The Star
15 July 2006 - Saturday
Government replies to allegations
raised by Dr M
Appendix A:
Dr Mahathir has raised several allegations on the Governments
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:
1. Allegation: That the Singapore Government accepted Malaysias
proposal to build a crooked bridge to replace the Malaysian side of
the Johor Causeway.
Facts: On March 4, 2002, Dr Mahathir wrote a letter to Senior
Minister Lee Kuan Yew regarding Malaysias proposal on the package
of outstanding bilateral issues. Among other things, he proposed
building a new bridge on the Malaysian side at Kuala Lumpur's 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. 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, Singapore 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 Oct 7, 2002, Dr Mahathir informed Goh 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 Oct 14, 2002, Goh 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stated that its earlier agreement to the bridge project was no
longer valid.
Goh 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.
Gohs statement was not challenged by Dr Mahathir.
In fact, there was no reply to Gohs letter by Dr Mahathir.
Singapore reiterated its position in a diplomatic note on Nov 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 Oct 7, 2002. With the termination of the
negotiations on the package of issues, Singapores agreement for
the construction of the crooked bridge was no longer valid.
Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Singapore accepted
Malaysia's proposal to build a crooked bridge within its own
territory. Singapores acceptance for Malaysia to build a crooked
bridge was at most a reluctant acceptance based on the package
approach.
2. Allegation: That the letter from Goh on April 11, 2002 was the
final commitment by the republic on the bridge proposal by
Malaysia.
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 Lee to the then Minister of
Special Functions & Minister of Finance, Tun Daim Zainuddin on
Aug 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 Dr
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 Goh 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 towards
building the bridge.
3. Allegation: That the bridge was not part of the package of
bilateral issues.
Facts: At first, the outstanding package of issues only covered
four areas water, Central Provident Fund, airspace and the
relocation of KTMs CIQ complex in Singapore.
This was agreed to by both countries in Hanoi on Dec 27,
1998.
But later, the bridge project was inserted into the package of
issues. Dr Mahathir did so in a letter to Lee on March 4, 2002 and
the bridge issue became one of five issues in the package titled
MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE PACKAGE OF FIVE ISSUES MALAYSIAS
PROPOSALS
Conclusion:The bridge became part of the package of unresolved
bilateral issues as a result of Dr Mahathirs letter.
4. Allegation:That the Governments decision to abort the bridge
project would cause billions of ringgit in losses.
Facts: The total cost of building the CIQ, the crooked bridge and
the new KTM line across the Johor Straits was RM2.379bil.
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 Singapores 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 RM1.13bil on
a structure and be stuck in limbo over its use.
continued below
