TDM disabotaj??? YAU MOU GAU....CHOR!!!!

Galeri telah dikemaskini : - http://www.generasi-m.com/today/board/viewtopic.php?t=24

Berita selanjutnya akan kami berikan secepat mungkin.

Tun Dr Mahathir berada dalam keadaan sihat dan sedang bersedia untuk menghadiri program di Hotel Perdana.

Terima kasih kepada semua yang telefon/sms kami selepas mengetahui tentang kejadian SABOTAJ ini.

The star

Dr M: I did not direct Tajuddin to buy MAS

KUALA LUMPUR: Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has denied he had instructed former MAS chairman Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli to buy shares in the national carrier shares to bail out Bank Negara.

“I don’t remember instructing him to buy the shares,” he said.

He said it was former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin, who had told him that Tajuddin was interested in MAS shares.


“We were privatising everything at that time. When he wanted to buy the shares, we told him we wanted cash,” he added.

He said Tajuddin had earlier proposed to the Government to buy MAS shares through the exchange of Celcom and Naluri shares. Dr Mahathir said he did not agree with this proposal.

“I said if he had no money, we were not willing to sell him the shares,” the former prime minister said, adding that Tajuddin borrowed RM1.8bil to pay for the MAS shares.

Dr Mahathir was commenting on Tajuddin’s claim that he was asked by the Government to acquire a 32% stake in MAS in 1994.

Tajuddin had made this claim in his counter suit filed on June 29 against the Government and 24 other parties over his purchase of MAS shares.

This followed the suit by Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd and its subsidiaries, Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd and Danaharta Managers Sdn Bhd, against Tajuddin, filed on May 11 seeking RM589mil as the balance of a RM1.79bil loan given to him in 1994 to buy MAS shares.

“I did not force him to buy MAS shares. I never asked him to do national service,” Dr Mahathir said after launching a book entitled The Chinese Maaysian Contribution, which featured the accounts of Chinese migrants in the then Malaya, and how they contributed to the building of the country.

Tajuddin had claimed that MAS shares were sold to him in the midst of Bank Negara losses in foreign exchange as a result of speculation in the international currency market.

Said Dr Mahathir: “At that time the Government was not short of money.

“We had the money in Bank Negara, and knew how to recover the losses. We had RM50bil in our reserves then. We did not need his money.”

He said he did not know how Tajuddin had concluded that he asked him to buy the shares.

Interview with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
Media Player Real Player

Government relaxes ruling on MyKad

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysians can now carry a photocopy of their MyKad for initial identification purposes.

Deputy Home Affairs Minister Datuk Tan Chai Ho said this was an option for those who feared losing the document or being stolen, especially by snatch thieves.

“But make sure your immediate family members know where your MyKad is kept so that they can bring it to the concerned authority if you are detained or stopped when using the photocopy document.”

“As long as you can produce your MyKad in a reasonable amount of time, no action will be taken,” he added yesterday.

However, he warned that stern action would be taken against those who could not produce their MyKad later and those who did not have any form of document to prove their identity when stopped by the authorities.

Tan said a circular allowing the flexibility in the use of Mykad photocopies for initial identification would be sent to the police, Rela and other authorities soon.

In Taiping on Saturday, Tan said Malaysians who lost their

MyKad would have to dig deeper into their pockets for replacements starting next month.

He said the Cabinet had endorsed the ministry’s proposal for the National Registration Department to impose a fine of RM100 for the first replacement instead of the minimal RM10 fine imposed now.

He said that if MyKad holders lost the document for the second and third time, they would be fined RM200 and RM300 respectively and the fine would increase progressively by another RM100 for the fourth replacement and beyond.

“We have to gazette the matter first and after the process, it may be implemented by the end of August,” he told reporters after opening the new Hokkien Association building in Bagan Serai on Saturday night where a dinner was held to mark the occasion.

