Friday, March 07, 2014

Kniasu-ness of Water Uptight Agreement?

Lately we have had water issues, wakakaka.

You have read of my WATERtight MoU, wakakaka. So now you're most welcome to read about the WATER uptight Agreement, wakakaka.

Malay Mail Online - Malaysia forfeited right to review water price, says Singapore minister

K Shanmugan

Waytha, eat your heart out, wakakaka

SINGAPORE, March 6 — When Malaysia decided not to review the water price under the Water Agreement in 1987, it has lost its right to review the price, says Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs K. Shanmugam.

“Singapore’s position is that Malaysia has lost its right to review the water price. The Water Agreement provided for the review after 25 years. Specifically, there was a right to review the price of water jointly in 1987. However, Malaysia consciously chose not to review the price. It had good reasons for this,” he said this in reply to a Parliamentary question today. [...]

Shanmugam said that had Malaysia exercised the right to review the water price in 1987, Singapore might then have made different investment decisions to develop the Johor River, for instance the Linggiu Dam project of 1990.

In the event, he said Malaysia chose not to review the water price in 1987, and on that basis, Singapore then took several action, which also benefitted Malaysia. 

Malaysian water, Sing glass, wakakaka

He said this included building the Linggiu Dam at a cost of over S$300 million (RM773 million), which increased the yield of the Johor River and enabled both Johor and Singapore to draw water from it during the dry season.

Indeed, neither party can unilaterally change any of the terms of the 1962 Water Agreement.

Shanmugam said Malaysia benefitted greatly from the current pricing arrangement.

Guess who was the PM in 1987?

Wakakaka, yes it was HIM, the guy who always had issues with Singapore over the price of the water supplied by Malaysia to Singapore!

f**k you all ingrates

However, I do have some doubts as to which Malaysian government has oversight and say over the contract with Sing - was/is it the federal government or the Johor state government?

If it has been the former then his remaining silent about revising the price in 1987 would be indicting of him.

But if it has been the Johor state government why then didn't he, not only PM of Malaysia but also as President of UMNO, advise or even instruct the UMNO-led state government to review and revise the water price as per the water agreement?


Now this is the interesting part. 

In 2003 Dr Mahathir stated: "Of course, we have to raise our price and this is within our agreement. The agreement says that after 25 years we can revise the price of water but no timeline was given.

"If it (agreement) says that as soon as you reach 25 years, you must immediately revise, that is a different matter but that was not what was in the agreement."

If this is true then Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs K. Shanmugam has not been correct in saying "When Malaysia decided not to review the water price under the Water Agreement in 1987, it has lost its right to review the price."

The fundamental disagreement is this: the Sing said Malaysia must revise the price in 1987 (and not later) or lose that right. OTOH, Dr Mahathir asserted that the agreement says Malaysia can revise the price after 25 years of the agreement (signed in 1962) which was 1987 but the agreement doesn't say it must be done there and then in 1987, meaning the revision could be done much later, after 1987.

However, Shanmugam had argued that Singapore's investment in the Linggiu Dam in Johor had been based on Malaysia not taking up its rights to revise the water price in 1987 or Sing would then not have invested in the dam.

Oh I see, wakakaka. Perhaps the Malaysian side had wanted Sing to invest in the dam so had kept quiet about the price revision, and subsequent to that, said: oops-a-daisy, we forgot about it, we actually wanted a price revision  - wakakaka.

Linggui Reservoir

Now, deciding who's right will have to be the province of contractual lawyers, that is, assuming the current Malaysian government even wants to take up the issue, wakakaka.

Just as a matter of interest, Clause 17 of the 1961 Agreement and Clause 14 of the 1962 Agreement state clearly: "The provisions of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the foregoing clause of these presents shall be subject to review after the expiry of 25 years from the date of these presents ..." 

Twenty-five years after 1961 and 1962 respectively means any time after 1986 and 1987 respectively. 

But again, does this mean the review must take place immediately on these two dates, and not subsequent to those two dates?

