M'sia Govt : Setting the Record Straight - with Mahathir
-
Extracted from The Star
15 July 2006 - Saturday
BRIDGE PLANS: An artist impression of the scenic bridge that was supposed to have replaced the Malaysian half of the Causeway.
THE Government has declassified several relevant confidential documents and extracts thereof to allow Malaysians to understand why it has reached the decision to abort the bridge project to replace the Johor Causeway. And in doing so, it has put the record straight on a string of allegations raised by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, namely that:
THE Singapore government accepted MalaysiaÂ’s proposal to build a crooked bridge;
* THE bridge was not part of the package of outstanding bilateral issues;
* MALAYSIA is a “half-past-six country with no guts” by not going ahead with the crooked bridge project; and
* MALAYSIA put the issues of selling sand and allowing Singapore's air force to use its airspace on the negotiating table.
This is only the second time in recent history that information protected by the Official Secrets Act has been declassified and approved for public consumption – an indication of the Government’s seriousness in wanting the people who voted it into power to have the full facts, so that they can appreciate why the Government decided to abort the bridge project.
In the package of documents released are correspondences between Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and two of SingaporeÂ’s former prime ministers, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.
Also made public are extracts of the record of the meeting between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Goh in Kuala Lumpur in March last year.
The contents of these documents contain three key facts:
1. Discussions with Singapore on the airspace issue are not new and were not mooted by the current Government under Abdullah. Dr Mahathir himself included this issue as a trade-off and as part of the package of issues to be resolved with Singapore during negotiations from 1998 to 2002. This is evident from Dr Mahathir's letter to Lee on March 4, 2002. This same issue was raised by Goh during a meeting with Abdullah on March 1 last year. This nullifies the suggestion by Dr Mahathir that it was the present administration that offered Singaporean Air Force jets use of Malaysian airspace.
2. The sale of sand to Singapore was raised by the republic during a meeting between Abdullah and Goh on March 1 last year. This nullifies argument that the Government put the issue on sand on the negotiating table.
3. Comprehensive advice by the Attorney-GeneralÂ’s Chambers showed that Malaysia should not proceed to build a bridge unilaterally without complying with our legal obligations. In particular, Malaysia had obligations under the Johor-Singapore Water Agreements 1961 and 1962, the Wayleave Agreements and the Separation Agreement 1965.
The main obstacle was that the construction of the crooked bridge would 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 Johor Causeway in which the ownership thereof vests with the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers also stated that under the 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements, “Malaysia is required to obtain approval of PUB in relation to the alteration of water pipelines as a result of the construction of a full straight bridge or a scenic halfbridge.”
The Johor-Singapore Water Agreements are guaranteed under the 1965 Separation Agreement.
The water pipelines located inside the Johor Causeway are governed by the 1961 Johor Singapore Water Agreement.
Therefore, the provisions of the Wayleave Agreements, which are applicable to the water pipelines straddling along the Johor Causeway, are not applicable to the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway.
These facts nullify the allegation that the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway could be relocated unilaterally after giving six months' notice to Singapore.
Taking into consideration these facts, the present Government had to make a firm decision to reject SingaporeÂ’s quid pro quo proposal on sand and airspace as it would have compromised MalaysiaÂ’s national sovereignty.
It had to make the political decision to abort the bridge project as this was consistent with the sentiment of Malaysians and the interest of Malaysia.
In conclusion, the issue boils down to one simple fact: Malaysia wanted the bridge, and Singapore did not want it.
The full straight bridge that was proposed by Malaysia would have been a symbol of friendship and would have benefited both countries.
Nevertheless, the responsibility for achieving this aim does not lie with Malaysia only. -
The Star
15 July 2006 - Saturday
Government replies to allegations raised by Dr M
Appendix A:
Dr Mahathir has raised several allegations on the GovernmentÂ’s 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:
1. Allegation: That the Singapore Government accepted MalaysiaÂ’s proposal to build a crooked bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway.
Facts: On March 4, 2002, Dr Mahathir wrote a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew regarding MalaysiaÂ’s proposal on the package of outstanding bilateral issues. Among other things, he proposed building a new bridge on the Malaysian side at Kuala Lumpur's 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. 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, Singapore 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 officialsÂ’ level.
On Oct 7, 2002, Dr Mahathir informed Goh 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 Oct 14, 2002, Goh 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 no longer valid.
Goh 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. GohÂ’s statement was not challenged by Dr Mahathir.