Responding to a question, Tan said the present ruling did not compel those who lose their MyKad to lodge a police report before they could get a replacement.

“They can get a replacement without lodging a police report but it is better for them to lodge a police report so as not to be subject to liabilities,” he said.

He said there were instances where lost MyKads were used to acquire loans to purchase a car or used to get bank loans.

“I encourage the people to lodge police reports when they lose their MyKads for self-protection and to prevent abuse,” he added.

On the maximum fine of RM20,000 and three years’ jail for not carrying MyKad, Tan said this was necessary to check on the presence of illegal immigrants.

“An Indonesian may not only look like a local Malay but also speak like one while a Chinese national may look and even speak like a local Chinese but MyKad can differentiate whether they are Malaysian or otherwise,” added Tan.

WHAT happened to MyKad’s promise of a "one card for all"?

Touted as the answer to every Malaysian’s documentation woes during its launch in 2001, it promised to incorporate the traditional identification card with banking, passport, driving licence and other facilities into one neat, little package.

A novel idea, it promised convenience, efficiency and security for applications among the Government, banking institutions and private businesses.

However, five years on, problems have cropped up.

It appears that hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who have incorporated details of their driving licences into their MyKads have been unable to renew their licences at the National Registration Department (NRD) and Pos Malaysia offices. A person can only renew his or her licence, which has been incorporated into MyKad, at the Road Transport Department (RTD).

To compound matters, apart from not being able to renew their licences at the NRD or post offices, they must also bring along their old licences, failing which, they will be fined RM20, on top of the renewal fee.

This has left those who have placed their trust in the MyKad system and are no longer in possession of their old licences, in a quandary.

The problem was brought to The Malay Mail’s attention by a reader, who tried renewing his licence at the NRD.

He said, having incorporated details of his driving licence into his MyKad, he fully expected to be able to renew it at the NRD.

"I was told that I couldn’t and had to go to the RTD instead, where I would be given a separate licence. It appears that we’re back to square one as this is the procedure used before the MyKad was introduced.

"What is the point of adding details of my driving licence into MyKad if it is not the ‘one card for all’?" he asked.

Our checks with the NRD confirmed the claims. Its public relations officer, Jainisah Mohd Noor, clarified that the process can no longer be carried out at their offices.

"All transactions involving the RTD have been blocked at NRD offices. It wasn’t a problem earlier. I do not know how long this will continue. The RTD may be the best agency to contact on this matter," she said, declining to elaborate further.

When contacted, RTD director-general Datuk Emran Kadir admitted the problem, saying that it stemmed from an RTD pilot project in Seremban recently.

"The MyKad licence renewal service was previously only available in the Klang Valley. We were looking at widening the coverage of the services and used Seremban as a trial area," he said.

Emran said they experienced technical glitches during the trial period.

"As a result, any attempt to renew driving licences at the NRD will automatically interfere with our systems.

"We cannot risk any further disruptions until the problems are rectified. Until then, it’s on hold," he said.

He said MyKad users have to renew their licences at the RTD for the time being, but assured the public that the system will be operational soon. However, he could not say when normal operations will resume.

On Feb 17, The Malay Mail highlighted a similar complaint. The answer given by NRD was "The system at the RTD counter is not updated yet. However, the public will be able to renew their licences at RTD branches nationwide once this is done."

MM says: Let’s hope the problems are fixed soon. Or else we could see many people driving without valid licences.

Correspondence between Dr M and Singapore's ex-prime ministers

See also:
Letter 1
Letter 2
Letter 3
Letter 4

The government has made public the full contents of the correspondence between former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Singapore's former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong on the aborted bridge project to replace the Johor Causeway.

Copies of the four letters, of which two were signed by Dr Mahathir and the other two by Goh in 2002, were released via Bernama's website under the heading "Correspondence between Tun Dr Mahathir and former Singapore Prime Ministers."

The copies of the letter were released after the government had on July 14 declassified confidential documents to rebut Dr Mahathir's allegations over its April 12 decision to scrap the project.

