PRESENT POINT POWER

Read on below the detailed explanation by Chartered Civil Engineer Y Y KOON on
the Technical hitches that "sink" the crooked scenic bridge

Please support Malaysiakini by subscribing for as low as RM10 for 20 days / RM15 per month to RM150 per year.
Details at http://www.malaysiakini.com/register/manage4me/
_________________________________________

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/55117

Q&A: Mahathir 'must get what he wants' ; Beh Lih Yi Aug 9, 06 2:40pm

In this first of a three-part interview, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah shares his views on the current spat between Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Malaysiakini: You have said that Abdullah should meet with Mahathir, but in fact they did meet in Tokyo recently.

Razaleigh: That's just a call on him. I don't think he (Abdullah) wanted to explain what Mahathir had raised all this while. I am just guessing but my view is - why not on a Sunday or a weekend, Abdullah drives over to see Mahathir.

* You mean Abdullah cannot continue to keep quiet.

Obviously, Mahathir is not happy or satisfied with the explanations given so far and Abdullah has not responded, he allows other people to say (on his behalf). I think Mahathir probably expect this to come from Abdullah himself - the man he appointed to take over from him.

* Do you think a mediator will help? Like (Umno veteran) Khalil Yaakob.

It may help and may not, but knowing Mahathir, he must get what he wants.

The government has begun distributing booklets to explain its decision to cancel the 'crooked' bridge. (The explanation) which is what Mahathir doesn't accept.

* Mahathir had reportedly told Khalil that the spat can be resolved.

Yes, probably that's why there is no need for mediation because it's not a quarrel. It is Mahathir wanting to get satisfactory answers to all the points he raised. He wants explanation not from the junior chaps - he was everybody's boss before - so he expects his successor to come and explain to him.

* But his anger is beyond just these issues...

I suspect, because he has been mentioning all this in his speeches. Of course, I follow this in the papers and your internet newspaper, I don't go to all these (events).

Mahathir said he made the wrong choice in picking his successor.

He said that publicly. He repeated it in Kelantan. I was told he also said he would not support Abdullah again.

* Do you think he has an agenda beyond all this?

I don't think he wants to be prime minister or Umno president again. My reading is that (Mahathir thinks) Abdullah is not the right choice. Secondly, Mahathir feels Abdullah is not using the office of the prime minister - with all the powers (it has) - and instead allow other people to manipulate it. That's the impression that I get.

That's why the bridge project is 'start, go, no'. At first, Abdullah said 'okay', we proceed with this, we would continue with what Mahathir has started. That's what he said after he took over and he even went to lay the foundation stone of the bridge and in that function he announced no matter what happened, we would build the bridge. Why the about-turn? We MPs were told to support this bridge project in Parliament and suddenly we were told, 'no, we are going to cancel it' - the reason being the people is against
this. (SEE BELOW ARTICLE from ALIRAN which explains the REAL Problems for aborting the bridge)

When did the people say this, we don't know. Probably they have got a proper sounding, we don't know, they are the government. Secondly, it's about legal implications, (again) we don't know. Mahathir is a little bit taken aback. But I suspect it is not just that, it's maybe more.

* Do you think Mahathir's anger directed at Khairy Jamaluddin (Abdullah's son-in-law and Umno Youth deputy head) was justified?

I have nothing against Khairy. His late father, Jamaluddin, was a very good friend of mine, we are all (second premier) Tun Abdul Razak's boys. We worked together, Jamaluddin and a few others like Zain Azrai, worked for Tun Razak when he was the NOC (National Operations Council) chairperson and the prime minister. They did (work) on other fronts - I was on economic front - we worked closely (together). Jamaluddin has been a very good chap. Of course, I don't know Khairy, he was a little boy.

* Several Umno divisions have invited Mahathir to officiate their meetings. But the supreme council has to come out with an announcement that only party supreme council member can officiate the divisional meeting. Don't you think this will create a split at the grassroots level?

I think this is going to cause unhappiness. Even during Mahathir's time, the supreme council had made rulings on various matters including officiating annual meetings at divisions, but of course nothing (controversial) happened at that time and we said okay. Now, of course, there is a controversy, people who have invited Mahathir want to hear from Mahathir at this kind of functions, or probably just to show their opposition to the ruling (politicians).

I am told Mahathir had accepted some of these invitations. To me, why not? He is the ex-president of Umno for 22 years. This Umno was created by him - the old Umno was declared unlawful and de-registered. Who is a better person than Mahathir himself to address the Umno chaps? He has not gone against Umno struggle, he has his right to voice his criticisms or opposition to what is happening in the country.

* Is this spat going to affect Umno?

There is rumbling on the ground like Padang Besar (Umno division) that officially invited Mahathir and they had been told they couldn't (do so) because Mahathir is not a supreme council member nor a minister. However, they are members of the cabinet who are not supreme council members, not even division heads - (and) are outsiders - but they can go under the (supreme council) ruling; Mahathir who founded the party, an
ex-party president and ex-prime minister can't go, it's a little odd. He is not going to talk about communism [laughs], only talk about the bridge.

* Mahathir is also apparently not happy with the way (ministers and supreme council members) Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz and Syed Hamid Albar had responded.

He feels slighted because these are little boys to him. I am sure he feels that way, that's why he calls Nazri a hatchet man.

* There are concerns that this will eventually affect the party.

Will they? I don't think so. I was at the state Umno liaison meeting last month. I spoke about Mahathir, I wanted them to recognise a fact – that Mahathir is an Umno member, he has done a lot to this country and party, good and bad, (but) I am sure he has done more good. Therefore, we can't rule him out.

