We passed the time away
Writing love letters in the sand
How you laughed when I cried
Each time I saw the tide
Take our love letters from the sand
- Pat Boone
On Thursday I wrote a letter titled S’pore Straits Times playing a dangerous game to Malaysiakini, which I posted again here.
I voiced my concerns at the unexpected participation by a Singapore newspaper in the public quarrel of the two UMNO leaders. We know that the Singapore Straits Times has close links to its government so one may reasonably assume to an extent that its views would reflect or be similar to that of the government.
Why has the Singapore Straits Times saw fit to take sides in a mainly UMNO internal political stoush, when Singapore had always been careful to observe proper distancing from Malaysian internal politics, at least publicly.
I had noted that some of its questions to Mahathir, like his government’s decision to build the KL international airport (none of Singapore’s bloody business), and the late Hussein Onn’s decision to promote Mahathir as his deputy in UMNO (how are going to question a dead man, apart from the reality it’s no one business other than UMNO’s?), were what I termed ‘silly-bugger’ questions.
Thus, I consider those 22 questions, together as a package, had been designed to sensationalise, perhaps to draw attention from Mahathir’s very pointed question about the issue of ‘sand and airspace’ demand by the Singapore government as a quid pro quo before the straight bridge could be allowed to go across the border.
Today Anon wrote in to say:
“Straits Times published said 22 questions totally in context taken from Malaysia Today. I don't think that what you wrote is entirely fair. Wonder what is your biff?”
I don’t know whether Anon is Ah Beng from south of the border, but he obviously had it the other way around. The ’22 questions’ were originated by the Singapore Straits Times. Malaysiakini reported that on Tuesday, 04 July 2006.
Raja Petra Kamaruldin’s Malaysia-Today is just a blog, but undoubtedly the best managed and richly presented in Malaysia. I think sometimes it serves to promote Anwar Ibrahim and the PKR party, which is its due right. But if it publishes those 22 quetsions, it would have obtained them from a newspaper source.
What's my biff? I replied that it’s nothing more than my desire as a Malaysian to want to know why has a foreign newspaper, that has very close links with its government, poked its nose in an UMNO affair? Why has it taken the side of AAB, especially when there are strong rumours in Malaysia of an intimate connection between a certain member of UMNO with the Singapore government? Is there any truth in those rumours?
In another posting ’Tis the Season of Fish, maybe the same Anon wrote:
"You keep on saying 'the Singapore Straits Times saw fit to involve itself on the side of AAB'."
"On what grounds? Straits Times reported only what is gleaned from Malaysian sources and reported both Tun Mahathir's statements and UMNO's responses. ST did did not 'join the fray'."
Well, I have already answered above Anon's incorrect argument that the Singapore Straits Times only quoted Malaysian sources.
He or she added: “Please be fair and correct. I am not from ST nor am I in favour of St. All knows they ranked 140th out of 167 in media reporting. It galls me that you keep harping on ST only but not other International media.”
Who cares what ranking the Singapore newspaper has. It’s its close links to its government that worries me, particularly when there are rumours about the link between an UMNO person and Singapore politicians that makes Malaysians harp on the fact that a Singapore newspaper has intruded into an UMNO internal issue.
Also, we need to keep things in context.
For a start, we have seen in Malaysiakini the letter by former Singapore PM Goh Chok Tong to Dr Mahathir saying it’s OK to go ahead with the bridge.
Then the new Singapore government reneged on PM Goh’s words by demanding ‘sand & airspace’ as quid pro quo before it would accept the bridge, right down to kay-poh-cee*-ing into an UMNO affair on the side of AAB, at a time when AAB was feeling the most heat from Mahathir's questions, the principal one alluding to which Malaysian had persuaded the Singapore government to include the 'sand & airspace' demand.
* busybody
Ask yourself why a foreign newspaper, with strong links to its government, felt necessary to intervene on AAB's side? Don't allow S-A-N-D to be cast into your eyes.
CHORUS
You made a vow that you would ever be true
But somehow that vow meant nothing to you
Now my broken heart aches
With every wave that breaks
Over love letters in the sand
Firstly, its incorrect to assume that its the first time Singapore press has sought to subtlely side with one faction or another.
ReplyDeleteSingapore press has always been an instrument of the government if you look at as far back as in the 1960s, have tried to influence Malaysian politics to protect or even further its interest.
Secondly, compare to what Malaysian press do, its nothing. Malaysian press has distorted issues, even purposely made mistakes and I would dare say lie even about Singapore politics not merely giving or championing a point of view so get off the ridiculous ideal that Singapore Press cannot do what they did. The politics of the two country is such Singapore Press may not be a perfect gentlemen but neither is it the rouge and dishornarable profession it is in Malaysia.
So, finally you're admitting to our suspicion, that your ST was engaged in skulduggery to protect one member of UMNO from another?