I am afraid, as mentioned, we have to let the lawyers look into the agreements, assuming the Najib Administration even wants to consider Dr Mahathir's 10-year old argument, wakakaka.

Am I just being a batu api, making Dr Mahathir madder at Najib with my above insinuations? Wakakaka.


However, Dr Mahathir was right on one point in 2003 when he mentioned that Singaporean (former) Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar’s allegation of the dispute over the water pricing problem being not a question of the price per se but a question of Singapore's sovereignty, had only been Jayajumar’s invention. 

Bernama had then quoted Dr Mahathir as saying that: Jayakumar must know of course, that it was Malaysia who gave Singapore the status of a sovereign nation.

Before this, Singapore was just a part of Malaysia and there was no reason why Malaysia should undermine the republic's sovereignty, he said, adding that in any case it is absurd to suggest sovereignty was a function of the price of water.

He said: "We sell water to them all these years even at a time when they were a British colony when no question of sovereignty arose. Now they are trying to link it to sovereignty by saying that the price of water is not important."

Personally I think Singapore has been not only unfair but a wee kniasu by insisting on paying only 3 sen per 1000 litres of Malaysian water, a price based on an agreement more than 50 years old.

Kniasu is pronounced with a nasal sound, hence
there should be a 'n' in the word
hey looes74, those Sings (your people) can't spell for nuts lah


And indeed the word kniasu was used by Dr Mahathir himself who had then accused Singapore of having a kiasu attitude whereby it was afraid to lose. He said:"They have never lost. They have this kiasu attitude, afraid to lose. So, when they lose, they don't know how to react. We cannot play a part in this game of theirs."

Wakakaka, how I love this word kniasu. I've also heard our Muslim poster boy Ridhuan Tee accusing a milkmaid of being not only kniasu but get this, ULTRA KNIASU, which I believe has been spot on, wakakaka.

but stale milk can still be drank, what!!

No no no, I haven't read anything about Waytha recently asking
the Indians to vote against BN (I don't sell fresh milk mah)
other than his earlier pro-BN condemnations of those DAPsters,
(oh how I so hate that Hannah for being better looking than me)



  1. Singaporeans are good,very very good at milking the cash cow.Doing it right,the legal way.

  2. Sendirian Berhad9:14 am, March 07, 2014

    I'm not a practicing lawyer, but I have legal training and the organisation I work for is a holding company with many legal contracts with various tenants. So I'm very familiar with contract law, but international law will add additional complexity which I'm not familiar with.

    Will need to read the Water agreement in detail for all the fine print.

    If a contract says , for example, owner has a right to review the payment rate every year, if the owner choses not to review or keeps the rate one of the years, it does not in any way nullify the owner's right to review the rate in future.

    However, Natural justice also asserts that the owner cannot arbitrarily raise rates any time it wants. So if the owner does not raise the payment rate at one year end review, it cannot then suddenly raise the rate 4 months later, unless there is some other side agreement. In this case , the next review period is the end of the NEXT year, unless some supplementary agreement says " I'm not raising the payment rate now, but we will review the situation in 4 months time" ,

    Based on what you posted (the full agreement may say something elsewhere) the agreement has a 1-time review period at 25 years i.e. 1987. That's it. No more until expiry.

    Unless the Malaysian Government stated clearly at the time e.g. - we're not raising rates for now, but we reserve the right to review it in another 25 years ie. 2012.
    We missed that one too....

    Good Commercial contracts (and International treaties as well) protect the rights of both parties, transparent actions and prevents any one party from exercising one-sided surprises.

    As the Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Putih is gone forever) case shows, the Malaysian government is not smart in anticipating and dealing in high-stakes international relation. Too many passive "Saya Menurut perintah" types even in the highest levels of government.

    1. in the Pedra Branca case, it has been alleged the Sings had help from a Malaysian mole, wakakaka

    2. The incompetent & moneyed legal vultures is not a M'sian mole1

      It's pure treason, an for personal gain & yet nothing is done about it - just bcoz mamak had given him an amnesty for life, for his role in manmanlai's 1st sotong-mee charge.

