Crooked bridge: Mahathir hits back
Malaysiakini – 27/4/2006
Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has fired yet another salvo in the on-going war of words over the government’s decision to abandon the half-bridge project across the Causeway to Singapore. 

This time he launched a broadside against ambassador-at-large Fuzi Abdul Razak - the man picked by the government to be its spokesperson on the bridge issue - dismissing the diplomat’s 17-page explanation as “rambling”. 

“Fuzi’s rambling explanation about the bridge over the Tebrau Straits on April 25, 2006, serves only to convince that the government’s priority and intention is to sell sand to Singapore,” said Mahathir in a 16-point statement sent to Bernama. 

According to Mahathir, the government was arguing that the bridge would not be built if it was not allowed to sell sand to Singapore - a demand from the city-state in return for the bridge. 

“The reasoning why the bridge cannot be built comes later and it was not convincing at all.” 

He then went on to attack a particular Malaysian leader without mentioning his name. 

“All in all it is clear that the Malaysian government is more interested in selling sand to Singapore than to build the bridge. This keenness to sell sand is strange for Malaysia does not need the proceeds from sale of sand. Despite my alleged profligate ways when I was PM, Malaysia is not so bankrupt that it has to depend on selling sand. 

“That any Malaysian leader should not shudder in horror at the idea of scraping one billion square metres from Malaysian seabeds continuously over a period of 20 years, thereby destroying all the fish breeding grounds of Malaysian seas, depriving Malaysian fishermen of their livelihood, destroying Malaysia’s marine ecology defies the imagination. 

“That there should be any Malaysian leader willing to entertain this idea, to destroy Malaysian seas to satisfy Singapore speaks badly of his love for his country.” 

‘Sheer nonsense’ 

Mahathir said that talks about the possibility of Singapore refusing to allow the half-bridge to connect with the Singapore half of the causeway is “sheer nonsense”. 

“The Malaysian bridge will land on the Malaysian portion of the causeway. The only way Singapore can prevent traffic from the bridge from passing through from the Malaysian portion of the Causeway into the Singapore half is to put a barrier across the causeway border. 

“This would certainly constitute an unfriendly act. It would be Singapore cutting its nose to spite its face. The damage to Singapore businesses would be at least as bad as that which Malaysia may suffer. But in reality Singapore needs Malaysia more than Malaysian needs Singapore. We have our ports and airports to replace Singapore ports, airports and other services.” 

Mahathir said that after Singapore was unwilling to make a decision on building its side of the bridge to replace its side of the causeway, he informed Singapore that Malaysia intended to proceed with a half-bridge. 

“The Singapore PM, Goh Chok Tong in his letter to me clearly stated that ‘... 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.’ 

“There was no condition attached to this acceptance, no mention of sand or airspace.” 

Mahathir said that although the exchange was in the form of letters, it was “clear and recorded” that the Singapore PM had grudgingly accepted the half-bridge proposal. 

“Thus a unilateral decision became bilateral when Singapore acceded and accepted. Any change must similarly be agreed to by both sides. 

“For Singapore to add conditions more than two years later for the supply or 50 million cubic meters of sand for 20 years and to allow the Singapore Air Force to fly in Malaysian air space would constitute unilateral change. Malaysia can reject the new condition and insist on Singapore honouring the agreement between the two prime ministers.” 

Govt fails to do its best 

He accused the Malaysian government for tacitly agreeing to Singapore’s unilateral condition when it decided that it would not build the bridge because it is not in a position to supply sand or open its airspace because of opposition by Malaysians. 

“The proper thing to do if the government wants to build the bridge would be to seek arbitration or refer to a court if Malaysia is uncertain as to the right of Singapore to impose new conditions unilaterally. 

“Actually there is no need to doubt Malaysian rights in its own territorial waters. But the government of Malaysia did not do its best to reject the condition. It gave in supposedly because the Malaysian legal authorities believe Singapore is in the right. 

“It would be interesting to read the grounds for the attorney-general to conclude that Singapore has what amounts to extra-territorial rights and Malaysia has no sovereign right within its own territorial waters.”

Source: www.malaysiakini.com