This is only the second time in recent history that information protected by the Official Secrets Act 1972 has been declassified and approved for public consumption.

The move is to show the government's seriousness in wanting the people who voted it into power to have the full facts so they could understand why the government decided to abort the bridge project. It also put the record straight on a string of allegations raised by Dr Mahathir on the matter.

According to the correspondence between Tun Dr Mahathir and the former Singapore Prime Ministers, it was clear that Dr Mahathir had included the bridge project as part of the package of bilateral issues to be resolved with Singapore.

Herewith are extracts of the correspondence:

In the first letter dated March 4, 2002, Dr Mahathir replied to Lee's letter dated Dec 10, 2001.

The first letter lists out the "Malaysia-Singapore package of five issues under Malaysia's proposals".

The first issue is the 1961 Water Agreement, a proposed new water agreement, the new price of raw water, treated water and new price of treated water.

The second issue is that of the proposed new bridge to be built to replace the Causeway and also Malaysia's proposal to build a new railway bridge across the Johore strait. The third issue is the Cusoms, immigration and quarantine facilities in Tanjung Pagar, while the fourth is on the Central Provident Fund and the fifth on airspace to Singapore's air force.

According to the letter by Dr Mahathir dated March 4, 2002, he said: "A new bridge will be built to replace the Causeway, Malaysia will build the bridge on the Malaysian side at its own cost while Singapore will build the bridge on the Singapore side at its own cost. The bridge will connect at the common boundary in the Straits of Johore. Once the bridge is completed the Causeway will be demolished.

"Should Singapore decide not to build the bridge on its side, Malaysia intends to build the bridge on the Malaysian side at its own cost. The new bridge will join the remaining Causeway on Singapore's side. Once the bridge is completed, the Causeway on the Malaysian side will be demolished."

On airspace, the March 4, 2002 letter of Dr Mahathir states that: "Malaysia may consider providing appropriate facilities for the use of its airspace by the Singapore Air Force."

Goh's letter to Dr Mahathir on April 11, 2002 focussed on issues relating to the bridge, railway and water. Goh said he preferred a new bridge to replace the entire Causeway, rather than just to replace the Malaysian side of the Causeway.

"Once the new bridge is completed, the Causeway can be knocked down, which I prefer to be done after 2007. But if you wish to proceed immediately to replace just your side of the Causeway with a bridge, I shall accept it, though I think this is not ideal," Goh stated in the letter.

On the issue of water, Goh said he did not want the bilateral relations to be always strained by the issue of water. For the sake of good long-term relations, Goh said Singapore would produce as much water by itself, to supplement the existing water agreements.

Dr Mahathir, in his letter to Goh dated Oct 7, 2002, said the approach that both sides had adopted so far then in dealing with the outstanding issues in a package had not yielded any meaningful results.

"In view of this, Malaysia has now decided to discontinue the package approach and to give the highest priority to first resolving the long-delayed water issue, particularly the price review of raw water," Dr Mahathir stated in the letter.

He also said once this issue was resolved, both countries would be able to move forward much faster in finding solutions to other outstanding issues.

Goh, in his reply to Dr Mahathir dated Oct 14, 2002, said the latter had informed him during a meeting on Oct 8 in Putrajaya that the most important issue for Malaysia was water and if this was resolved, then all the other issues could be resolved.

Goh stated that Dr Mahathir had mentioned that Malaysia wanted to decouple the water issue from the other issues in the package. However, Goh replied that the issues were all tied up.

Goh seemed surprised by Dr Mahathir's letter on Oct 7, 2002 wherein the latter stated "Malaysia has now decided to discontinue the package approach and to give the highest priority to first resolving the long-delayed water issue, particularly the price review of raw water."

