Is'' Serious Implications ''=War?
-
Sg recently said if would be ''serious'' or ''serious implications'' if the bridge is built without Sg's agreement.MY asked if it was a threat.
After i break the code of diplomatic language,i am sorry to say
it is really a threat. But i dunt know if it mean war.Correct me now if i am wrong.Private message me lah.
1.
1.1 17/10/2005
REMARKS BY MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGE YEO IN PARLIAMENT IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON SINGAPORE-MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE-INDONESIA RELATIONS, 17 OCTOBER 2005
[MP Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can provide an update on the status of the discussions with Malaysia on the proposed bridge to replace the Causeway, in the light of reports in the Malaysian media that Malaysia has decided to go ahead with its construction.]
Answer fr the Minister YEO3 Ms Irene Ng asked what would be the implications of a half-bridge, if built without our agreement. The implications would be serious. However, as negotiations for the proposed full bridge to replace the Causeway are still ongoing, I don't think it would be helpful for me to talk about details or to speculate about various hypothetical outcomes.
1.2
Sg denied
that it was a threat== 08/11/2005
MFA Spokesman's Comments on Former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's Comments on Bilateral Relations.Minister Yeo's point about the implications of building a half-bridge without Singapore's agreement was not a "threat". It was to highlight the serious legal implications which such a move would have under ITLOS."
2.
2.1We have explained to Malaysia the serious implications of a unilateral move by Malaysia to demolish its side of the causeway and replace it by a crooked bridge, however scenic.
-- 02/03/2006.
MFA Press Release: Remarks By Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo in Parliament on 2 March 2006. In response to questions by Members of Parliament.
2.2 Query and denial,again.
Umno Youth Asks S'pore To Explain 'Serious Implications' Of Half-bridge
and Najib Hopes For Singapore Compromise On Bridge To Replace Causeway
3.What is ''serious'' and ''implications'' in diplomatic language?
Does it mean the dirty word of WAR?I dunt know.
But"serious consequences" means war.
===----fr BBC Thursday, 15 July, 2004.The diplomatic world is one where the thorniest of subjects are discussed in the most cautious language - where a stand-up row just short of a fist-fight becomes "a very candid discussion", or "serious consequences" means war.
-
Hmm...today got open mob...
-
Why is our government opposing the bridge proposal? Is it because of the water pipes?
-
Sg dun like to spend $500Mil simply for "scenic" works.Originally posted by ^spidee^:Why is our government opposing the bridge proposal? Is it because of the water pipes? -
i see..Originally posted by yoongf:Sg dun like to spend $500Mil simply for "scenic" works.
-
Don't worry, our government too stingy to go to war.
It costs a lot to fight, and economy also suffer.
Money more important to gov., -
Spend the money on sea water filtration lah and stop buying water...so that the water will not be an issue
-
Waste of time waste of money most importantly is because of economice reason.Originally posted by ^spidee^:Why is our government opposing the bridge proposal? Is it because of the water pipes?
Why dont u turn the question around and ask Malaysia why they have to build another bridge out of the blue. -
The environmental issue is a actually a scam? Economic reasons? Can you elaborate?Originally posted by NewAge:Waste of time waste of money most importantly is because of economice reason.
Why dont u turn the question around and ask Malaysia why they have to build another bridge out of the blue. -
Why does singapore need to upgrade HDB flats/lift upgrading from time to time? Isn't it because things become old and breakdown so to avoid that, upgrading works actually extend the servicable life of the things you use everyday.Originally posted by NewAge:Waste of time waste of money most importantly is because of economice reason.
Why dont u turn the question around and ask Malaysia why they have to build another bridge out of the blue.
The same with the causeway which everybody use everyday, it is old and needs upgrading, why did we build one out of the blue? As far as I know it was already planned for long ago, we couldn't upgrade or a build a new one upon the existing before because there was only 1 bridge and knowing abt the water pipes that run along the causeway that singapore treats as a sacred unbilical cord so we came out with the second link, since that is now up we should focus on having a new causeway.
As to waste of time or waste of money, the old current causeway is the cause of it, with a new bridge the traffic flow bringing tourism as well as higher and faster movement of goods on both sides of the causeway will grow and yes it's an economic reason but one that is mutually beneficial. -
MY's reason is that the causeway block water flow in the Johor strait and cause alot of pollution, affecting the fishing nearby. Then a bridge can allow ships to pass through the Johor strait, better for the PDP port in Johor.
However, the negative effects of the causeway affect mostly MY only, SG don't see the need to spend 500 million on an entire new bridge, so they want a fair compromise. But they can't work out the compromise, so MY wants to go ahead with construction to pile pressure on SG. Thats about it. -
Removing the causeway will mean ships can by pass Singapore and use the JOhore ports more easily. PSA will lose more business. I believe that is the real reason why Malaysia is interested in the bridge and why Singapore is opposing it
-
wah, so many underlying issues behind building a bridge.. politicians, tsk tsk..
-
I think that isn't possible scenario or limited in muted effect as singapore has put up reclaimation works on her side of the straits starting from her side of the deep water end, which by the way according to environmental experts is the cause of pollution which has resulted in loss of income/livelihood of fishermen in that area. So since it now means that ships will still visit singapore port why is singapore still opposed to the idea of a new bridge?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Removing the causeway will mean ships can by pass Singapore and use the JOhore ports more easily. PSA will lose more business. I believe that is the real reason why Malaysia is interested in the bridge and why Singapore is opposing it -
The answer is laughably obvious. $500 million of our taxpayer's money down the drain for dubious economic benefit to us and a clear economic benefit to Malaysia.Originally posted by ahbung_ahdid:I think that isn't possible scenario or limited in muted effect as singapore has put up reclaimation works on her side of the straits starting from her side of the deep water end, which by the way according to environmental experts is the cause of pollution which has resulted in loss of income/livelihood of fishermen in that area. So since it now means that ships will still visit singapore port why is singapore still opposed to the idea of a new bridge?
You have your ways of undercutting us, we have ours.
-
Same reason why we never operate at full efficiency at the WDL Checkpoint for cars entering Malaysia.
-
500mil is a laughable amount compares to the billions your government has amassed and in the words of your leaders "peanuts" further more we are not asking you to foot the whole bill just your end of it.Originally posted by Typhoon:The answer is laughably obvious. $500 million of our taxpayer's money down the drain for dubious economic benefit to us and a clear economic benefit to Malaysia.
You have your ways of undercutting us, we have ours. -
nah..they just build huge durians that cost hundreds of peanuts.Originally posted by yoongf:Sg dun like to spend $500Mil simply for "scenic" works.