water talks: if only it could
-
here's a good site to read more about the issues concerning the water talks between the two countries.
all people should read!
it's pack with facts about the water agreements!
http://www.uweei.org.sg/images/watertalks.pdf -
It's not much of a stand... but I never expect them to base their position on anything more then a lot of hot air anyway...
-
this is an overview:Originally posted by foga:
http://app.sgmy.gov.sg/SgMy.html
from the Singapore side, but it contains loads of Media Articles from both sides.
And i always hate the 'Malaysia gave Singapore freedom' line. Seems to be all they ever come up with. . . -
so you guys bought the book?
i've got a question, why can't the Sing gov sue the m'sia gov or any particular m'sia ministers for deflaming us?
today's straits time have an article on the water talks and m'sia resonds, three months late!
somehow looking forward to read wat that "sai-hum-meat" is gonna say about the water issues..... -
i hate that "gave singapore freedom" bit...
they threw singapore out of the federation to see us die simply because they could not fix their screwed up, disguised apartheid...
we didn't die and that pisses the hell out of them...
anyway, don't insult see-hum.. i like to eat them... they may be bottom-dwellers, but they aren't as dishonourable as politicians, particularly malaysian ones..Originally posted by foga:so you guys bought the book?
i've got a question, why can't the Sing gov sue the m'sia gov or any particular m'sia ministers for deflaming us?
today's straits time have an article on the water talks and m'sia resonds, three months late!
somehow looking forward to read wat that "sai-hum-meat" is gonna say about the water issues..... -
Originally posted by the Bear:i hate that "gave singapore freedom" bit...
they threw singapore out of the federation to see us die simply because they could not fix their screwed up, disguised apartheid...
we didn't die and that pisses the hell out of them...
anyway, don't insult see-hum.. i like to eat them... they may be bottom-dwellers, but they aren't as dishonourable as politicians, particularly malaysian ones..
-
Here is a view by the great Malaysian political commentator. The stuff available in his website are dynamite. In Singapore, he would have been jailed long ago, but over in Malaysia, thanks to the freedom of the internet, his comments are able to be read.
http://www.mggpillai.com/article.php3?sid=1710
Water Talks: The pot calls the kettle black
THE MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE WATER TALKS are stalled because neither Kuala Lumpur nor Singapore would, indeed could, resolve it if one has an edge over the other. The political interest of each is to see the other lose out. It has nothing to do with contracts, good neighbourliness or fair price. It has to do with proving to each's ground the other is incorrigible, untrustworthy and worse. For underlying the dispute - one of many - is the need to pressure its ground the other is to blame. The UMNO-led government in Malaysia and the PAP-led one in Singapore have an uphill task to convince their traditional supporters that they alone can deliver. They have proved they cannot, and each behave childishly and undiplomatically to convinve its citizens the other is devil incarnate. In other words, the pot and the kettle call each other black.
This is why Singapore breaks confidentiality of negotiations and documents by revealing not once, but several times, to "prove" Malaysian leaders are unreliable, do not adhere to contracts and, in the current US-sponsored war of Islamic terror, which it accepts without question, subtly implies that since Malaysia is an Islamic nation, its leaders are more likely to behave as Osama bin Laden than Donald Rumsfeld. In Singapore's view, Rumsfeld can justifiably cause all the havoc he desires, but not Osama. So, she paints her northern neighbour in the blackest of colours for local political fence-mending, in fright, so that her citizens would rush to back the PAP's stand. Why does Singapore take this view? The PAP's promise of continuous growth and unparalled wealth is but a mirage for the younger Singaporean, and as other underpinnings of the PAP-structured state crumble, the possibility of a non-PAP government is as possibile, indeed probable, in Singapore in the next decade as a non-UMNO one in Malaysia.
Malaysia, on the other hand, has her own difficulties with her ground. UMNO is in near rigor mortis, since it humiliated its deputy president, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, five years ago such that it upset Malay sensibilities. Its closeness to Chinese entrepreneurs, its inability to put the MCA in its place, the cultural revolt on the ground, not just of the Malay but of the Chinese, the Indian, the Kadazan, the Iban and other native tribes all reduce UMNO leaders to apoplexy and fright. So it must also show that it is tough when it comes to protecting Malaysia's interests. When it does this to Singapore, the majority, especially Malay, rush to support it, its cultural crimes forgotten for the moment.