Goh also said both he and Dr Mahathir had agreed in 1998 that all outstanding issues between the two countries be solved once and for all, in a package. Both countries had agreed to trade off, in a package, the benefits to each other from the various items, namely water, airspace, CPF, and the bridge to replace the Causeway.

However, Goh said since Dr Mahathir had wanted to deal with the water issue separately and discontinue the package approach, "these trade-offs are no longer possible".

Goh stated that he had instructed his officials to deal with water and the other issues individually and separately, on their stand-alone merits, and no longer as a package.

See also:
Letter 1
Letter 2
Letter 3
Letter 4

What's the value of you A?

ARE examinations in Malaysia getting easier? Is this why more students are getting As?

Educationists hold varying views on the standard of today’s examinations but concur on one issue: Malaysia is producing rote-memorisers which could be behind the better results.

They agree that a different approach could result in more intelligent and creative students.

The New Sunday Times obtained copies of examination papers for English, History and Bahasa Melayu from 1980, 1986, 1996 and last year, and presented them to five educationists for their take on the issue of standards.

Most of the papers were from the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), which was introduced in 1964 but only held nationwide in 1987, and the Malaysian Certificate of Education, introduced in 1964 and taken over by the Examinations Syndicate in 1976.

Some were also shown other examination papers such as a Geography paper from 1973. After several days, they arrived at their verdicts.

And these were the words used commonly in their assessment of the current papers: Mechanical, less challenging, little creativity.

While all were reluctant to dismiss the present examination papers or A grade-achievers as being of lower standard, they said the current system did not encourage students to think out of the box. Neither did it prepare them for globalisation.

Some pointed out that questions in the papers from 1973 and 1980 had subjective questions which forced students to use their flair and rhythm for language.

It was also noted that papers in later years showed more attempts to engage students by using more cues, charts or pictures.

One thing was clear, though: None of them had anything bad to say about the Malaysian Examinations Syndicate. There was even praise for its integrity and professionalism over the years.

Educationist Prof Datuk Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid said the problem did not lie with the examination questions set by the MES "which is one of the best and strongest institutions". It lay in the philosophy of the examinations approach which was based more on the British model.

Others said the younger generation could be pushed and challenged further by scrapping objective and quantitative questions and replacing them with more open-ended ones. This would allow them to be more creative besides using their intelligence.

Historian Prof Khoo Kay Kim, who was against the objective question approach, said even the British were concerned that the standard of tests was less rigorous compared to the past.

"There seems to a trend all over the world not to fail so many people. If you make it a point to pass as many people as possible, in the end, what kind of students are your schools producing?"

"We are not giving them the opportunity to think about the subject and ask questions. That kind of education is worthless. They come to university and they stay the same. They expect notes from the lecturer and answer exactly how the lecturer asked them to answer. What is the point of having that kind of education?"

Almost all pointed to the importance of the curriculum and the quality of teaching.

Former Education Ministry Director-General Tan Sri Murad Mohd Nor, said it was important students enjoyed lessons and were not taught merely to "pass the exams".

OUR PANEL OF FIVE EXPERTS


Educationist and historian Prof Datuk Khoo Kay Kim
There is no scope for expression today.

Khoo felt that students of the past were often asked to write answers on their own so that they could express themselves, especially in the English language.

But this was replaced by a new system where answers were given and they had to chose one out of the four or five provided.

"You merely picked what you thought was the right answer," he said, adding that this did not help students express their individualism.

In the English paper, for example, he noted that a question asked students to write a letter based on notes provided.

"It is all given and you don’t have to organise yourself. They also say that when writing the letter, you should remember to lay out the letter correctly, which means paragraphing. We were never told all these things."

Khoo rues the day in the 1980s when objective-type questions were the order of the day. He qualifies his reservations by saying that objective questions were all right in countries where English was the mother tongue. But he felt students in other countries needed to learn how to express themselves and could only do so if questions were open-ended.

Even those answering Bahasa Malaysia papers could face problems if they were merely answering questions without being forced to think.

