The government has declassified several relevant documents and extracts to explain to the public why it had decided to scrap the bridge project to replace the Johor causeway.

A statement issued by the Prime Minister's Department today stated that by declassifying the documents, the government has "put the record straight on a string of allegations raised by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad".

These are:

  • 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.

  • Malaysia put the issue of selling sand and allowing the Republic of Singapore Airforce to use its air space on the negotiating table.

    • In the package of documents released are correspondences between Mahathir and two of Singapore's former premiers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.

    Also made public are extracts of the record of the meeting between Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Goh in Kuala Lumpur in March 2005.

    "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," said the statement.

    Three key facts

    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.

    "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 Mahathir's letter to (then) senior minister (now Mentor Minister) Lee Kuan Yew on March 4, 2002. This same issue was raised by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong during a meeting with Abdullah on March 1, 2005. This fact nullifies the suggestion by Mahathir that it was the present administration that offered RSAF jets use of Malaysian airspace."

  • The sale of sand to Singapore was raised by the republic during a meeting between Abdullah and Goh - who was then prime minister - on March 1, 2005.

    • "This nullifies argument that the government put the issue on sand on the negotiating table," read the statement.

  • 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 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 which the ownership vests with the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore.

    According to the statement, the AG 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 half bridge."

    The 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements are guaranteed under the 1965 Separation Agreement. The water pipelines located inside the Johor Causeway is governed by the 1961 Johor Singapore Water Agreement.

    Therefore, the provisions of the Wayleave Agreements which is applicable to the water pipelines straddling along the Johor Causeway is 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," read the statement.

    Simple fact

    In conclusion, the statement noted that the issue boiled down to one simple fact - "Malaysia wanted the bridge, and Singapore did not want it."

    It said the full straight bridge that was proposed by Malaysia would have been a symbol of friendship and would have benefitted both countries. Nevertheless, the responsibility for achieving this aim does not lie with Malaysia only.

    The statement also noted that this was only the second time in recent history that information protected by the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972 has been declassified and approved for public consumption.

    "(This is) 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," it said.

    Mahathir, who is currently on vacation abroad until July 20, has criticised the government for scrapping the bridge project, for allegedly failing protect the nation's sovereignty and using the OSA to 'hide untruths'.

    He has also questioned the current administration over the decisions pertaining to national car manufacturer Proton and the discrepancies in the issuance of Approved Permits.

    Although claiming that his criticisms were not personal, Mahathir had on one occasion wondered aloud if he had made the wrong choice in naming Abdullah as his successor.

    Mahathir had always maintained that Abdullah was surrounded by bad advisers, which observers believe was directed at the premier's son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin.

    Meanwhile, New Straits Times uploaded a report on the statement this morning on its website before it was released by Najib. The report was later taken down.

    Speculation is rife that the newspaper was able to get its hand on the statement before anyone else was because its editors were involved in the drafting of the statement.