Dr M: Singapore agreed to bridge without any conditions

The Sun – 28/4/2006
KUALA LUMPUR: The spat between Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the government over its decision to scrap the building of a bridge to replace the Johor causeway continued on Thursday with the former premier saying he did not buy the reasons why it could not be built.
He said when he was prime minister, his then Singapore counterpart Goh Chok Tong had accepted his proposal to build the bridge on the Malaysian side unconditionally.   
But because Singapore was unwilling to make a decision on building its side of the bridge to replace its side of the causeway, he told Singapore that Malaysia intended to build a bridge on its side to land on a part of the causeway also on the Malaysian side.   
"The Singapore side of the causeway will not be touched. The connection will continue to be between the retained portion of the causeway. There was no condition attached to this acceptance, no mention of sand or airspace," said Mahathir in a 16-point statement. 
Below are the full text of  Mahathir's response issued on April 27, 2006 to rebut the statement by Ambassador-at-large Tan Sri Fuzi Abdul Razak:
1. Tan Sri 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. If it is not allowed to do so then Malaysia will not get its bridge. The reasoning why the bridge cannot be built comes later and it was not convincing at all.
2. The Tan Sri, as a seasoned diplomat must know that treaties or agreements solemnly entered into by two countries, as are agreements between two parties, can only be modified, changed or added to if both sides agree.
If there is a dispute regarding the provision or interpretation of the agreement, then there should be arbitration or reference to courts. This is a part of International Law.
3. The provisions of the Wayleave Agreements are precise and clear. There is no specific provision for consulting and obtaining the necessary approval of Singapore for the relocation of the PUB water pipelines.
4. In case the Tan Sri has not read the Wayleave Agreement, I quote below the relevant paragraph;
"That the Licensee (i.e. Singapore) shall take full responsibility financially or otherwise for any alteration to the pipeline that may become necessary by reason of any alteration or improvements made or to be made on the Johor Causeway and on receiving not less than six months previous notice in writing from the licensors (i.e. Malaysia) shall thereupon carry out the alteration in accordance with such notice and shall have no claim for any compensation."
5. The provision is specific for the causeway. Singapore can claim it does not apply to pipes laid on land, (although the normal practice is to regard Wayleave Agreements to apply all the way) but it cannot claim that the Agreement does not apply to the Causeway. There can therefore be no reason for not complying with the Wayleave Agreement with regard to the causeway.
6. In fact there had been many alterations to the causeway and pipelines in the past without any objection by Singapore or Malaysia.
7. Because Singapore was unwilling to make a decision on building its side of the bridge to replace its side of the causeway, I informed Singapore that Malaysia intended to build a bridge on its side to land on a part of the causeway also on its side. The Singapore side of the causeway will not be touched. The connection will continue to be between the retained portion of the Johor Causeway and the Singapore half of the causeway.
8. 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."
9. There was no condition attached to this acceptance, no mention of sand or airspace.
10. Although the exchange was in the form of letters, it was clear and recorded in writing that I proposed to build a bridge on the Malaysian side and the Singapore PM accepted it. Thus a unilateral decision became bilateral when Singapore acceded and accepted. Any change must similarly be agreed to by both sides.
11. For Singapore to add conditions more than two years later for the supply or 50 million cubic metres 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.
12. It is the Malaysian Government, which tacitly agreed to the Singapore 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.
13. 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.
14. Talks about the possibility of Singapore refusing to allow the 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 Malaysia needs Singapore. We have our ports and airports to replace Singapore ports, airports and other services.
15. 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.
16. That any Malaysian leader should not shudder in horror at the idea of scraping ONE BILLION SQ. METRES from Malaysian sea-beds continuously over a period of 20 years, thereby destroying all the fish breeding grounds of Malaysian seas, depriving Malaysian fishermen of their livelihood, and 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.
Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad
Source: The Sun | www.sun2surf.com