaysian team reflects a team that is devoid of
any strategy and if it had a strategy, it was badly conceived.

It reflects poorly on the leadership. Maybe if the team played less
golf and concentrated on working effectively, a different outcome
could have played out.

ii) Package Approach Rejected

Fact:


The then prime minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir by a letter dated
7th October 2002 gave notice that he will discontinue the package
approach. He wrote:

“I think we have now come to a point where it would be important for
us to prioritise our discussions. The approach that both sides had
adopted so far in dealing with outstanding issues in a package has not
yielded any meaningful results. In view of this, Malaysia has now
decided to discontinue the package approach and to give the highest
priority to first resolving the long-delayed water issue, particularly
the price review of raw water.”

Fact:

Goh Chok Tong in his letter of 14th October 2002 replied:

Since you now want to deal with the water issue separately and
discontinue the package approach, these trade offs are no longer
possible. And as the package deal is off, I have instructed my
officials to deal with water and other issues individually and
separately, on their stand-alone merits, and no longer as a package.”

Conclusions - Fact & Law

All issues are now to be treated on their “stand-alone merits.” This
does not distract from the fact Malaysia has a sovereign right to
build a bridge within her territorial waters and that Singapore has
previously acknowledged that right.

Therefore, in any future negotiations for the building of a full
bridge or a half bridge, the parties have agreed not to link other
issues as have been done in the past. Pak Lah after taking over as
prime minister continued with this single issue approach when he
explained his diplomatic approach as:

“plucking the ripe fruit first”

Tan Sri Fuzi in his press statement dated 25th April 2006 explained
further Pak Lah’s approach as:

“pluck the low hanging fruit first, and then move on to the higher
ones on the trees.”

In the latest round of negotiations, Singapore had been very cunning,
and did a back door mini-package approach for which the Malaysian team
was so stupid to accept.

Score: Singapore 1, Malaysia 0.

Fact:

As a result of our incompetence and stupidity, Malaysians cannot even
pluck low hanging fruits from the trees within the territory of
Malaysia. We need to get the permission from Singapore,
notwithstanding Singapore’s acknowledgement of our sovereign right to
pluck our fruits in our orchard.

Score: Singapore 2, Malaysia 0

Conclusion:

It is pathetic that our government and enlightened journalist Brendan
Pereira [who used to work for Singapore’s Straits Times until he was
roped in by Kalimullah into Malaysia’s New Straits Times] are willing
to kow tow to Singapore.

Fact:

Sand and airspace were extraneous issues and should not have been
allowed into the negotiations, as has been agreed after 14th October
2002, all issues are to be dealt with as ‘stand-alone merits.”
Airspace privileges were withdrawn in 1998.

Score: Singapore 3, Malaysia 0

Result: Malaysia knocked out of the International Competition.

Post-Mortem: Malaysian Team Bungled
The analysis of the events enumerated below leave no doubts that the
Malaysian team bungled. They were outwitted, out-played at every turn
by kiasu Singapore led by Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Our team
performance was pathetic.

WHY?? Ask Pak Lah and his boys on the 4th Floor of his office and his
spin doctors!!

i) The Left Hand Does not Know What the Right Hand is Doing

If as alleged, the Attorney General’s legal opinion was that “Malaysia
was required to obtained prior approval of PUB in relation to the
alteration of the water pipelines necessitated by the construction of
a bridge, whether it is a full straight bridge or a scenic bridge
(half bridge),” then we the Malaysian public demand to know why the
government informed Malaysians the following, namely:

Fact:

NST 3.2.2006 Datuk Syed Hamid Albar said:

Malaysia’s position all along was that it had every right to do
anything within its territory. As such, the proposed scenic bridge was
never part of negotiations between the countries. The one that is
under negotiation is the full bridge. If we need to do the other one
(scenic bridge) we do not need to talk to Singapore.”

Conclusion:

It is nice to know that as at 3.2.2006 the foreign minister who is a
lawyer by training shares my view as stated in the preceding
paragraphs. I hope Brendan Pereira is not accusing the foreign
minister of making the wrong assumptions, veering from facts and
spouting mere opinions.

Fact:

NST 7.2.2006 Syed Hamid Albar:

“We will continue with whatever work needs to be done on our side. It
is Malaysia’s right and sovereignty, and Singapore has recognised
that. Why should we involve other people in works that are done in our
territorial waters and on our own land? Construction on the scenic
bridge is within our jurisdiction. It is not part of our discussions
with Singapore. We have made ample preparations and held discussions
with all parties including project contractor, GPSB on the design of
the bridge.”