In fact, there was no reply to GohÂ’s letter by Dr Mahathir.
Singapore reiterated its position in a diplomatic note on Nov 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 Oct 7, 2002.” With the termination of the negotiations on the package of issues, Singapore’s agreement for the construction of the crooked bridge was no longer valid.
Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Singapore accepted Malaysia's proposal to build a crooked bridge within its own territory. SingaporeÂ’s acceptance for Malaysia to build a crooked bridge was at most a reluctant acceptance based on the package approach.
2. Allegation: That the letter from Goh on April 11, 2002 was the final commitment by the republic on the bridge proposal by Malaysia.
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 Lee to the then Minister of Special Functions & Minister of Finance, Tun Daim Zainuddin on Aug 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 Dr 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 Goh 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 towards building the bridge.
3. Allegation: That the bridge was not part of the package of bilateral issues.
Facts: At first, the outstanding package of issues only covered four areas – water, Central Provident Fund, airspace and the relocation of KTM’s CIQ complex in Singapore.
This was agreed to by both countries in Hanoi on Dec 27, 1998.
But later, the bridge project was inserted into the package of issues. Dr Mahathir did so in a letter to Lee on March 4, 2002 and the bridge issue became one of five issues in the package titled “MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE PACKAGE OF FIVE ISSUES – MALAYSIA’S PROPOSALS”
Conclusion:The bridge became part of the package of unresolved bilateral issues as a result of Dr MahathirÂ’s letter.
4. Allegation:That the GovernmentÂ’s decision to abort the bridge project would cause billions of ringgit in losses.
Facts: The total cost of building the CIQ, the crooked bridge and the new KTM line across the Johor Straits was RM2.379bil.
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 SingaporeÂ’s 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 RM1.13bil on a structure and be stuck in limbo over its use.
continued below -
continue from above
5. Allegation:That Malaysia is a “half-past six country with no guts” for calling off the bridge project.
Facts: Simply put, the Government had to make the right decision, taking into account the interest of Malaysians. It revisited the unilateral proposal by 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 from the Attorney-GeneralÂ’s Chambers.
This is what the Attorney-General’s 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 Johor 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.
6. Allegation:That Malaysia offered its airspace and sand to Singapore.
Facts: The issue of allowing use of Malaysian airspace had been on the negotiating table between 1998 and 2002. Dr Mahathir himself inserted this issue in a letter to Lee 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 Dr Mahathir was 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 in Malaysian airspace.
Conclusion: The use of Malaysian airspace was raised by Goh during a meeting with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on March 1, last year 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.
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 city-state had put forward would have meant going against the wishes of many Malaysians.
The Government has always stated that its decision was a political decision, based on the sentiments, sovereignty and integrity of the people of Malaysia. -
The Star - 15 July 2006 - Saturday
Government will not declassify all papers
By IAN MCINTYRE
KOTA BARU: The Government cannot declassify all documents pertaining to ongoing Malaysia-Singapore disputes as some are still needed for future negotiations.
Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said further negotiations were in the pipeline and these could possibly include a revival of the building of a bridge linking the two countries.
“And we still have negotiations on the package deal concerning KTM land in Singapore, sale of raw water, limited use of our air space and Central Provident Fund (CPF) withdrawals,” he said here yesterday after briefing Kota Baru Umno members on the issue.
Syed Hamid said the relevant documents just declassified were solely to answer Tun Dr Mahathir MohamadÂ’s allegations.
He also confirmed that Singapore had on its own accord already released some of the documents in the past.
On the allegations, he called for a halt of airing such matters in the media as it was undermining both the Government and Umno and also providing the Opposition with issues to exploit.
Earlier during the briefing, Syed Hamid urged Dr Mahathir to re-examine the facts related to the protracted issue of the bridge project.
Some of the claims the former prime minister had made were inaccurate, due perhaps to an oversight or miscommunication, he said.
“I also hope that the release of the documents will put an end to the suspicions stirred up over the project,” he added.
Syed Hamid said the continued wrangle over the issue had affected MalaysiaÂ’s standing internationally as investors had been put off by the matter.
“We have to look at the long-term implications and not be caught up over such issues,” he said.
He also called on those who still had grouses about the matter to use the proper channels, saying that a public condemnation could result in widespread confusion over government policies. -
The Star
15 July 2006 - Saturday
At a glance
On the crooked bridge:
1. Dr Mahathir: Singapore accepted MalaysiaÂ’s proposal to build a crooked bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway.