      With people like that, running a 'supposedly independent' constitutional entity, u DONT need mole to sell out M'sia.

      He did that bcoz he did know he couldnt win (with his talent). So might as well made some money quietly by selling out. Win-win mah!!!!!

    3. Kaytee,
      That Malaysian mole happened to be Johor State Secretary? Listen to what Dr Jeyakumar, the then law minister got to say

      1953 letter says it all. "Johor does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca".

      I rest my case, my Lord.

  3. an hnea,
    singapore - knia su (ks)
    malaysia - syiok sendiri (ss)

    both have the letter 's', which means adik-abang leh!

  4. Now, who is not reading the history correctly? Or more likely, propagating chain whispering tale of self-indulgence!

    Hear this – the water supply issue between the red-dot & bolihland IS/WAS a question of Singapore's sovereignty right at the start of her birth.

    Right from the beginning of the separation of the two states in 65, M’sia ALWAYS has that hidden agenda of S’pore crawling, amid pleadingly, back to the Federation, due to her lack of NATURAL resources within a small island.

    This FACT was made abundantly clear in both the memos of Tunku & LKY.

    So, if water isn’t a natural resource that M’sia still has some control over S’pore, what else r? Human resources? Wakakaka – tell that to those millions of M’sian migrant workers in reddot lah!

    In fact, if only KT is so much into the relationship between S’pore & M’sia, he SHOULD have taken note of what Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs K. Shanmugam mentioned VERY RECENTLY in his speech about comparing S’pore’s geo-political situation to the current showing of Russia’s presence in Crimea, Ukraine!

    BTW, S'pore is currently 50%+ self-sufficient in water supply. It's envisaged that their 2020 vision of 100% water self-sufficiency CAN be achieved, if not earlier.

    WRT the revising of the water unit selling price in 1987, I’m more inclined to the fact that the Singie has it right about revise-or-forever-hold-yr-piece clause, knowing their sharp-mindedness in legal agreement interpretation &/or documentation.

    I don’t give a chance for M’sia to win this case in The International Court of Justice (ICJ), especially with the current crop of vainglorious & incompetent legal vultures within the govt structure. It would be another Pulau Batu Putih case re-enacted if M'sia try to raise it at ICJ.

    Perhaps, this is precisely the reason why Mamak refused to take the case to ICJ – lousy legal ‘experts + iron-clapped clauses - during the heat of the argument. All he did was just SHOUT to syok-sendiri & his ketuanan supporters about option in revising the water rate after 87.

    Back to the unit price – it’s indeed not about price but the principle of an agreement. If u had an agreement, then stick to it. THIS IS KNOWN AS THE SANCTITY OF LAW, governing signed documentation. Don’t cry father-mother after u signed & then forfeit the chance to revise, cried some more, just to show yr jantang-ness!

    Worst still, it could be playing another Hatyai Peace Treaty between the Malaysian government & CPM, brokered & witnessed by the Thai government. Totally disgraceful for a sovereign state to renegade on her signed intention! A pariah country?

    As far as kniasu by the S’pore in this case, I wouldnt give KT a silver of support.

    Mamak’s word is factually(partially) ept – They have never lost. They have this kiasu attitude, afraid to lose. So, when they lose, they don't know how to react. We cannot play a part in this game of theirs.

    However, in this case, the THEY referred to, r the people like mamak & KT alikes!

    1. you're either a Sing or a Sing acolyte (like looes), wakakaka

    2. Is that Ad Hominem trick or u got nothing better to say after been ketuk kau-kau about yr chain-whispering?

      Matter of fact, I'm more M'sian than u, in thought & deed.

      I'm in M;sia & paying tons of tax to feed the ketuanan blur-sotongs, while u r DU, shaking leg, writing inconsequential & yet provokating topics that suit yr silo views! Along the way, sprung some manmanlai grandmother twists to satisfy yr AI bashing.

