If MY to construct a half-bridge,how?
-
FACTS
In Parliament on 17 October 2005,Sg Foreign Minister Yeo had replied that the implications of building a half-bridge, without Singapore's consent, would be "serious". Minister Yeo explained that Malaysia's decision to construct a half-bridge had to comply with the principles enunciated in the Order issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on 8 October 2003. Any action also had to be fully consistent with the requirements of international law governing such matters. International facilities, such as the Causeway, could not be lawfully demolished without the approval, agreement and involvement of both States concerned.
Former Malaysian PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's comments that Singapore "is getting bolder now that they could even threaten us", which appeared in Utusan Malaysia on 6 November 2005, the MFA Spokesman said:
Yeo said he was surprised and dismayed to hear that former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had interpreted his response to supplementary questions in Parliament as a "threat".
Since October 2003 Singapore has reminded Malaysia of its obligations under ITLOS through several Third Party Notes (TPNs).
Minister Yeo's point about the implications of building a half-bridge without Singapore's agreement was not a "threat". It was to highlight the serious legal implications which such a move would have under ITLOS."
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SINGAPORE
8 NOVEMBER 2005 . END of quote
Questions
1.What are the possible consequences if MY,in order to build half bridge but without Sg's consent, disconnects 1 or more of few water pipes which supply about half of SG daily consumption?
Pl discuss in a mature and responsible ways or MOD delete it!! -
I would leave the political BS to politicians. That's what they're paid to do anyway.
-
the sad thing is that soldiers are sent in to clean up messes made by politiciansOriginally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:I would leave the political BS to politicians. That's what they're paid to do anyway. -
not legal and a lot of implications.
otherwise they would have done so a long time ago. -
How? How? How? You're asking us how?
-
Sending soldiers to clean up this kinda thing also not legal. Probably refered to a UN tribunal again. This a stupid issue... IMO, its stupid cos if we don't wanna build, then u can't build either. This a bridge, not ur house door. To build bridges to link 2 countries, u gotta have a cooperation between the 2 countries... where got such thing as build half bridge one...
This is a really retarded problem. -
It seems that Malaysia have the intention to force us to give reluctant approval and complete the other half of the ugly looking bridge by building from their side first. It will be the laughing stock for the whole world should such a half bridge exist between the boundaries of two countries.
-
Have you seen this bridge....
It's called Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
It looks like the bridge submerged into the water and resurface again, to allow ships to pass thru it. Funny looking too, right ?
But its considered to be One of Seven Engineering Wonders of the Modern World.
So, to you its a half bridge, but to M'sia its a full bridge, a complete bridge from JB to the tail end of M'sia's side of the causeway.
Of course, it will look nicer if the bridge ends in Singapore. -
i doubt they will go ahead.
they wont want to build it and suffer the repercussions. -
they probably won't want to waste their precious money too... anyway what benefit does building a new bridge bring? Certainly not to increase tourism or trade activities between MY and SG.
-
these northern chaps do not always follow logic in their political calculations .... so you'd never know what gila things they'd do .... remember their space program ? ... roti canai space food and batik space suits ? .....Originally posted by ah_kwang:they probably won't want to waste their precious money too... anyway what benefit does building a new bridge bring? Certainly not to increase tourism or trade activities between MY and SG.
it will probably cause a lot more for them to build the bridge alone .... and the rest of the world will probably laugh at them .... but they'll do it anyway because of the perceived "face" ...
infact ... it's this unpredictability that makes them dangerous (not to mention tiresome) to deal with .... how do you deal with a country that'll renege on deals alread inked and signed ? (remember the water agreement between MM and Dr M ? ) ..... -
-
-
Greetings,
MY should not have considered a bridge to replace the Causeway in the first place. This would render the Malaysia Singapore Second Crossing pointless. But then again, the Causeway is causing a lot of environmental headaches, among others, nowadays. Replacing it with a bridge would alleviate some of the associated environmental issues. Isn't this a good enough excuse to replace the Causeway with a bridge? Since SG is dragging her feet over this issue, don't discount on MY building a crooked bridge. There's no issue with ITLOS or whatever law as MY is not considering to make do with the Causeway. MY is merely building a crooked bridge to replace her part of the Causeway. For this, MY does not need SG's consent. What serious implications would that be if MY proceed with the crooked bridge? -
First thing.. Dr M has always been a harsh critic on alot of aspects. Him now no longer in power should've just kept things down low key n have Badawi n the F.M handle the situations. Anyways , his talk doesnt hold real power. N for SG..so what ..u guys think its a HALF bridge.. but man..come one.. what serious effect does it do. And about having face, so what if Malaysia likes to have face..none of your business right ? SO what if ROTI Canai in space..hell...our spaceship in the future may even be the WAU kite shape..
-
You say that the current causeway is having detrimental effects on the environment. I'd like to point out who made it so in the first place? With all their sewage flowing out of their rivers and all? And now they expect us to be fotting part of their bills to solve their problem?