Secondly, Mahathir is not saying anything against Umno. I don't think he would because he is so devoted to Umno, and actually we all are devoted. You can't therefore say we can't receive him or we are not going to listen to him. What is there to be afraid of?

Let's listen to him rather than letting him talk to others, or letting others listen to him. I suggested at the meeting for the party's publicity chief to convene a special general assembly to listen to Mahathir, let Mahathir has his say. I said, 'You (the party leaders) can't object to that because he is a special member of Umno, he was not forced out of office, he voluntarily gave up the office. Now he wants to say (something), (we should)
invite him, treat him like a godfather, come and speak to Umno members. Don't be afraid, we are all in the same family'.

Surely we can think - if he says the right things, we can support him; if he says the wrong things, we can condemn him. Why say, 'No, Mahathir can't join because we have a ruling'? Why discriminate against him? It makes it look like as if we are trying to bar him from meeting Umno members. Even in Kelantan recently, Umno members were not allowed to go, only a few went. I couldn't go because I was here. If I was in Kelantan, I would go. Why not? What can they do to me?

* What was the reaction to your 'special general meeting' proposal?

They kept quiet.

* It will not be sent to the supreme council?

Judging by the mood today, I don't think they are going to allow that. Why so afraid? There's nothing to hide. Let's come clean, give him the forum, he is not going to be prime minister again.

* This spat has been going on for months, how do you judge Abdullah's ability in resolving the issue?

To me - I am only basing my answer on my experience with Mahathir - it will not go away unless he gets his answer. He will not keep quiet. He has audience around the world and he is recognised, whether you like it or not. (We) must acknowledge the fact that he is somebody in the world.

* Mahathir said he did not get the answers but Abdullah said the relevant government agencies have replied.

As long as the prime minister doesn't talk to him, I don't think he will stop. If he wants answers from Proton - he is advisor of Proton - he can call the board (of directors), but that's not the answer he wants. I think he wants more than that. My view is that Pak Lah, as somebody who took over from him, should jump into a car and drive to him, (and) talk to him.

* PAS leaders were seen associating themselves with (ex-premier) Dr Mahathir Mohamad lately.

I think PAS is trying to take advantage of what has happened between Mahathir and the government. It tries to be associated with Mahathir but I don't think Mahathir is associating with PAS. I think PAS is trying to jump on the bandwagon. I don't think Mahathir will give PAS that advantage, he is not blind to all this.

If there are PAS members present at the places where he speak, it's just a coincidence they came as part of the audience. Mahathir's audience is meant for the country because he is speaking on behalf of what he had done.

* In 1969, there was the May 13 racial riot; in 1987 and 1988, Umno was declared illegal; in 1998, Anwar Ibrahim was sacked. Do you think the 10-year circle is here again?

You have been looking at the crystal ball... But Mahathir started in 1981 [laughs].

Tomorrow: Ku Li on Anwar Ibrahim's future ____

following article is available from:
http://www.aliran.com/content/view/110/10/

Technical hitches sink crooked bridge ;Saturday, 29 July 2006

Koon Yew Yin takes a look at why Abdullah Badawi may have changed his mind over the proposed cross-channel link to Singapore.

I am well aware that many people including our previous premier Tun Dr Mahathir and our current Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, have expressed their opinion for and against the construction of the scenic or crooked bridge. Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion. Bearing that in mind, I do not wish to bore you with any more similar arguments. However, as an old Chartered Civil Engineer, I think I know that there are some insurmountable technical difficulties, which the promoters may not have considered and should be interesting to you and all those concerned.

If we had Singapore’s cooperation to build a full-length bridge, the technical problem may be easier to overcome. But to just build half the bridge - I think the problem is quite insurmountable. Before I proceed, you may like to know what actually transpired in the Singapore Parliament that convinced our Prime Minister to change his mind. Singapore’s Second Foreign Affairs Minister Raymond Lim said that Malaysia did not have the right to unilaterally replace its half of the causeway with a bridge without the concurrence of Singapore. He reminded Malaysia that in 2003 it had applied for an injunction to the International Tribunal of Law of the Seas (ITLOS) to stop Singapore’s reclamation works when these works were carried out in Singapore’s sovereign territory.

While rejecting Malaysia’s application, ITLOS had ruled that all future engineering works in the Johor Straits would henceforth be subjected to the scrutiny of two countries. This rule is premised on the principle that works in one sovereign territory in the Straits could affect the other.

What about the railway?

Our Government must have woken up to the fact that it could not avoid the legal battle with Singapore if we went ahead to build half a bridge to replace half the causeway. Without Singapore’s agreement, how could we remove the existing pipeline and the railway on the causeway? Apparently, according to the separation agreement, when Singapore broke away, we were obliged to provide uninterrupted water supply and the maintenance of the railway to Singapore. If we stop running trains into Singapore for a certain period, Malaysia would lose all the railway land in Singapore. This is a very serious consideration, which I think our promoters did not take into consideration. However, I doubt if there was any cost-benefit study for the project.

From the picture as published in the newspaper I did not see any provision for the railway. Bearing in mind that trains, unlike motor vehicles, cannot take sharp corners or climb steep gradients, I think it is technically very difficult or impossible to design a bridge spanning half the causeway and to comply with these conditions. Moreover, the crooked half bridge would look queer and would likely attract ridicule than admiration if it could be built. One thing is sure. If we had gone ahead with the construction without Singapore’s agreement, there would have been a legal battle.