The Government says: On Oct 14, 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong agreed to discontinue discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues as a package and stated that its earlier agreement to the bridge project was now not applicable.
On Aug 24, 2000, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew wrote to Special Functions Minister and Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin saying all correspondence would be treated as Without Prejudice and that there was no agreement until all points were agreed and signed by the two PMs.
2. Dr Mahathir: That the bridge was not part of the package of bilateral issues.
The Government says: At first, the outstanding package of issues only covered four areas – water, Central Provident Fund, airspace and the relocation of KTM’s CIQ complex in Singapore. Dr Mahathir inserted the bridge project into the package in a letter to Lee on March 4, 2002.
On the use of airspace and sale of sand:
Dr Mahathir: The present Government offered its airspace and sand to Singapore.
The Government says: The issue of allowing use of Malaysian airspace has been on the negotiating table between 1998 and 2002. Dr Mahathir himself inserted this issue in a letter to Lee on March 4, 2002. With the de-packaging of the bilateral issues, the proposal made by Dr Mahathir is no longer relevant.
The republic 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.
A half-past-six country with no guts:
Dr Mahathir: Malaysia is a “half-past-six country with no guts” for calling off the bridge project.
The Government says: A crooked bridge is not a legacy to leave for future Malaysians. The bridge project was aborted after studying the Wayleave Agreements, the Johor-Singapore Water Agreements 1961 and 1962, the Separation Agreement 1965 and taking into consideration advice by the Attorney GeneralÂ’s Chambers.
Malaysia cannot take unilateral action without taking into consideration international law principles and requirements, and without taking into account the rights and interests of its neighbouring states.
The half bridge would have been left in a limbo with no commitment from Singapore. 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.
It was a political decision, based on the sentiments, sovereignty and integrity of the people of Malaysia. -
The information released are not new nor sensational, and are already in the public domain for a few years - also during Mahathirs time as PM.
What is MM's agenda in being a thorn to the sides of the present Malaysian Government ?
Why is MM allowing himself to be cultivated by PAS - the sworn rival to UMNO ?
It is a wonder that some UMNO members will still unthinkingly bestow such high respect to MM, even to the extent of suggesting that Badawi - ( the current PM of Malaysia) - should pay homage to MM; by visiting MM's home to resolve the sour relationship that is largely created by MM.
The confused logic of Malaysian politics can only affect the status of our negotiations with Malaysia, but hopefully will not affect the relationship of the citizens on both sides of the border.
If they cannot get their house in order, can we ever resolve the issues that already complicated by the historical baggage ? -
Isn't it ironic that the current malaysian administration bears an uncanny resemblence to SG in their latest response to Mahathir - stay composed and allow the 'facts to speak for themselves and the people to decide the truth?
Abdullah Badawi's latest response should cull fears that his team lacks a 'backbone' when dealing with SG politicians, and quash Mahathir's latest round of tirades aimed at setting the stage for a confrontation with the govt he previously led; this coming after his famous claim that he would not get involved in politics after his stepping down.
The wraith of Mahathir knows no bounds, and this latest action serves to further highten rumours that Badawi is quietly cleaning up the 'mess' his predecessor left behind, the bridge policy and car-maker Proton being the top two on the list of changes to be made. -
The biggest surprise in the change of attitude is from the Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar.Originally posted by BillyBong:Isn't it ironic that the current malaysian administration bears an uncanny resemblence to SG in their latest response to Mahathir - stay composed and allow the 'facts to speak for themselves and the people to decide the truth?
Abdullah Badawi's latest response should cull fears that his team lacks a 'backbone' when dealing with SG politicians, and quash Mahathir's latest round of tirades aimed at setting the stage for a confrontation with the govt he previously led; this coming after his famous claim that he would not get involved in politics after his stepping down.
The wraith of Mahathir knows no bounds, and this latest action serves to further highten rumours that Badawi is quietly cleaning up the 'mess' his predecessor left behind, the bridge policy and car-maker Proton being the top two on the list of changes to be made.
He had shown the ugliest characteristics in politics similar to his father's attitude towards the PAP and Singapore Government - in the days when Singapore was part of Malaysia.
Either he was playing his role to the hilt, as expected by his task master in the Mahathir Government; or that he is an artful chameleon knowing how to "butter whichever side of his bread" - depending on where he gets his "butter" from. -
MM has to act in the best interests of Singapore, in as much as the Malaysian government has to act to defend theirs.Originally posted by Atobe:What is MM's agenda in being a thorn to the sides of the present Malaysian Government ?