He also cited an example of the geography paper of 1973 which asked students to write answers based on their observations.

A question in the paper read: "Study carefully the map, an extract of Kuantan, and answer the following questions: Describe the physical features of the coastline shown on the map extract."

"The answer is not given and you would have to describe it on your own. But now it is ‘pick one out of four or five’."

In such a system, he said, there was a possibility students could tick the right answer by chance.

He said the approach was very quantitative at the moment which helped the scoring of maximum marks "which is very difficult if a qualitative approach is used".

Khoo feels the Education Ministry should test students more rigorously if it wanted to produce quality students.

"Students should be able to explain what they have studied. That is a major part of the proof that he understands what he is talking about. In the history papers I saw, almost every answer is given.

"And you also actually force a student to give a prescribed answer, because one of five is definitely correct, according to your view. But in the past, a student could give an answer which was completely different. Now, there is no chance to do so.

"In Paper Two, they are being questioned on the textbook, and if you do not know the textbook, you do not know what they are talking about."

He also takes issue with the fact that students are not asked to "discuss" issues.

"If you have memorised the book, you can pass."

Khoo feels the approach towards education is very mechanical and "constricting the mind and fencing up things for students".

If given his way, he would do away with objective questions altogether with the exception of Science and Mathematics.

"Today, none of the subjects offer any avenue for creativity. That’s the sad thing."

VERDICT

The examination papers are very mechanical, forcing students to think within the box.

"I think we should give pupils the opportunity to express themselves and encourage them to ask questions."

Government replies to allegations raised by Dr M

Dr Mahathir has raised several allegations on the Government’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 Malaysia’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 Malaysia’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 officials’ 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. Goh’s statement was not challenged by Dr Mahathir.

In fact, there was no reply to Goh’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. Singapore’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 Mahathir’s letter.



4. Allegation:That the Government’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 Singapore’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.



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-General’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.

Related Stories:
Setting the record straight
Government will not declassify all papers
At a glance

Aircraft makes emergency landing on highway

KUALA LUMPUR: It wasn't the usual jam-causing mishap that motorists saw at the Kuala Lumpur-Seremban Highway.

A light aircraft made an emergency landing on the highway and brought peak hour traffic to a standstill for over an hour.

Pilots Lee Chong Yen, 69, and Atan Akmar Masbah, in his 50s, escaped the crash landing on the road adjacent to the Sungei Besi Air Force without injuries.


Their CH-701 two-seater aircraft was, however, wrecked in the 3.30pm incident.

The yellow-coloured privately-owned aircraft was descending onto the runway when a strong gust of wind blew the 500kg single-prop aircraft onto the busy highway.

It hit a lamp post and landed on the road before coming to a screeching halt, according to a Royal Selangor Flying Club spokesman.

The spokesman said the Civil Defence Department and Royal Malaysian Air Force rescue team cleared the aircraft from the road with police assistance.


Traffic movement returned to normal about an hour later.

Setting the record straight

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 Malaysia’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 Singapore’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-General’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 Singapore’s quid pro quo proposal on sand and airspace as it would have compromised Malaysia’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.

Related Stories:
Government replies to allegations raised by Dr M
Government will not declassify all papers
At a glance

Caught on CCTV but still to be caught: Rape suspect identified

SHAH ALAM: This is the suspect in the rape of a 24-year-old stewardess at the Centrepoint shopping complex basement car park in Bandar Utama last month.

Selangor police have identified him as Tham Wye Keong, 27, also known as Simon, of Seremban.

His last known addresses are 406, Taman Bangawan, off Jalan Tun Dr Ismail and 190, Taman Makmur, Jalan Tun Dr Ismail, both in Seremban.

Selangor police deputy CID chief Assistant Commissioner Mohd Kamarudin Md Din said the image of the man was obtained from closed-circuit television footage taken in the car park on the night of the rape on June 12.

