RE: Malaysia says Singapore shows bad faith by..............
-
Malaysia says Singapore shows bad faith by releasing water documents
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/southeastasia/view/30815/1/.html
haha, feel so funny that our dear Prof Jayakumar release the facts and make a fool out of those "NATO". -
But this was in stark contrast to comments Mr Syed Hamid made late last month, when he was quoted as saying that Singapore had two choices on the Pedra Branca issue: "If it refuses to compromise...go to war."
I hate to see the word war.
I don't wish to see Singapore and Malaysia having war over such issues.. -
Bad faith to make an expose of lies and misinformation..?
That is the brilliance of a "hairless" and "hare brained" Foreign Minister of Malaysia. -
blah... malaysia doesn't want a war as much as we do... they just want to act tough about it, like they dun give a damn. its a mexican standoff. lame if u ask me...
-
now his saying tt malaysia nv mentioned abt war b4....duh...contradictions..
-
that's why our Prof Jaya released those facts!! now, who still trust those malaysian?Originally posted by MinisterOfDefence:now his saying tt malaysia nv mentioned abt war b4....duh...contradictions.. -
Of course it's in bad faith, they like burned up every most of their goodwill with us at this point. The only reason we have not exposed them in full and make them look like the stark, raving, immature people they are is that because we are showing restraint. These letters are but a little fortaste. Sometimes the Malaysian politicians should quit while their ahead and not assume that Singapore will quietly take every illogical thing they dish out on a whim...
-
they sux.....screw them
-
They still haven't wake up their idea yet. . . but I'd rather have them in power as compared to the alternative : PAS!!
PAS thinks M'sia should not have 'gave Singapore away' . . . you can imagine what dealing with a government like that will be like. . . -
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/southeastasia/view/30949/1/.html
Malaysia still wants to use domestic law to break impasse over water issue
By Malaysia Bureau Chief Zainudin Afandi
Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said Singapore had no right to question the proposal by a Malaysian Minister to enact a domestic law which might alter or scrap the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements with Singapore.
He said Malaysia was looking at all avenues to break the impasse since talks have broken down.
Mr Syed Hamid has accused his Singapore counterpart of making misleading statements over the water issue.
For example, he said neither he nor Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad had ever said that Malaysia wanted to take the stalemate over the water issue to international arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at the Hague.
"It is very clear that we want to find a solution. But if we cannot, we go to the agreement which provides for arbitration according to the laws of Johor. So, how can I talk about PCA or for that matter Dr Mahathir. Quoting newspapers as the final and conclusive that we've taken is not right," he said.
Singapore's Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar had quoted Berita Harian Malaysia as saying the two Malaysian leaders had talked about referring the matter to the PCA, but to his surprise, Mr Syed Hamid later said this option did not arise.
Singapore, however, has agreed to let the water issue be settled through arbitration according to the laws of Johor.
Mr Syed Hamid also said Malaysia would do whatever it can through its domestic laws to bridge the impasse.
Malaysian Minister in the PMÂ’s Department Rais Yatim had said on 24 October 2002 that Malaysia could enact domestic legislation to render the Water Agreements null and void.
Mr Syed Hamid said: "Now that since there is a breakdown of talks, no party would consider themselves as bound to anything.
"What laws we're going to do is within our domestic and sovereign domain. It's not for anybody to question whether it's applicable or not. It's not something that people should question.
"And I think as a minister responsible for law, he can make statement to say that he wants to change certain certain law. What would the effect of that law on some agreements that we've entered is something else. You've all the right to challenge, but you cannot stop us from doing something that is within our domestic and sovereign rights."
Professor Jayakumar had said in Parliament on January 25: "No country can evade its international treaty obligations by enacting any domestic law. This is a very well established principle of international law.
"Should any country choose to violate this principle, it would signal to the world that it can and will do likewise for any other international agreements."
knn tt guy.... ...ought to b shot..... -
A thought just occurred to me.
A while back, when these issues first began to heat up I remember reading a political analyst's view on how the negotiations were being conducted. Basically what he said was that Malaysia and Singapore were approaching the issues from 2 very different angles. Whereas Singapore was all formal and to the letter, Msia had always preferred to be less formal and more ad hoc in its approach.
I remembr thinking then... 'What the f**k?? More ad hoc?? More informal?? We're talking about governments here not the local town hall meeting...'
Fast forward to today.