Like I said before, leave the politics to politicians, they love this kind of bull sh*t anyway. -
they have consulted professionals. building a new bridge will not help much in alleviating the pollution problem.Originally posted by ferryman2393:Greetings,
MY should not have considered a bridge to replace the Causeway in the first place. This would render the Malaysia Singapore Second Crossing pointless. But then again, the Causeway is causing a lot of environmental headaches, among others, nowadays. Replacing it with a bridge would alleviate some of the associated environmental issues. Isn't this a good enough excuse to replace the Causeway with a bridge? Since SG is dragging her feet over this issue, don't discount on MY building a crooked bridge. There's no issue with ITLOS or whatever law as MY is not considering to make do with the Causeway. MY is merely building a crooked bridge to replace her part of the Causeway. For this, MY does not need SG's consent. What serious implications would that be if MY proceed with the crooked bridge?
our stand is very clear. why spend millions and millions when the final result cant justify the cost. to build the bridge unilaterally is against international law and it makes the causeway looks funny. -
Today 10.11.2005 STimes reported the press officer of SG High Comm in KL,wrote to Berita Harian of recent saga.
Press officer said no need to use satellite to shot,
GOOGLE image is for free.
u watch me,i watch u.Fair?? -
Let's say MY's rivers are squeaky clean; would you not admit that the Causeway have a worse impact to the environment than a bridge?
How come law have anything to do with what MY planned to do with her part of the Causeway? As I said earlier, MY is replacing it with a bridge. Are you telling me that MY need consent from SG before MY can replace her part of the Causeway with a bridge? Let's say MY decided to close her border with SG, does MY need consent from SG? Something not quite right with this argument. -
quoting from george yeo...Originally posted by ferryman2393:Let's say MY's rivers are squeaky clean; would you not admit that the Causeway have a worse impact to the environment than a bridge?
How come law have anything to do with what MY planned to do with her part of the Causeway? As I said earlier, MY is replacing it with a bridge. Are you telling me that MY need consent from SG before MY can replace her part of the Causeway with a bridge? Let's say MY decided to close her border with SG, does MY need consent from SG? Something not quite right with this argument.Any action also had to be fully consistent with the requirements of international law governing such matters. International facilities, such as the Causeway, could not be lawfully demolished without the approval, agreement and involvement of both States concerned.
i am no expert in internation law... but if malaysia feels its not breaking any international laws... why they even bother with singapore's legal position and that of the ITLOS tribunal?
just build lah... if malaysia isnt breaking any laws and is acting within its national soveriegn juristiction. -
Meaning Mr Yeo have no business in warning MY of serious legal consequences if MY decided to build a crooked bridge? If Mr Yeo is not happy, go to court lah; why tickle MY into making similar remarks?
-
I read the comments by Dr M&M with disgust. How can he saying we are getting bolder and are threatening them? We are merely reminding them that tearing the causeway without our consent is illegal. Causeway is an international structure, not their bridge. We reserve our rights to pursue the matter to ICJ. That's why we are reminding them because going to court is troublesome. And according to dictionary, to threaten is to be a source of danger to. Why he likes to keep using such strong words to describe Singapore? This is not good for both government. May I remind him that he is now a commoner like we do. Maybe the Malaysian government should detain him under ISA as he is deemed a threat, at least to me, to the Malaysian government because he always talks rubbish.
We are a sovereign country and we can make our own decision. Our stand is that the cost of building a new bridge needs to be justified. Is there any wrong? Will he pay millions of dollars to buy a thing which he doesn't need? Maybe for him, yes. Remember lots of white elephant projects in Malaysia during his rule?
A recent commentary by their newspaper states that rebuilding the Causeway will solve the pollution problem. I wonder how it's going to solve it. Yes to a certain extend the problem will be alleviate but where does the pollutants in the water go? They will still be in the water to harm the environment. The real way to deal with the problem is to clean up the source. And I remind them that most, if not all the source are in Johor. Maybe they should ask for comments from our primary school kids before using that as a reason to justify the tearing of the causeway. The commentary also states that 1 suggestion to allow RSAF jets fly to South China Sea via Johor to justify our spending is a disguise to spy on Johor. Is there anything for us to spy on in Johor? If we really need reconnaissance photos of Johor, we simply pay commercial companies to do the job or just download the free Google Earth software and use it.
Dr M&M had set a very bad example for their media. Can their media not learn his way of talking and try to write something more constructive and not speculate about the ongoing discussions. -
You fail to understand the meaning of the comments. It is illegal for MY to do so because the causeway IS an international structure. We have no problems with going to court over this, then MY will start saying SG unfriendly and all that crap. Ultimate losers are all of us tax payers (SG and MY) as we will be footing the bills for this ridiculous court battles.Originally posted by ferryman2393:Meaning Mr Yeo have no business in warning MY of serious legal consequences if MY decided to build a crooked bridge? If Mr Yeo is not happy, go to court lah; why tickle MY into making similar remarks? -
SG got to agree to constructing a new bridge, if not, I doubt MY will continue with it. It's no point, since if one party don't agree, then how they going to connect.
As for the water supply, it is 2 different issues here. If MY were to disconnect one of the pipes with approval from SG, then they will be in law suit under the agreement. -
As for the water supply, it is 2 different issues here. If MY were to disconnect one of the pipes with approval from SG, then they will be in law suit under the agreement.
If they dare to disconnect any water pipes to Singapore, not only law suit waiting for them. Our 3rd, 6th, 9th, 21st division are roaring to push their way into Johor till Meksing. As MM Lee had say years before that if our water supplies are interrupted, we will go to war with whichever countries that cut our supply. But for the time being, war is not on the cards as we are now almost self sufficient.
But what has it got to do with water supplies when we are talking about causeway. Surely they can't be so stupid to tear their side of causeway together with the pipes. They wouldn't want to face our army when all the ordered equipment haven't even arrive.[/quote]