"We have learnt from those working there that the man is a regular customer in restaurants in the complex. We need the assistance of the public to help track him down," said Kamarudin.

He added the man was seen spending long hours alone having drinks in outlets within the complex three days before the incident.

In the 8.40pm incident, the man was caught on CCTV stalking the stewardess, who had gone to the complex to buy milk for her six-month-old infant. He was first seen walking down the stairs from the ground floor of the car park, where he shielded his face with a baseball cap and loitered for several minutes.

The woman drove in and as she left her car, the man was seen walking towards the vehicle, where he hid behind a pillar near the vehicle.


The 30-minute footage from four CCTVs showed the woman returning to the car and the man pushing her into it. He then took over the wheel and remained in the car for 10 minutes before driving it around the car park looking for an unmanned exit.

He then drove to a secluded spot and raped her a second time. Those who have seen the suspect are urged to call Superintendent Jamaluddin Ibrahim at 012-2073112 or 03-5514-5144/152/762 or ASP Naemah Mohd Sherrif at 012-6242092 or 03-5514-5355.

MyKad requirement 'outdated, too rigid'!!! YAU MOU GAU....CHOR!!!

PETALING JAYA: Malaysians in general agree that people should be punished for not having their MyKad with them, but feel that the maximum fine of RM20,000 or three years’ jail is too harsh.

MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong also suggested that those who forget to carry their MyKad be allowed to ask others to bring it to them.

Fomca secretary-general Mohd Sha’ani Abdullah feels that the requirement to have your MyKad with you at all times is outdated and too rigid.

He said the situation today was no longer like during the Emergency era, when people were required to carry identity cards because the authorities had to weed out communists.

Lawyer Jesvin Jessy, 29, said the fines were too high. “Even people who speed and kill others are not given such a heavy fine,” she said when interviewed by The Star.

Her friend D. Dhena, 36, a business development executive, said a points system should be implemented whereby a person would be penalised after he or she repeated the offence.

Marketing executive Corinne Chieng, 25, said a penalty was good since it was part of the laws of the country.

“But the Government should not impose such a heavy fine if a person loses the card,” she said, adding that children, teenagers and the elderly should be given lighter penalties.

A manager who only wanted to be known as Raja said the penalty was ridiculous and unfair, especially when people forget to bring the card.

“People should be allowed to carry photocopies of their MyKad. A driving licence should also be enough to verify your identity,” he said.

Technical support engineer Noor Rasyada, 23, said she felt it was not safe to have her MyKad with her everywhere. “But the law needs to be obeyed,” she added.

A clerk said the fine for not having a MyKad should be between RM100 and RM200.

“Certainly, there should not be a jail sentence,” he added.

Ipoh Timur MCA deputy chairman Thong Fah Chong suggested that instead of fines and jail sentences, citizens should be given the chance to produce their MyKad at a later date.

“Perhaps, the authorities could give them a 48-hour notice, while accepting photostat copies of the MyKad for the time being,” he said, adding that some elderly citizens feared losing their cards, so they leave them at home.

Thong urged the authorities to channel their energy elsewhere instead of on petty problems such as this.

“Do something about the illegal immigrants in the country. Stop threatening innocent citizens and frightening tourists. This is not a ‘police state’,” he said.

Meanwhile, Michael Chong said the authorities should give time for family members of those caught without their MyKad to produce their cards.

He said those caught without the card should be taken to the nearest police station to wait for their family members to show the card.

“The authorities are going too far if they fine or take those who leave their MyKad at home to court. They should not waste the court’s time,” he said.

He said the National Registration Department should consider certifying photocopies of MyKad for students.

“We should realise that some students are very careless. Their parents will have to go through the hassle of reapplying for the MyKad for them,” he said.

However, he said, he had not received any complaint from people being fined or jailed for not carrying their MyKad.

Mohd Sha’ani said that even the lowest fine of RM3,000 was too much, adding that people should be allowed to carry other documents to prove their identity, such as their driving licence.