NST also reported that the contractor, Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd (GPSB)
had been directed by the Public Works Department (PWD) to resume work
on seabed studies in the Johor Straits, which have been shelved since
2004.

Conclusion:

Once again the foreign minister shares my view that Singapore has
indeed recognised Malaysia’s sovereign right to do whatever work
within her territory waters. I hope Brendan Pereira and the boys from
Cambridge and Oxford on the 4th floor of PM’s office is reading this
rebuttal.


Fact:

NST 25.2.2006

Johor Bahru: Workers have begun soil test at the Johor Straits where
the scenic bridge is to be built. Technicians were today seen driving
piles into the seabed from a barge anchored near the causeway.

Fact:


NST 3.3.2006

Foreign Minister George Yeo said the republic had explained the matter
through a third party note.

“We have explained to Malaysia the serious implications of a
unilateral move to demolish its side of the causeway and replace it
with a crooked bridge, however scenic,”

Fact:

NST 4.3.2006

Syed Hamid Albar is perplexed as to why Singapore is harping on
“implications” if Malaysia went ahead and built the scenic bridge to
replace the causeway. The Foreign Minister insists that the
construction of the scenic bridge was never a negotiating factor with
Singapore as it was within Malaysia’s territory and rights.

“That is why the talks only centred on a full bridge. The scenic
bridge is for us to decide, not anyone else. I was of the idea that
negotiations were going well. Now I want to know if Singapore is even
serious or sincere about negotiating with us. We made a pact to
conduct negotiations away from the glare of the media, so when
Singapore sounded like it was threatening Malaysia with an ultimatum
on the scenic bridge, I’m curious to know what is actually going on.”

Query: Why is Singapore unhappy at this late stage??

Fact:

NST 10.3.2006

The scenic bridge on the Malaysian side of the Tebrau Straits is
expected to be operational from April 1, 2009. Deputy Works Minister
Datuk Mohd Zin Mohamad said five percent of the preliminary work has
been completed so far.

“We have set aside a buffer zone which will be two meters before the
international boundary. This means the bridge will join the Malaysian
side of the causeway just before the boundary.”

Conclusion:

This rebuts the spin that if Malaysia builds the half bridge, it will
be “hanging” in mid-air if Singapore refuses to allow the bridge to be
“connected” to the Singapore side of the causeway.

Query:

Why is Foreign Minister negotiating on full bridge when Malaysia’s PWD
and the contractor are embarking on a half bridge?? Was there two
separate agendas?? Where and how did Pak Lah fit in? What is the
overall scheme of things?? The rakyat wants to know at this material
time, who was really in charge of the negotitions.

Fact:

NST 13.3.2006

Malaysia had agreed in principle to build a bridge to replace the
causeway. The agreement was reached at the conclusion of the fifth
round of negotiations between senior officials from two countries in
Putrajaya yesterday.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar who confirmed this, said
an official announcement on the accord could be expected soon.

“We have agreed on the main points of agreement for the building of a
full bridge.”

The negotiations had all along been based on the principle of quid pro
quo with Singapore wanting the right to use Johor airspace for
training flights by its armed forces jets. The republic in addition,
had sought a long term concession for the supply of sand from Johor
for its massive on-going coastal land reclamation work. Malaysia
apparently acceded to both these requests.

Conclusion:

Malaysia, instead of negotiating on “stand-alone” basis agreed to a
mini package deal, abrogating all previous agreements on rejecting the
“package approach” and selling sand to Singapore!!

Therefore the factor that clinched the deal was Malaysia’s sell out to
Singapore on the issues of sand and airspace.

Query:

The rakyat wants to know whether as at this date, 13.3.2006 the
Cabinet was fully aware of the turn of events and the sell out by Pak
Lah, the Foreign Minister and the 4th Floor Boys in PM’s office.

Fact:

NST 18.3.2006

DPM statement: Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said as
Malaysia was committed to building the bridge on its side of the
border in the Tebrau Straits, Singapore should join hands to make a
full crossing. Referring to Singapore’s threat to take Malaysia to the
international tribunal for the Law of the Sea should it unilaterally
break the causeway, Najib said it was Malaysia’s right to build the
bridge in its waters.

“This is our right. Nobody can question or deny us this right as a
sovereign nation. The government is committed to building the bridge.”

Query:

This statement is most peculiar especially after the statement of Syed
Hamid on the 13.3.2006. It implies that even Najib was not in the loop
and was not briefed properly on developments. Why this reaction??

