Sorry, off-topic
From chedet.co.cc

THE JOHORE CAUSEWAY / TAMBAK JOHOR
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on June 26, 2009 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0)

///1. I put the document on the financing of the construction of the Johor Causeway because a Minister in Tun Abdullah’s Government claimed that it is jointly owned by us and Singapore. Therefore Singapore must agree before anything (demolition) is done to the causeway.

2. There has never been any agreement or treaty to say that the causeway is jointly owned. If at all 2/3rd of the causeway belong to Johore. And the 2/3rd must be the part which ends in Johore Bahru because the border on the Tebrau Straits is the deep water line which runs midway between Singapore and Johore. This must also be the border on the causeway. The northern half of the causeway therefore belong to Malaysia, a sovereign independent nation.///–TDM

The fact that the bridge ends in the territory of two countries implies that the two parties agreed for the bridge to be established, and consequently they too have to agree with any modification to the bridge, over the length of it. The detail on the expenditures involved in building the bridge is interesting in measuring the rate of inflation compared to 1920, and that modern construction technology helps to reduce the cost of construction, and the inflation of which has lagged behind other sectors.
It has been said that in international diplomacy the strength of the argument depends on the country’s military and economic power. If the country is willing to risk war, any piece of old record can be used to start an argument.

///3. The suggestion that we may not touch the causeway without Singapore’s permission is not part of any agreement with Singapore. What we do to the part of the causeway which is ours is our sovereign right. Not to exercise our sovereign right is akin to not being independent.///–TDM

There are different ways to settle a dispute, and the civil means is through the court. But there are people who prefer to do it like the kids. They would draw a line on the ground, and dare the other to step on it. Fist fight ensues.

///4. Why should we build a bridge to replace the causeway? That part of Johore Bahru where the traffic to and from the causeway meets the traffic going east and west in JB is often jammed. In future as more vehicles go on the roads the jam would certainly get worse.///–TDM

The jam begins at the end of the causeway. The solution lies in making traffic flow after the end of the causeway, and traffic planners should be able to do a good job without dismantling the causeway.

///5. The bridge will join the elevated road to and from the CIQ (Customs, Immigration and Quarantine complex) leaving the traffic east and west to flow freely.///–TDM

The CIQ was planned and designed with the bridge in mind. Now the CIQ is used to justify the bridge. Had the CIQ been built to serve the causeway, the design and location would be different. The argument seems to be based on the strength that the nose must be below the eyes, and that the location of the CIQ is God given.

///6. Besides the traffic problem, the water in the straits is stagnant. If the causeway is opened up there would be constant flow of water in both direction, thus flushing out the water in the strait.///– TDM

If the flow had been on both directions, the water would remain stagnant. There are provisions to pump water across the causeway. The issue of water flow attracted no criticism since 1924 when the causeway was built. It has now become the issue to support the desire to remove the causeway.

///7. Without the causeway boats and yachts can sail in either direction. Transport of goods and people between Pasir Gudang Port to Tanjung Pelepas Port would be facilitated. This would be good for the growth of both ports – something which perhaps Singapore would not like to see./// TDM

It is interesting to learn that the government has built two ports of less than 60 kilometres apart so that goods can be transported between the two ports by sea. If the growth of the two ports depends on movements of goods between them, it would be easier to doctor statistics. The argument in fact proves that one of the ports is not needed. Malaysia government are wont on building white elephants, and now they are utilised to argue the demolishment of the causeway.

///8. The free movements of boats along the strait would itself create business. The bridge which would be wider than the causeway would speed up the flow of traffic. The CIQ was designed to handle this increasingly heavier traffic.///– TDM

There had also been suggestion that the ‘crooked bridge to nowhere’ should be built, ending with restaurants, similar to the earlier conception of the second Penang bridge. That creates business too without removing the causeway, and the history.
If the traffic is indeed for going to nowhere, the flow would increase if the bridge is wide. But if the traffic intends to join the part of the causeway, the flow would be determined by the width of the causeway, no matter how wide the crooked bridge is. Certainly, there can be more lanes queuing up to turn to fewer lanes at the causeway. The speed of traffic can certainly be speeded up along the bridge, but not the flow.