Why is MM allowing himself to be cultivated by PAS - the sworn rival to UMNO ?
Hiding behind the mask of anonymity to make defamatory remarks against the MM? -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
For someone who claims to be a doctor, you seem to have alot of time in hand in getting facts wrong in this forum.
Original post by Atobe:
What is MM's agenda in being a thorn to the sides of the present Malaysian Government ?
Why is MM allowing himself to be cultivated by PAS - the sworn rival to UMNO ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM has to act in the best interests of Singapore, in as much as the Malaysian government has to act to defend theirs.
Hiding behind the mask of anonymity to make defamatory remarks against the MM?
Did you not "learn about getting facts correctly, before twisting it to suit your point"; or did you simply try too hard on such a simple subject and still cannot master the technique in delivering your "twisted facts" ?
Will Singapore's "MM allow himself to be cultivated by PAS" ?
The abbreviation "M M" refers entirely to Mahathir Mohammed in this thread that is dedicated to his lamentable senile idiocy - as he advances into the 80s.
Our own Singapore MM is proving himself as capable as the Malaysian MM - and certainly both do not need any help from anyone to compete for the Oscar Award for their individual performance.
With or without the mask of anonymity, in public or private conversation, I have been as honest with my views as I can be.
Can you be more honest with your politics instead of claiming to be disapproving of government policies, and at the same time being defensive to their positions ?
Fulfilling your hippocritical oath as a self-opinionated doctor, or simply being parasitical as a "mushroom" is known to be ?
Your 'wishy-washy' attitude may not win you an invitation to the infamous "Tea Party" ?
Perhaps I should demand my share of the apologies that remain outstanding from you. -
This is laughable piece of news
Mahathir vows to continue attacks on Malaysian PM Abdullah
Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad vowed to continue his campaign against his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, saying that Malaysia was losing its self-respect.
"This is a free country. Anyone can say anything. What is that you (the government) want to hide?" Mahathir, 81, told a crowd of some 600 noisy supporters after returning home from a two-week holiday in London and Turkey.
"This is a transparent government. Anyone can say anything. If I want to speak, I will speak," he said after landing in a private jet at a military airport in Kuala Lumpur.
The supporters, many of them members of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), carried banners reading "Mahathir Save Malaysia," and "Wipe out the traitors of religion, race and the country".
Abdullah is the president of UMNO, the largest and most powerful political party in Malaysia with some 3.0 million members.
Mahathir has levelled a number of criticisms at Abdullah in recent weeks, including suggesting that Abdullah's advisors and his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin are controlling the administration.
Mahathir said his attacks on Abdullah's administration were in the interests of the country he led for more than two decades.
"Already the country is not doing well. Already we have lost our self-respect. I am not looking for people to pat my back," he said.
As the crowd shouted "Long Live Mahathir," the ex-premier lamented what he said were attempts to silence him, saying that he had been prevented from speaking to UMNO members.
Mahathir, who is responsible for turning Malaysia from an agriculture-based economy to one of Asia's most industrialised countries, expressed concerns about the health of the economy.
"Already, the country is not doing well. Already we have lost respect among the developing countries," he said.
Abdullah, who replaced Mahathir in 2003, had said he was hurt by the criticisms from Mahathir and upset about the "mean things" people were saying about him.
Zakhir Mohamad, a 38-year-old UMNO member who attended the protest, said he backed Mahathir for speaking out.
"Mahathir is not anti-UMNO. His concerns are shared by many grassroot UMNO members. Many are not happy with the government's policies like the sharp fuel hike," he said, referring to the government's moves to roll back subsidies. -
he was a PM and should know better.
he is embarassing his own country. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Thank you for putting in so much effort to bring out the details on this subject. I do hope that you can continue to do so for the benefits to all of us.
For someone who claims to be a doctor, you seem to have alot of time in hand in getting facts wrong in this forum.
Did you not [b]"learn about getting facts correctly, before twisting it to suit your point"; or did you simply try too hard on such a simple subject and still cannot master the technique in delivering your "twisted facts" ?
Will Singapore's "MM allow himself to be cultivated by PAS" ?
The abbreviation "M M" refers entirely to Mahathir Mohammed in this thread that is dedicated to his lamentable senile idiocy - as he advances into the 80s.
Our own Singapore MM is proving himself as capable as the Malaysian MM - and certainly both do not need any help from anyone to compete for the Oscar Award for their individual performance.