Conclusion:

The right hand does not know what the left hand and or any other
“hands” are doing.


Fact:

NST 22.3.2006

Putrajaya: Datuk Syed Hamid is seething.

Query:

Why is Syed Hamid Seething, after announcing agreement on 13.3.2006??

NST reported:

Syed Hamid said negotiations were done on the mandate given by the
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdulah Ahmad Badawi and the Cabinet. The
Minister revealed that three options were on the table for the
replacement bridge �" a full straight bridge, a full scenic bridge and
a scenic bridge �" the last one in the event that Malaysia did not get
Singapore’s cooperation. Pending the approval for a full bridge,
Malaysia has started work on the scenic bridge, which was expected to
be operational in 2009.

Query:

Bearing in mind the alleged legal opinion from the Attorney-General
referred to at the beginning of this discussion, was there a different
legal stance now??

When did the Attorney-General gave his alleged opinion??

If it was way back, why did the government ignore his legal advice??

Why did the PWD gave a work order to the contractor to recommence work??

If the legal opinion was given after the government encountered
problems with Singapore, why didn’t the government come out
immediately and said so?? Why the cover-up??

Conclusion:

Something is not right and until today, the government and Pak Lah
have refused to explain to the public. Instead they indulge in spin
and propaganda, demonising Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad for asking the
right questions for and on behalf of the rakyat.

Fact:

NST 22.3.2006

Construction of the bridge to replace the Johor causeway is proceeding
on schedule although talks between Malaysia and Singapore are
continuing, Datuk Seri Najib said yesterday.

“There is no postponement. Construction of the bridge is proceeding,”
the Deputy Prime Minister said

Work on the scenic bridge on the Malaysian side, costing RM620 million
is expected to be completed in 36 months.

Conclusion:

The government is telling the rakyat that we are holding fast to our
rights to build the scenic bridge (half bridge).

Query:

Who is telling the truth??

Pak Lah?? Syed Hamid?? Najib??

Whose version of events are correct??

What game plan is this??

Fact:

NST 13.4.2006

Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd has been asked to construct a permanent road
from the new customs, Immigration and Quarantine Complex to the Johor
causeway.

Gerbang Perdana which is the contractor for the scenic bridge, has
also been instructed to immediately stop all work on the bridge.


Conclusion:

The wayang kulit has finally come to an end at a huge cost to the
taxpayers. The foregoing analysis shows all too clearly that someone
or a group of people have messed up the scenic bridge project.

The Cover-Up and Excuses
Spin Doctors Takes Over to Mislead the Public

NST 13.4.2006

Prime Minister Datuk Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in a statement said:

“The government decision was made after taking into account the voices
and statements of the Malaysian people, especially on the supply of
sand and airspace.”

“Problem will arise when we have to cut the Causeway, the water pipes
and railway track and connect them to the new bridge. The problems
will continue.”

Another view as reported was:

“Even if we were to build the crooked bridge on our side, we would
have to get Singapore’s consent before we even touch one brick of the
Causeway to link it to the bridge,” one source said.

Query:

What happened to our determination to complete the bridge, that there
will be no postponement, that it will be operational by 2009??

How very strange that all of a sudden, legal issues are being used to
cover-up the mistakes made. But who made these mistakes??

Pak Lah, please explain to the rakyat all the previous press
statements made by your ministers.

Conclusion:

Pak Lah and his team messed up the whole project.

Pak Lah and his team were made to eat humble pie by the kiasu
Singaporeans - challenging Malaysians to build the half bridge. Like a
dog, the government ministers put their tails between their legs and
ran for cover.

Truly a “half-past six government!!!

Rakyat’s Demands

Pak Lah must be honest with the rakyat. The least he should do is to
apologise to the entire nation for bringing the nation into disrepute,
scandal and contempt.

He must declassify all the minutes of meetings relating to the
bilateral negotiations between Malaysia and Singapore since he took
over as Prime Minister.

This demand is necessary so that the entire nation can learn from this
scandalous experience and ensure that no future government and or
ministers would conduct such disgraceful negotiations whereby Malaysia
almost sold her sovereignty and rights to a foreign and hostile
government and neighbour.

We the rakyat deserves better that what we have been given thus far.

Walk the talk. No more spin. Listen to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

16th July 2006

Kuala Lumpur

Matthias Chang

Matthias Chang is a Barrister with 30 years legal experience. He was
the former political secretary to the then prime minister of Malaysia,
Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

The views expressed herein are his personal views.

Matthias Chang is willing to debate with anyone on the issues raised
and challenge anyone to prove him wrong!