APPENDIX A
Former Prime Minister, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad 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:
The Allegation: That the Singapore Government accepted Malaysias
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 Malaysias 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 Gohs statement was not challenged by Tun Dr.
Mahathir. In fact, there was no reply to Prime Minister Gohs
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,
Singapores 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.
Singapores 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 KTMs 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 MALAYSIAS PROPOSALS
Conclusion: The bridge became part of the package of unresolved
bilateral issues as a result of Tun Dr. Mahathirs letter.
*****
The Allegation: That the governments 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 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 RM1.13
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
Generals Chambers.
This is what the Attorney Generals 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