With or without the mask of anonymity, in public or private conversation, I have been as honest with my views as I can be.
Can you be more honest with your politics instead of claiming to be disapproving of government policies, and at the same time being defensive to their positions ?
Fulfilling your hippocritical oath as a self-opinionated doctor, or simply being parasitical as a "mushroom" is known to be ?
Your 'wishy-washy' attitude may not win you an invitation to the infamous "Tea Party" ?
Perhaps I should demand my share of the apologies that remain outstanding from you.
[/b]
I also hope that you can be a bit more forgiving when we do not read carefully and make mistake remark. May be a simple clarification of “MM stands for Mahathir Mohammed” will suffice instead all the above.
Thank you. -
do forgive him...he just wanted to prove something...has he succeeded? *smiles* he may have...in a comical way...at least to me...lolOriginally posted by PatrickLTH:Thank you for putting in so much effort to bring out the details on this subject. I do hope that you can continue to do so for the benefits to all of us.
I also hope that you can be a bit more forgiving when we do not read carefully and make mistake remark. May be a simple clarification of “MM stands for Mahathir Mohammed” will suffice instead all the above.
Thank you. -
MM should have learnt from our MM and stayed in the cabinet as MM and avoid all these fuss! His foolishness has lead to all these accusations and counter allegations!
Singapore is staying on course despite 2 PMÂ’s later is mainly due to MMÂ’s control and directions. If he had stepped out of cabinet, Singapore politics may have gone in the same directions we now see happening in Malaysia! -
Dr M's latest remark on Malaysia being a Half past Six country is an insult to the Malaysian Government and the Malaysian people. Someone of his stature should show a degree of restraint when giving remarks and even if he does not mean ill on certain controversies , he should not make remarks half way and leave if dangling and not finishing his remarks of re-inforcing his statement.
-
Seems like the Malaysian Govt. had made a wise choice instead of blindly following their old PM's ways.
-
Extract from the Star :
Extract from the New Straits Times:
Dr M back from European vacation
SUBANG: Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad returned home from a two-week European vacation to a welcome by about 1,000 supporters yesterday.
Dr Mahathir, who retired in 2003, had recently launched strong attacks on his successor Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
BACK HOME: Dr Mahathir speaking to reporters upon his return.
Dr MahathirÂ’s main grouses against the present government include its decision to cancel the Johor bridge project and its handling of the national car company, Proton.
Abdullah, who recently also returned from an overseas vacation, has since broken his silence to defend his administration's actions, including declassifying certain official documents on the bridge.
Speaking to reporters, Dr Mahathir said the Government should declassify the documents on its offer to sell sand and the use of Malaysian airspace by Singapore in its negotiations on the bridge project.
He added that the declassified letters which were released last week by the Government had already been made public during his time.
Dr Mahathir also expressed his disappointment that Umno was now denying him the avenue to voice his views.
He said that only three years ago, he was praised sky high when he stepped down but now “I am not even allowed to meet and speak with our Malaysian students in London.”
Meanwhile, Overseas Umno clubs chairman Datuk Mohd Shafie Apdal said they had never received any request from Dr Mahathir to meet Malaysian students in London.
He said any meeting with Malaysian students overseas must be arranged in advance.
“This is to ensure that they will be free and not be disturbed when they have examinations,” he said.
To a question, Shafie said Umno had no problem if Malaysian students overseas want to meet Dr Mahathir.
“Dr Mahathir is our father. He is a respected former prime minister who has done a lot for the country’s development.”
Kit Siang says Dr M has a selective memory
24 Jul 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPOH: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has a selective memory, said Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, pointing to the "silencing" of Tunku Abdul Rahman in the mainstream media when the former prime minister was in office.
"He (Dr Mahathir) did not mention the 1987 Operation Lalang clampdown of mass arrests of Opposition MPs and leaders, civil society activists as well as closure of newspapers, resulting in the ‘silencing’ of Tunku Abdul Rahman in the mainstream media."
Dr Mahathir should not escape responsibility and accountability for his 22-year premiership, said Lim when commenting on Dr MahathirÂ’s claims made on Saturday upon his return from overseas, that there were attempts to silence him.
Speaking at a DAP function in Buntong on Saturday, the party chairman and Ipoh Timur MP said Dr MahathirÂ’s remarks were the start of the "second round of the Mahathir-Abdullah political tussle".
He said the most effective way for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to counter Dr MahathirÂ’s challenge was to deliver his 2004 election pledge to reform the Government and fight corruption.