///9. As to why it was not built during my 22 years, the answer is that the need for a bridge became clear towards the end of my term. In any case I had approved it before I stepped down. The work was started during my time. Had Abdullah not stopped it, the bridge would have been almost complete by now.///– TDM

The trouble was that TDM thought he is always right, and that is why he started the crooked bridge project and he was hoping to see his successor get into international dispute with the project he initiated. AAB was smart not having fallen into the trap.
TDM also started the teaching of mathematics and science in primary school in English, just before he left. The Minister of Education confirmed recently that there were marginal 2-3 % improvement, after billions of ringgit were spent, a hundreds thousand students or more and umpteen thousands of teachers slogged it out. The standard of English of the students would have improved tremendously if the decision was to teach more hours of English in primary school.

///10. Since Singapore would only agree to a straight bridge if one billion cubic metre of sand is sold to it; since the people of Johore are against selling sand and allowing Singapore fighter planes to practice over Johore, the option for the Malaysian Government is to revert to building the scenic bridge in our territorial waters. This is the sovereign right of an independent nation.///–TDM

If Malaysia was willing to sell its non-renewable oil resources to the world, there is no reason why she cannot sell sand which is available in abundance. Of course no country other than Singapore would ever want to buy sand from Malaysia. Malaysia has only equated sand with land beginning from 1997 when TDM decided to take personal revenge against leaders of Singapore. For his personal hatred, and having to settle a personal score against Singapore leaders, he has prevented the country from earning billions dollars of foreign exchange. What is more damaging to the country is his ability to convert the mindset of the people to go along with his hatred for Singapore, and to believe that sand is land. He had the same achievement in making race sensitive through is racist teaching.

///11. Instead Tun Abdullah decided not only not to build the bridge but to stop negotiating over all the other issues including the refusal of Singapore to release CPF (Central Provident Fund) contribution of Peninsular Malaysians, the railway land, the 3 sen per 1,000 gallons which Singapore pays for raw water (Malacca pays 30 sen per 1,000 gallons).///–TDM

There was a provision for a review of the price of water, as allowed in the agreement, to be made in the 1980s. The government of Malaysia did not take it up. Legally, Malaysia has waived the right to negotiate the price of water, just like Chin Peng has forgone his right to return to Malaysia, he is and asking the court to rule.

Singapore agreed provisionally to 60 cents per 1,000 gallons during negotiation which she was not obliged to. But Malaysia then asked for 8 ringgit, quoting what Hong Kong paid to China. Singapore chose to withdraw the offer to buy friendship.

The railway land in Singapore was an issue covered in the POA signed between Daim and LKY. It is not something for AAB to open up again; what is needed is to have that POA implemented, in full.

///12. All these issues are in Singapore’s favour and not negotiating better terms because Johore people refuse to sell sand is like cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face. We are the losers. I think it is a very stupid way of punishing Singapore. Or is it the intention to punish Johore people for not agreeing to sell sand (somebody is bound to make a huge amount of money) and rejecting the honour of having Singapore warplanes practicing aerial combat and bombing over Johore.///–TDM

AP scheme could have been a source of income for national coffers, but UMNO leaders chose to use it for money politics. The sale of sand can go to the treasury rather than to private persons.
Johore people should know that cooperation between two parties means that the interests of both parties should be taken into account. It was stupid to equate sand with land, and people are stupid to accept that, they should also accept that traffic jam is a matte of time which they get it free without paying as tomorrow is another day.

There should be no military exercise with any other country since we do not know when they would carry out bombing over Johore gained through the exercise. If Malaysia can make life difficult for other, we should expect the same.

Sorry, off-topic

I like to make corrections on what I said wrongly in old postings.

PAS joined BN in 1973, and Gerakan joined BN in 1974. The threat by Razak that the parliament would not reconvene if he could not amend the constituion did not force the opposition parties joining BN.

Parliamentary election in Sabah and Sarawak in 1969 was conducted over a period from May 10, and it was suspended on 15 May 1969 after the state of emergency was declared. When parliamentary election was held, or resumed in September 1971 Tun Mustapha used his power of arrest derived from the emergency to prevent opposition candidates standing and he delivered to BN all 16 parliamentary seats for Sabah returned unopposed. BN then had the 2/3 majority to amend the constitution.

Sabah has been exploited despite what BN has gained from her votes. It might be pay-back time for the sins committed for having put Mustapha as CM.