That this latest spat with Singapore comes as the UMNO leader, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, hands over to his deputy, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, puts the new leader in a spot. He can only react as a nationalist. And fight fire with fire. The Singapore leaders knew that. So why did it up the ante in a political transition where the new leader walks on melting ice?
Underling the political disputes between Singapore and Malaysia is a cultural divide in which each misjudges and miscalculates the other. The cultural xenophobia of the Malay and Chinese pins the overriding political and administrative problems, and one is happy with the other only when it dominates. Indeed, bilateral ties after Singapore's independence from Malaysia in 1965 underlined this dominance with each walking on eggs to make it work. That led to an uneasy peace. That could not last. Especially as newer leaders in Malaysia found themselves ill at ease with Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. But when the second generation of leaders firmly took over the reins in both, the old understandings and respect could not overcome the insipient nationalisms in each. Despite it, however, there is an underlying acceptance, amongst Singapore and Malaysian leaders privately, that the two countries must live together, that Malaysia cannot prevent the sale of water to Singapore, that even in enmity such niceties as water supplies must go on. But official ties continue to be dipped in xenophobia. When the dominant political party in each must prove its xenophobia and nationalism to stay in power, issues like this must crop up.
I submit Singapore was wrong to come up with the booklet, "Water Talks? If only it could". And wrong for Malaysia to react as she did. But speaking off the cuff, especially when a cabinet minister does not know what he talks of, is a peculiar Malaysian speciality. Dr Mahathir was right to protest at this release of confidential official documents to paint Malaysia in a bad light. But the foreign minister, Dato' Seri Syed Hamid Albar, was idiotic to suggest Malaysia would reply with a booklet of its own. What would that serve? But the fat is on the fire. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia could retract or back down. With this distinct frightening realisation that no solution is possible under the present leaders, whose links date back to their university days. How then could it be possible when the new leaders take over, as they must within five years, in both countries, with the only underlying aim is to undercut the leaders in the other.
Water is only one of several contentious issues which both decide to make an example of. The dispute over who owns Pulau Batu Putih (or Pedro Branca, as Singapore knows it) is with the International Court of Justice. Malaysia's crazy plan to build a bridge over the existing causeway which links the two countries for no reason than to massage the national ego is another. Singapore wants the right for its armed forces to intrude into Malaysian airspace. There would be more as the years creep by. These could be resolved if they are looked upon as mere administrative matters and negotiated within a framework of give-and-take. But in every negotiation, the two countries talk at cross purposes. That reflects deep-rooted problems that has nothing to do with the sanctity of contracts or international law. It begins with the cultural xenophobia in each. Unless that is resolved, these bilateral pinpricks would continue.
Could they be resolved? Not yet. The two countries have, willy nilly, entrenched their xenophobia within the fundamentalism of global politics. When larger interests intrude, local issues get short shrift. To worsen bilateral ties. But neither Kuala Lumpur nor Singapore would accept that as a consequence of their global positioning. The hardening of the political debate in Singapore is - must - now be matched by Malaysia.
The Malay ground is incensed at Singapore's insensitivities, as the Singapore ground is incensed at Malaysia's refusal to honour its commitments. Both are wrong and both right. But Singapore should realise the Malay ground is hardening culturally to the point that there is more talk than ever of blaming the Malaysian government for wanting to recover Pulau Batu Putih when it should have acted to recover Singapore itself. Singapore's booklet would only strengthen this dangerous view. But it is also a realistic view amongst the more sobre Malaysian and Malay politicians that when Singapore re-negotiates the water agreement with Johore in 2061, it could well be one Malaysian state negotiating with another. -
wonder wat they would say.......
their FM says :
"Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar had agreed that the true picture that Singapore was the one which was unfair and unreasonable should be presented. "
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/7/13/nation/5836580&sec=nation -
Well for 1 i believe that after 25 years the malaysians should be allowed to revise the water price reguardless of when ater 25years.Also i believe it is wrong for our goverment to release those letters.But then again Malaysia is also wrong in the way it has treated this subject and continiously using Singapore as the whipping boy!!
Oh and that article about the Malaysians wanting to get back Singapore?WTF?! -
That's a wishfull thinking, given the context of how far apart thisOriginally posted by |-|05|:Oh and that article about the Malaysians wanting to get back Singapore?WTF?!
two countries had drifted for the last 33 years.