ReplyDeleteThe 22 questions were posted by: Mr. P.Gunasegaram group executive editor at The Edge. It was reported by Malaysia Today on Tuesday 22nd of June 2006 (as taken from thThe Edge) and as KTEMOC says, printed by ST on Tuesday 04th Juky 2006. So I am correct to say St were not the originators. So let us get the facts correct before lambasting ST.
ReplyDeleteI am not disagreeing in anything else about ST and whatever unhappiness anyone has got against them. Anyone has a right to their opinions. I am just trying to state facts without getting emotional about Singapore/Malaysia relations and neither am I interested in spreading rumours about close-links relationships between the Singapore Government and ABB and others. May I also state that it was Tun M. that said it was Malaysia that offered sand and space?
You can say whatever you want to say about me and ST but I can assure you I have no love lost for ST and it is not mine ST. I am impartial but I am interested to learnt your views and I do enjoy reading your write-ups and insights especially about the Chinese Muslims and Peranakan food.
Please be more factual in your writings and be less emotional where Singapore is concerned for what you write stirs bad feelings and perceptions and that is a disservice to both countries. Both nations have much to offer each other and it is easier to make enemies than friends. Tun M. is not exactly considered a good friend of Singapore as you know. His recent statement "If we were to bomb Singapore" may be in jest but comments like these are dangerous comments even one were to take it lightly.
Regards
see my new posting Callow Cabal where I humbled myself before all to see ;-)
ReplyDeleteThank you for setting the record straight. Again to quote you,
ReplyDelete"Also, we need to keep things in context.
For a start, we have seen in Malaysiakini the letter by former Singapore PM Goh Chok Tong to Dr Mahathir saying it’s OK to go ahead with the bridge.
Then the new Singapore government reneged on PM Goh’s words by demanding ‘sand & airspace’ as quid pro quo before it would accept the bridge, right down to kay-poh-cee*-ing into an UMNO affair on the side of AAB, at a time when AAB was feeling the most heat from Mahathir's questions, the principal one alluding to which Malaysian had persuaded the Singapore government to include the 'sand & airspace' demand."
There is an explanation to this which most Malaysians are not aware of. I quote,
"KL refutes Mahathir's claims over bridge issue
Malaysian Foreign Ministry responds to former PM's assertions that S'pore agreed in 2002 to a bridge
Date: 25/04/2006
Source: Straits Times
Author: Carolyn Hong
KUALA LUMPUR - THE Malaysian Foreign Ministry yesterday refuted former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's contention that Singapore had agreed in 2002 to the bridge to replace the Causeway.
The ministry's response, contained in a 17-page statement, was the most comprehensive yet by Kuala Lumpur regarding the Malaysian government's attempt to build a bridge to replace the current Causeway.
Issued by the ministry's Ambassador-at-large Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi Razak, it detailed the series of events, starting from the announcement by then prime minister Mahathir almost 10 years ago, to his successor Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi's decision to scupper the idea in the midst of negotiations with Singapore.
Tan Sri Fuzi, the ministry's former secretary-general who led Malaysia's negotiating team, was asked by Cabinet last week to reply to Tun Dr Mahathir's contention.
The bridge was a brainchild of Tun Dr Mahathir who proposed it in 1996, and sought to get Singapore's agreement.
The former prime minister, who last week attacked the government for scrapping the plan, had also insisted that Singapore had made a 'final commitment' to his bridge plan. Tun Mahathir had referred to a letter written to him by Mr Goh Chok Tong on April 11, 2002, which stated Mr Goh's acceptance of a half bridge to replace Malaysia's side of the Causeway.
Yesterday's statement clarified that Mr Goh's consent was predicated on the period when both countries agreed to negotiate bilateral issues of water, railway, and airspace as a package.
But when the two sides could not agree on outstanding issues within the package, Tun Dr Mahathir subsequently wrote to Mr Goh in October, that year, cancelling the package approach.
As a result, Mr Goh's agreement regarding the bridge was void.
The statement said that Singapore confirmed this position in a diplomatic note dated Nov 29, 2004:
'With the termination of the package negotiations the underlying basis for the statements in the letter of April 11, 2002 no longer exists'.
Tun Dr Mahathir also insisted that even if Singapore did not agree to the bridge, Malaysia had the law on its side and could go ahead to build a half bridge on its side of the Strait of Johor.
But Tan Sri Fuzi said the law may not favour Malaysia either.
The Malaysian Attorney-General had given a legal opinion that the 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore water agreements required Malaysia to obtain the Republic's approval to move the water mains on the Causeway. Singapore had agreed to relocate the water pipelines in Johor for the construction of a new customs, immigration and quarantine complex, but made it clear that it regarded the water mains on the Causeway as a separate issue.