“Malaysia is now a safe country. We shouldn’t be so rigid like during the Emergency. You can educate people to carry their MyKad at all times, but it depends on the situation. If a person goes jogging in the park, need he have his MyKad with him?

“Those caught without MyKad during operations should be allowed to retrieve them from home,” he said.

Related Stories:
About 43% don’t carry MyKad

IS PARLIAMENT a place where laws are made or, as recent events have demonstrated, an avenue for its disgruntled members to air their personal grouses?

MPs must serve the people, not air personal grouses

IS PARLIAMENT a place where laws are made or, as recent events have demonstrated, an avenue for its disgruntled members to air their personal grouses?

What was Datuk Mohd Said Yusof thinking of when he met reporters at the Parliament House lobby on Tuesday? That there was malpractice in the Customs Department, all because he could not buy a seized Mercedes-Benz?

The Jasin MP, who has an ongoing feud with the department, has somehow diminished the stature of the august House. Surely there are other avenues for him to seek recourse when he was told that he could not buy the Mercedes-Benz that he was eyeing.

Although it was not quite clear what Mohd Said’s thoughts were when he told reporters he could not get the “luxury car” that he wanted, one thing’s for certain – voters in the parliamentary constituency of Jasin in Malacca expect more than that from their elected representative.

Certainly the voters would want him to concentrate on more serious issues, such as improving their livelihood and attending to their basic needs. Instead, the people of Jasin had their representative complaining that he could not get his Merc.

If Mohd Said is not careful from now on, he will only become a liability to the ruling coalition and provide an avenue for the opposition to continue criticising the Government.

It would be good for Mohd Said, and for other elected representatives, to remember that when they were elected to the House, they had promised to make life better for their constituents.

The election is a contract between two parties. The voters gave their support in the hope that those they had backed would bring up issues affecting them. Voters want a better life and, most certainly, would not care if their elected representative had been denied the chance to buy a seized luxury car.

The MPs’ behaviour in the House would also reflect on the government of the day. When Prime Minister and Barisan Nasional chairman Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi chose the candidates for the last general election, he did not anticipate this.

As MPs, Abdullah would expect them to spearhead his efforts to bring prosperity to the people and to make the nation a better place for all.

Abdullah would also expect representatives of the ruling coalition to set a good example to the people who voted them in, not what Mohd Said had done.

All his previous allegations against the Customs have been answered. Even this most recent one has been clarified by Customs director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Abdul Hamid.

As for the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity, would it be a wise move on its part to call up Abdul Rahman to reply to unsubstantiated allegations made by Mohd Said?

The committee should remember that Mohd Said, until now, has not provided compelling evidence to back his allegations. Most of his allegations were made in Parliament, where he has immunity.

All he claimed was that he had evidence of Customs' malpractices. Perhaps the committee, before asking Abdul Rahman, should ask Mohd Said to furnish evidence.

Should the committee proceed with asking Abdul Rahman to explain before evidence was presented, it (the committee) would have endorsed Mohd Said’s allegations against the department – sans evidence.

The Parliament is a place where serious business is conducted. Qualified privileges apart, its members should not abuse these privileges to air petty complaints.

As for Mohd Said, he should take a breather and reflect on what it really means to be a Yang Berhormat. He is there to serve the people, not whine when he could not buy a seized car.

Another thing Mohd Said should take heed of: the offer made to him by Customs is not a right to buy – it is a privilege.

Related Stories:
MPs: No such privilege
Customs: Mohd Said can make fresh bid for a Merc
Reps have same perks as top government officers

Banks paying firms RM35 per trip to move millions of ringgit??? YAU MOU GAU....CHOR!!

KUALA LUMPUR: If you are transferring RM5mil across the city, how much are you willing to pay for security guards?

According to the Security Services Association of Malaysia, some banks are not keen to pay more than RM35 per trip.