KL knows it has little military option to force the remerger under
their terms unless more advanatage are gained like
economy growth and suicidal strategic cheap-selling of all future endevour that match Singapore's future rice bowls like education,
hub facilities, biotech, HQ locations, service industry etc etc.
"Many ways of skinning a cat" is how Dr Mahathir had used to methopherised these hostile acts on the economic and psychological front on the Republic.
They want to wear done the Singaporean identity as much as possible, including the use of racial and religion factors.
Even with reason upgrade of defence purchase by the Malaysia, MGG himself question the financial capability of KL to taking on such large & near simultaneous dear propurements in
"Money is there for greed, not need "
in which he claims :
"THE TREASURY IS ALL BUT BROKE. AN official Russian delegation was here recently to complete the Malaysian purchase of 22 Sukhoi 30 fighters and bombers. Instead of the 22 planes the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) was to buy, it now wanted eight to 12. And there is no money for that.
And then the finincial status of KL:
"Funds are not available for routine investments amidst an unsustainable government belief there is money to burn. The government announces projects and enterprises costing billions of ringgit, without parliamentary approval, borrowing funds internationally, with no idea how they would be repaid. Some bankers say as much as 40 per cent of Malaysia's diminishing foreign exchange returns go to debt and interest payments for loans taken."
And ended with :
"This is the frightening prospect facing Malaysians. There is no succour in sight. The leaders play politics, uses repressive laws to curtail dissent, companies are shut down with regularity, thousands of workers are sacked and retrenched with a regularity that now shocks even in government. But we would not know this if it is only government propaganda we believe to be the truth."
Now, question is how will Malayia's demand of raising the raw water supply price to Singapore from 3sens/1000 gallons to 3RM? Will this over 200x increase in water price help them out of this financial mass.?
-
As Isaac Newton first law said, for ever action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Then we also have the law of unintended consequences.
Now we have to pay the piper. -
there is a newspaper article i read yesterday at JB regarding water issue ... and saying that singapore is not reasonable regarding water issue ...
-
I really don't think saying
Malaysia gets NOTHING
Singapore gets RICH
Really suffice as an argument. -
Well, the ruling parties in Malaysia government is obviously trying to rally for votes for their next elections.
I suspect that the Malaysia media is not "medium" enough as to remain objective in the water issues because they are under influence of "insensible and over-sensitive" Malaysia Nationalism. Their nationalism is basically, oppose other countries when you're at disadvantage without knowing the process or what ever it is.
The Malaysia media is always trying to influence their people to think that they are always right. What they heard is normally one-sided story. I think people from the state of Johor truly understands Singapore better than other states in Malaysia because they're exposed to Singapore media too. From talks from relatives in Johor, they found Malaysian government is not being fair to Singapore but Singapore is always taking a step back of what it can do for Malaysia.
To be objective, Singapore has always transperently try be open to views and show all the proof. This is not being proud or anything. Its simply seeking justice and fairness.
To Singaporeans, The Water Issue is part of Singapore's sovereignty and independence. Malaysia should put themselves in our shoes why Singapore is making such a big fuss on the Water Issue because to us, Malaysia is violating our sovereignty and independence by the papers and diplomacy.
From the Malaysian stand's statement, "I am quite sure that it (price of water) is not important to them because it is for millions of dollars while Singapore has 88 billion dollars in reserves. They can pay the amount of money we ask without making a little dent in their budget as they are very rich."
By this statement, I can say YES, we're stingy
. We're after all a consumerist, corporate nation. As a sensitive consumer, we always bargain for the cheapest price but also a suitable price for the seller for a win-win situation.
We're very rich but we doesn't spend it extravagantly on raw (cheap) water. -
My post came from an anti Malay political commentator. So its not just the mainstream media who is supporting their stand. Its their entire population, both pro and anti government. Thats the worry.
-
[color=red]Ken ken ken, here you go again.Originally posted by kenhor:My post came from an anti Malay political commentator. So its not just the mainstream media who is supporting their stand. Its their entire population, both pro and anti government. Thats the worry.
1st u selectively used MM's article to furher your lame arguments against the continued existence of an Independent Singapore, based on his hearsay claim that water deal would become "a Malaysian state-to-state" negotiation in the near future. (WTF does he mean? That Singapore will just giveup soverigenty over water with a fight ???).