The Attorney-General also pointed out potential legal problems with the railway services. Singapore could stop Malaysian trains from entering its section of the Causeway if Malaysia demolished its half, and if railway services were halted for six months, Malaysia's railway lands on the island will revert to Singapore.
Malaysia, thus, could not unilaterally go ahead with the bridge without running into legal tangles.
Tan Sri Fuzi also explained why Malaysia failed to get Singapore's agreement to a full bridge without the concessions of sand and airspace. These requests were strongly opposed by Malaysians who saw it as threatening Malaysia's sovereignty.
He said Mr Goh had told Malaysia when it presented the design for the full bridge in December 2004 that it would bring no benefits to Singapore in return for the $725 million that it had to spend.
Mr Goh suggested that Singapore could consider it if Malaysia lifted the ban on sand exports to Singapore imposed in 1997, and reinstated rights in the use of Malaysia's airspace withdrawn in 1998.
According to Tan Sri Fuzi, Malaysia tried to negotiate the bridge as a stand-alone item.
To this end, Malaysia was prepared to finance the construction of the entire bridge if Singapore did not link it to other issues.
'It was obvious from the very first meeting that Singapore was more interested to negotiate on the basis of balance of mutual benefits involving sand and airspace,' he said.
This left Malaysia with four options: a straight bridge with the trade-offs of sand and space to Singapore, a half bridge to link to the Causeway or a half bridge to eventually join a Singapore-built bridge, and no bridge at all.
But whichever option it chose, it would have to offer concessions to Singapore if it wanted to build any kind of bridge.
Malaysia thus chose the last option - no bridge at all - which it called the 'best option'."
Sorry about the long text...but I have to point out that Malaysia will lose the railway land it has in Singapore if the train stops operating for a period of six months or more.
For all the bluster and posturing from Tun M. it seems he has extremely short memory as he was the one who signed the letter cancelling the 2002 packaged deal as spelt out in Goh's letter to him.
Regards
I have seen Goh Chok Tong's letter, published in Malaysiakini. There was no package condition as claimed by Fuzi. All it said was, to the best of my memory, Sing has no objection to the bridge (though it didn't benefit Sing), and if preference had to be made, the straight bridge was it. And if the building had to commence soon, Sing would prefer such and such-&-such a date (month).
ReplyDeleteNo sand or airspace or anything was mentioned in Goh's letter.
No one believe the FM. That's why Mahathir has asked for the declassification of FM papers to prove what it claimed.
How apt this song:
ReplyDelete"You made a vow that you would ever be true
But somehow that vow meant nothing to you
Now my broken heart aches
With every wave that breaks
Over love letters in the sand
No denying that both Singapore and Malaysia made vows before departing from each other. Both to defend each other's sovereignity in times of need. Only problem that Tunku's legacy had been warped due to the greed of the leaders of both countries. To this end, the citizens of both countries are hurling rhetorics at each other and suspicious of their motives.
Fact 1: Singapore needs airspace to allow her jets to take off. Since she has not much airspace, the jets need to overfly Johor and make a turn to neutral skies.
Fact 2: She has been buying sand before year 2000 and want Tun M. to allow the import which he had stopped.
Fact 3: In all negotiations and discussions officially recorded or otherwise, these 2 are on Singapore's agenda.
Sand and water Malaysia has got plenty of which they do not need. I qualify that by saying, the water that drains off to the sea and of no use to Malaysia. But let us not go further than this for it leads us nowhere.
The mindless attacks against each other do not solve the problems of both nations. Both have tyrants milking their citizens whilst we the ordinary citizens are going hammer and tongs. To what ends? To what purpose? What drives you?
You have made contributions to your fellow men and also many of your compatriots. Take a back seat and look further. Singaporeans too are doing similar albeit somewhat more muted because the government has made it very difficult. Exposes are being done right now and a few has already started. Let me pass you a link and see what is at stake:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/REFORMASI/FDACCOUNTS.html
Whether it helps or otherwise you decide.
Regards
Ktemoc, why are you so jealous of Singapore. As a Chinese don't you think you should be proud of the Chinese in Singapore who has proven to be better at most things compared to Malaysia. Are you even Chinese?
ReplyDeleteJealous of Singapore? How?
ReplyDeleteMy ancestors were Chinese thus I may be classified as a Chinese by ethnicity, but I am Malaysian by birth and nationality. Incidentally, my sister is married to a Singaporean.
But Singaporeans are Singaporeans, and Malaysians are Malaysians.
The government of Malaysia only treats the Chinese in Malaysia as a matter of economic convenience. You are not a Malaysian ktemoc, you are just an economic tool. That's is the real reason some Singaporean Chinese look down on the so-called Malaysian Chinese. Don't be so stuck on your misplaced ideals, it's sickening.
ReplyDelete