“The RM35 includes the services of two armed guards, two escorts and a driver, for a trip within a 20km radius in the city,” association president Zainal Abidin Kinta added.

“It’s sad that banks are paying such a meagre amount when they are supposed to be safeguarding people’s money.”

It also covered the use of an armoured vehicle and fuel costs, he told reporters here yesterday.

The SSAM brought up the matter at a recent meeting with the Association of Banks Malaysia.

To clinch jobs, some security firms resorted to undercutting, and not following regulations under the Private Agency Act.

SSAM deputy president Shaheen Mirza Habib added that insurance companies had also increased the premium on security services in view of the spate of security van robberies.

The Association of Banks Malaysia executive director Wong Suan Lye said rates paid by banks for security van services were contracted between the two parties, and the amount was based on market rates.

“The rates are agreed upon by both the security company and the bank, and it is not meant to compromise the level of service provided by the security company,” she added.

Costly to dismantle billboards??? YAU MOU GAU...CHOR!!!

SHAH ALAM: There are too many billboards in Petaling Jaya, but taking down the illegal ones would cost too much money, according to Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamed Khir Toyo.

Acknowledging that these billboards had turned into eyesores, he blamed the authorities for failing to nip the problem in the bud.

The mess was a result of lack of supervision, he told reporters after the state assembly sitting here yesterday.

“I do not want Petaling Jaya to be congested with billboards. I do not even like to see flyers on lampposts,” said Dr Khir.

“This is the kind of serabut (mess) that happens when there is no proper supervision from the beginning when the problem started,” he added.

In Petaling Jaya, residents interviewed on the issue were supportive of Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, who asked the MBPJ to give him answers to the proliferation of billboards in the city.

Section 10 Residents’ Association vice-president Ronnie Danker: “It is sad that the Sultan himself has to make such an executive order.

All PJ Pro Action Committee (APPAC) pro tem chairman Edward Lee: “We appreciate the Sultan’s kind gesture and interest in this matter.”

Petaling Jaya Selatan Residents Society president Mohd Umar Mohd Peer:

“We want to know that our money is being well spent.”

Section 19 Residents Association chairman Tan Yew Loong: “Problems can easily be avoided if the council follows due process.”

Damansara Utama assemblyman Datuk C.K. Lim: “The Sultan’s involvement shows his concern for his rakyat.”

Kampung Tunku assemblyman Datuk Dr Wong Sai Hou: “The Sultan is concerned about the image of the city and wants it to start on a correct footing.”

Petaling Jaya Utara MP Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun: “I have personally stopped the construction of a billboard in front of my office and another near the Damansara-Puchong highway.”

Kelana Jaya assemblyman Loh Seng Kok said: “As ruler, the Sultan is concerned about the welfare and image of the state, and it is his right to ensure that whoever works for the state must take care of its image, too.”

Transparency International Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam: “We are gratified that the Sultan himself offered to step in and insist on a higher standard of transparency.''

In Putrajaya, city services director Ghani Ahmad said Putrajaya Corporation’s enforcement officers move swiftly to remove any illegal signage or billboard.

“Under the master plan drawn up by our department, billboards for advertisements and messages, particularly from the Government to the people, are allowed only at designated locations.

Sepang Municipal Council public relations officer Zelda Mohd Zamri said no billboards were allowed in Cyberjaya, the country’s information technology hub.

In Ipoh, the city council takes down illegal ones immediately, according to Datuk Bandar Datuk Hasan Nawawi Abd Rahman.

In Penang, the Penang Ratepayers Association accused the authorities of closing one eye to the hazards posed by billboards.

“The problem in Penang is as chronic as in Selangor. We hope Yang di-Pertua Negri Tun Abdul Rahman Abbas will also state his displeasure,” said association president Datuk Eddy Choong.

Consumers Association of Penang president S.M. Mohamed Idris said CAP had highlighted for many years that billboards posed a danger to road users because they were designed to distract.