Now, you try to climb out of this S-H-I-T-Hole which u had just dug yourself into by saying this "Anti-Malay" politician has the "mainstream media" support, along with with the entire population ???. Geee...ken, I didn't know Bernama and NST loves MMG that much more than Dr.M ??? Didn't you why DrM was so deperate to setup a NS programe to reverse deteriorating racial relation within Malaysia itself ?
Ken,
I am more WORRY about your ability to provide any logical chain of thought when u decided to engage in this thread.[/b][/quote] -
Ad from AWSJ, Malaysia.
WATER: The Singapore-Malaysia Dispute - THE FACTS
THE SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT HAS GONE ALL OVER THE WORLD AND TARNISHED THR NAME OF MALAYSIA.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS
Singapore's processed water susidy to Malaysia last year...
RM26.5 million
Cost of Singapore's (recycled sewage) NeWater...
RM7.50 per 1000 Gallons
Therefore, Malaysia's susidy to Singapore exceeded RM26.5 million subsidy to Malaysia by...
RM45.9 million
DEVELOPING MALAYSIA SUSIDIES AFFLUENT SINGAPORE BY MORE THAN18 TIMES!
IS 3 SEN PER 100 GALLONS A SHARE PRICE?
----------------------------------------------
GREEN= TRUE FACTS
BLUE = OBJECTIVE, EMOTIONALLY SENSITIVE
They are always complaining about why their treasury is always poor...
Because they spent all the money (on military, transportation, etc...) to compete Singapore and always left nothing...
As for "tarnishing" of the Malaysia name, they just always look bad when compared to Singapore. -
simple question:
if you sell me sand, and i turn it into silicon chips, do you still have a claim to the silicon chips? -
Another simple question:
"You sell me trash, I recycled them into useful materials like aluminium, plastics, raw papers and others and I sell it back to your factory to manufacture new products and you sell them. "
Its suppose to be win-win situation. But you don't ask me to simply give back those useful materials that I spent time and money to recycle from the trash I bought from you. -
stop being insensitive to their feelings!Originally posted by Eiizumi:Another simple question:
"You sell me trash, I recycled them into useful materials like aluminium, plastics, raw papers and others and I sell it back to your factory to manufacture new products and you sell them. "
Its suppose to be win-win situation. But you don't ask me to simply give back those useful materials that I spent time and money to recycle from the trash I bought from you.
-
i think being nice to each other is far from everyone's minds now... they wanna use us as a whipping boy and it is not in our interest to review the price of water by their bench-marks...Originally posted by nismoS132:stop being insensitive to their feelings!
i say they deserve every bit of slime we can muster against them. now, i don't trust politicians in general, but i dislike malaysian politicians even more.
so if their egos are bruised by facts, then i seriously recommend that they do their homework more dilligently next time before they say anything through the press or through official diplomatic channels.
i think its the right thing to release the documents. they are open to interpretations and may not be truly representative of the real situation, but at we are able to show that we have been consistent in our stand and have made attempts to compromise on several points while they stone-wall us every chance they get by changing their position every now and then.
needless to say, back-room horse-trading chattered over cocktail and cigerettes hardly qualify as "official correspondence". nobody is bound by them until they find their way into official channels and those in the know tacitly acknowledge the concessions made on both sides and sign on the dotted line.
so their point that the publication doesn't represent the true situations is bull. -
Ya ya. Anyway, Singapore has discussed the water dispute well to offer Malaysia better prices and also to the best benefit of Singapore by black and white papers of officiality and legality.Originally posted by nismoS132:stop being insensitive to their feelings!
Too bad the Malaysia didn't accept them. Singapore has the only rights change the water price. But being friendly, S'pore offers to change for a higher price for M'sia but also to better benefit Singaporeans.
When the price is too high,SIngapore rejects and retrieved M'sia's rights to dispute anything. This is entirely politically and diplomatically done through proper means. Singapore played by the rules but of course this upsets M'sia because M'sia is unable to complain Singapore that it done anythiing wrong. -
Here is an article from our ST dated yesterday.
Our government spokesman finds the timing of the Malaysian reaction "puzzling" We pay these people millions and they can't even understand what went wrong.
We agreed to hold off the water talks six months ago, then we publish the secret discussions and now the malaysians responded in kind. And our ministry finds this puzzling
I think all of them better go and learn physics. Newton's first law says that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"
Here are the exerpts from our newspapers for the issues.
http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,1887,199770-1058306340,00.html?