The same things are again plaguing both countries. And I have a view to offer. If any of u out there are diplomats then please share your views...
Msians have always had a culture of being a bit more, for lack of a precise term, "easy going" when dealing with friends or a friend of a friend. What I mean is, if you're familiar with the guy or he's in a higher position or equal to you, then the rules wont strictly apply to you. Its a way of life i think. You will go easy on the guys you know but be strict to a stranger that comes to you off the street. Some of you out there may be repulsed by this idea and equal it to cronyism or even accuse it as being corruption. Granted, in large doses or when assisting illegal activity, it is obviously wrong. Im not here to debate the correctness of these actions. However, to them, this is a sign of respect and friendliness. After all, we're suposed to be friends and whats the bending of a few rules between friends.
Therefore Singapore's strict insistence on following everything to the letter strikes Msia as being too rigid and frankly, in their view, is not how friends deal with each other. Friends should be more easygoing and not let 'rules' come too much in the way of things. Maybe thats why they keep getting so angry. It because Singapore does not understand how they perceive things. Singapore is, of course, right in following everything to the letter. All im saying is maybe its precisely this approach thats pissing the Malaysians off. Im not arguing for Singapore to give in to Malaysia. All im saying is maybe a failure to understand where the other side is coming from is the cause of all our problems...
A japanese friend once told my dad that they likened Malaysia to a big stadium with lots of sports. And the Japanese always made sure they kept every possible sport uniform in their lockers cause today the official sport would be soccer but tomorrow it might be tennis and the next day it might be ping pong. He was referring to the frequent rule changes that occur in Malaysia...and I think he was right...The best example i can give is the constant sway between fousing on the National language and English. They've alternately focused on Malay then English quite a few times i believe...although this time they appear to be serious.
Sometimes I think the legislators in Malaysia just change the rules, wait to see what happens then if they dont work...change em till they do. Being ad hoc seems to be a way of life and it might be good to remember that when dealing with Malaysia -
Originally posted by kohanson:But this was in stark contrast to comments Mr Syed Hamid made late last month, when he was quoted as saying that Singapore had two choices on the Pedra Branca issue: "If it refuses to compromise...go to war."
I hate to see the word war.
I don't wish to see Singapore and Malaysia having war over such issues..
There must be a reason behind everything. In this case, I don't think there is any reason to justify a war. -
____________________________________________________Originally posted by Parka: There must be a reason behind everything. In this case, I don't think there is any reason to justify a war.
That "hairless" and "hare-brained" Malaysian Foreign Minister was previously the Malaysian Defense Minister.
He still think that he is "Rambo" the Defense Minister who banned Singapore Air Force from flying into Malaysian airspace, as our SM Lee had written unfavorably about the Foreign Minister's father in SM Lee's Second Memoir.
Like his father, the Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar is as unreasonable, "pig-headed" and idiotic in his views of issues pertaining to his community.
He was labelled as an "ULTRA" - meaning a racial extremist, not quite the Japanese hero "ULTRA Man".
Read up on Politics in early Singapore, or talk to your Parents or Grand-parents who lived through those period. -
When it comes to international treaties, I'm afraid while relations can be rosy, at no times shall they become "chin chai chin chai" like the way the Malaysians run it. Why? Because in such weighty matters, adopting a rule bending attitude (which Malaysia seems to like to bend way towards themselves) will signal that such a lax attitude towards observing proper order and procedure when it come to an really important issue (like Singapore's indepedence) is acceptable. If we decide to see things their easy-going way, what's to stop them from saying "brudder, your indepedence dun mean ikan bidi man, we take over tomorrow can?" some time in the future?
Besides, their attitude of "friendship" is largely self-serving. While they can poke their nose into our domestic issues claiming that since we were all brothers and that it was their right to comment on and meddle with our affairs. But when we do the same to them they cry bloody murder and tell us to stay on our side of the causeway. Any brudder "relationship" from malaysia is one-sided.
Now you see why Singapore goes formal with these kind of politicans? That's because there's no other way of dealing with them. -
it makes to sense to make agreements base on ad-hoc arrangements and on a buddy-buddy basis.... there is not gurantee for spore should they show an itchy-backside syndrome.... if there resile from their orignal position, what should we do? go up to KL and beg because we are kawan-kawan? hell no! anyway, those northeners from what i seen have argued themselves into a corner..... as i said before and i will say again... the international community is watching........