    3. Re your "WRT the revising of the water unit selling price in 1987, I’m more inclined to the fact that the Singie has it right about revise-or-forever-hold-yr-piece clause, knowing their sharp-mindedness in legal agreement interpretation &/or documentation." hasn't that assumption been a bit of hero-worship? That makes you an acolyte wakakaka.

      For a malaysian, one as you claimed more than kaytee, you hate your own countrymen

    4. Yes, I hate my own countrymen - those typified by umno elites, perkasa, vainglorious jerks, Natos, blur-sotongs (the 1st & 2nd types), in that order.

      Just so that u wont accused me of be a racist - vainglorious jerks, Natos & blur-sotongs encompass all M'sians under the sun.

      WRT the Singie acolyte part, using yr line of argument, u clearly DONT know FACTS & hero-worship (even a bit).

      What I had stated is FACTS, not assumption. U r refusing to see the truth & act up EXACTLY as I put in in the previous last paragraph!

      FYR - As far as kniasu by the S’pore in this case, I wouldnt give KT a silver of support.

      Mamak’s word is factually(partially) ept – They have never lost. They have this kiasu attitude, afraid to lose. So, when they lose, they don't know how to react. We cannot play a part in this game of theirs.

      However, in this case, the THEY referred to, r the people like mamak & KT alikes!

      Sigh.......U have never been a big picture man, now it REALLY deteriorates to this? Hope it's not a small-mind-for-small-man symptom!

    5. didn't you say "I’m more inclined ...". If you did, then what does that imply for you and your state of mind vis--vis things Sing?

    6. LOFLOU (if u know what it means!!!!)

      My state of mind vis--vis things Sing - THEN why did I wrote Singie????

      Know the difference between S'pore/Sing & Singie???

      Perhaps someone neutral SHOULD enlighten u!

  5. Kiasu,well ask Manmanlai whether he is kiasu.Maybe not kiasu because he might not be the next candidate from PR.

  6. I'm a great admirer of Singapore....wakakaka....
    From just another state in Malaysia to one of the world's highest income levels...within 1 lifetime....

    Sometimes I wished Malaysia could achieve just 1/2 of that...then I hear Najib's speeches and Perkasa's racist rantings (fully immune)....then I just say...forget it...

  7. This morning my Singaporean contact was laughing uncontrollably over the phone , I asked him why , and he sent me this link....

    Ultraman book (and Doraemon as well) banned for 'undermining public order'....

    I don't think we can stop these Sings and the Sing acolytes sneering at Malaysia and Malaysians anytime soon......

    1. U think only the Singies r laughing at us?

      I have emails & FB contacts asking about how truth this banning of Ultraman from all corners of the globe.

      The best is a picture showing a M'sian orang utang swinging from tree to tree with the back-drop of KL twin tower.

      Blame others for sneering at US?

      I guess, we should cover up all the mirrors in the house, for allowing the reputation of the country to reach this stage of evolution.

    2. Well...........This is what singaporean says about najib....

      This is beri good sketch on how singaporeans talk hokkien

      This is lagi best......One melaka lang started all this

      Just to let you know who this melaka lang is.....

  8. PKR will break up in the very near future
    - Anuwar convicted of Sodomy
    - Anuwar emasculated by weak win in Kajang
    - Selangor MB crisis coming up, since Khalid will not resign
    - Azmin grab for top position

    Let BN rule again in Selangor !

    1. Yum yum....tiga billion woh....the warlords rubbing their hands in glee, saliva a-dripping & a-drooling in anticipation of easy money in pockets....bigger mansions, more younger wives and mistresses, exotic holiday vacations, retiring in style....alamak, almost getting orgasm thinking of all the moolah dropping on the lap when BN rules again...hip hip hooray.

  9. This is great news.

    Malaysia may finally have a chance to move forward again without the toxic politics of Deformasi.

  10. Move forward to where? All roads lead to bigotry and oppression. Without AI who can gather the Rakyat for uprising? looks more like Mandela version Malaysia..