The timing of the full-page advertisements - placed in major local dailies since Sunday, and also in the Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) yesterday - was 'puzzling', the spokesman added.
Malaysia unilaterally called off negotiations in October last year and, as provided for under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements between them, the next step would have been arbitration.
The spokesman noted that Malaysia had initiated this process and said Singapore was ready for such a move.
But instead of following up on this, it has some six months later resorted to an advertisement blitz.
The media campaign, which is expected to last a week, comes three months after a booklet was put out by Singapore's Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts.
JULY 15, 2003
KL's water ad blitz ignores crucial facts, says Singapore
Foreign Ministry says it's a rehash of old arguments and is puzzled by the timing of the current campaign against the Republic
By Rebecca Lee
TRANSPORT REPORTER
SINGAPORE said yesterday that a series of advertisements Malaysia has taken out in newspapers on the water issue ignored crucial facts and were a rehash of old arguments.
'It is telling that the Malaysian advertisements have so far ignored all the documents that are now in the public domain,' a Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesman said when asked to comment.
These include the fact that Singapore offered to raise the price it paid for every 1,000 gallons of raw water from three sen to 45 sen and later again to 60 sen - which Malaysia initially accepted.
But Malaysia reneged on the deal and later arbitrarily asked for RM3 and then for more than RM6.
The timing of the full-page advertisements - placed in major local dailies since Sunday, and also in the Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) yesterday - was 'puzzling', the spokesman added.
Malaysia unilaterally called off negotiations in October last year and, as provided for under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements between them, the next step would have been arbitration.
The spokesman noted that Malaysia had initiated this process and said Singapore was ready for such a move.
But instead of following up on this, it has some six months later resorted to an advertisement blitz.
The media campaign, which is expected to last a week, comes three months after a booklet was put out by Singapore's Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts.
The publication, Water Talks? If Only It Could, sets out Singapore's position on the dispute. The material is based on Foreign Affairs Minister S. Jayakumar's Jan 25 statement in Parliament detailing the history of the talks, and documents, exchanges of official letters and notes already made public.
None of the advertisements - placed by the Malaysian National Economic Action Council - carried data or other material put out by Singapore.
The first advertisement on Sunday charged that in 2001 alone, Singapore made RM662.5 million (S$307m) in profit by selling water it processed from the raw water it bought from Malaysia for just RM2.39 million.
It also claimed that Singapore had 'gone all over the world and tarnished the name of Malaysia. It is time to set the record straight'.
It did not say how the Republic did this but charged: 'Malaysia Gets Nothing. Singapore Gets Rich.'
The second salvo yesterday, which also appeared in the AWSJ to reach a regional audience, claimed that Malaysia subsidised Singapore's water supply to the tune of RM451.9 million but did not say how the figure was arrived at.
The MFA spokesman said yesterday he did not know what Malaysia hoped to achieve through the campaign.
'To make progress, Malaysia must engage the substance of the facts. They need to go beyond old stories and repeating tired arguments,' he said.
He described the media blitz as 'just a repeat of old stories - they are right and we are wrong. They are reasonable, we are profiteering'.
Singapore has already set out all the facts and there is no new data to disclose other than records of meetings between the foreign ministers last year and those of senior officials, he said.
'We would be happy to release these documents as well for the record,' he added.
The spokesman would not be drawn into speculating why he thought Malaysia had mounted its campaign.
But Malaysian sources suggested that the leaders were upset that the release of information by Singapore had shown up Malaysia's case - and even led some local politicians to question the government about the stance it had been presenting all along. -- Additional reporting by Brendan Pereira in Kuala Lumpur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2003 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
Ken ken ken, in case you got lost again, the Singapore booklet was in bookstores since early 2003 and later made available online at below MITA link.
We agreed to hold off the water talks six months ago, then we
publish the secret discussions and now the malaysians responded
in kind. And our ministry finds this [b]puzzling
I think all of them better go and learn physics. Newton's first law
says that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]
It is NOT a recent publication.
Down/l it and have a good read before coming back with your application of Newton's 1st Law of motion on the dynamics of politics.
So why KL chooses this moment and 6 months of delay before coming up with their adverts ?!
Could this be the work of Einstein's Theory of Relativity where KL's belated respone is due to the effect of the curvature of space time when it fell into its own gravitation mass of blackhole ?
[color=blue][size=large]Available online @ MITA website since January 2003 in Malay, English and Chinese PDF releases [/size]
[/color]