Let's pay a fair price for the water.
Capablanca
Let's pay a fair price for the water.
Alex@intel.inside.me Smart Alex
the money on building water treatment plants. So who is fairer now?
-------------------
"Capablanca" <replyt...@scms.com> wrote in message
news:bfqo6c$i03qm$1...@ID-176031.news.uni-berlin.de...
Eddie
"Capablanca" <replyt...@scms.com> wrote in message
news:bfqo6c$i03qm$1...@ID-176031.news.uni-berlin.de...
Hann Wei Toh
> What the land KTM was holding. Malaysia was ask for billion for them.
If the Singapore government sells land to condominium and commercial
building developers at 1 SGD per square meter, I doubt the Malaysia
government will complain when the Singapore government decides to
acquire the land at the same price.
If the Singapore government acquires the land from KTMB at 0.50 SGD per
square meter, and proves that the land sold to local condominium and
commercial building developers are highly subsidized, the Malaysia
government will probably not be able to say much either. Of course, the
Singapore government has to ensure that KTMB cannot sell the land to the
local developers at market price.
Jimin Idris
It is the fair thing to do.
Singapore can afford it
Malaysia would appreciate the extra dollars.
"Capablanca" <replyt...@scms.com> wrote in message
news:bfqo6c$i03qm$1...@ID-176031.news.uni-berlin.de...
Kelvin
> If the Singapore government sells land to condominium and commercial
> building developers at 1 SGD per square meter, I doubt the Malaysia
> government will complain when the Singapore government decides to
> acquire the land at the same price.
>
back these lands.
Ironm@n
Pay by all means that is reasonable as water is a precious commodity.
Just ask our SM to go over to Malaysia and ask Mahatir how much he wanted
for the last time.
"Capablanca" <replyt...@scms.com> wrote in message
news:bfqo6c$i03qm$1...@ID-176031.news.uni-berlin.de...
QS
it just happen that malaysia have the lakes, and we don't... if we make it
into bottled water.. probably malaysia will be asking us to pay in the same
rate of a bottle of perrier...
then, we have to think of a way how to process urine into XO, and sell our
urine to Malaysia at XO prices...
geesh.. WAKE UP DR. MA... there is no fixed rate for water... until you
process it, water from your lake is as good as nothing... and if u want to
make it better, why not build desalination plants and process sea water, and
sell back to Singapore ? What Singapore want is clean water... and if u can
produce the water cheaper than PUB, then u earn money somemore...
"Ironm@n" <ironm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfrl53$iv0$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg...
Yap Yok Foo
>frankly, this is free money to malaysia... water doesn't belong to anyone...
>it just happen that malaysia have the lakes, and we don't... if we make it
>into bottled water.. probably malaysia will be asking us to pay in the same
>rate of a bottle of perrier...
Yeah lah I totally agree with you
The bloody Arabs sitting on all that oil
Oil also doesn't belong to anyone
*************From Uncle Yap**************
** Berita Malaysia - Free Malaysian News & Discussion Group **
Archives/manage subscription: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beritamalaysia
Subscribe : Blank e-mail to: beritamalays...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: Blank e-mail to: beritamalaysi...@yahoogroups.com
** bmalaysia - Just The Malaysian News (Free of charge) **
Archives/manage subscription: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bmalaysia
Subscribe : Blank e-mail to: bmalaysia...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: Blank e-mail to: bmalaysia-...@yahoogroups.com
ignoramus
>frankly, this is free money to malaysia... water doesn't belong to anyone...
You are unbelieveable.
>it just happen that malaysia have the lakes, and we don't...
And what is your point?
>if we make it
>into bottled water.. probably malaysia will be asking us to pay in the same
>rate of a bottle of perrier...
>
Catch no ball.
>then, we have to think of a way how to process urine into XO, and sell our
>urine to Malaysia at XO prices...
>
You missing a ball?
>geesh.. WAKE UP DR. MA... there is no fixed rate for water...
ROTFLMAO But Singapore wants to fix it at RM0.03.
>until you
>process it, water from your lake is as good as nothing...
Then we might as well not sell lor.
>and if u want to
>make it better, why not build desalination plants and process sea water, and
>sell back to Singapore ?
Singapore only wants to buy untreated water. Malaysia wants to selll
treated water.
>What Singapore want is clean water... and if u can
>produce the water cheaper than PUB, then u earn money somemore...
>
This doesn't seem to be the case....
DumGai
One Johore is already 13 times Singapore....
And.... what is your population in Johore ?
If we do have the resources..... it would have been so
different..... likewise, if Arab does not sit on those oil....
I wonder else they could offer .....
"Yap Yok Foo" <yf...@pop.jaring.my> wrote in message
news:7aq2ivkosfh9ka8el...@4ax.com...
Stephen Lim
>frankly, this is free money to malaysia... water doesn't belong to anyone...
>it just happen that malaysia have the lakes, and we don't... if we make it
>into bottled water.. probably malaysia will be asking us to pay in the same
>rate of a bottle of perrier...
>
>then, we have to think of a way how to process urine into XO, and sell our
>urine to Malaysia at XO prices...
>
>geesh.. WAKE UP DR. MA... there is no fixed rate for water... until you
>process it, water from your lake is as good as nothing... and if u want to
>make it better, why not build desalination plants and process sea water, and
>sell back to Singapore ? What Singapore want is clean water... and if u can
>produce the water cheaper than PUB, then u earn money somemore...
>
>
aiyah the proof of the pudding is simple, if the roles was reversed
and LKY and his team is running malaysia, guess what price would they
sell to Dr M and his team on that island and would they use the above
arguement when they set the price!
i challenge you to say that LKY and his team of scholars will sell for
3 cents 100 years with no revision!
Ga...@bigfoot.com
> Let's pay a fair price for the water.
What would you consider to be a "fair" price? $6.25 ringitt or 60
sen?
No matter whatever is the amount, what is "fair" in Malaysia's eyes
might not be "fair" in Spore's eyes and vice versa. This is the crux
of the problem.
All this thing about a "fair" price is getting nowhere. If two parties
cannot agree on something, get a third party involved to mediate eg
arbitration to solve the issue.
Why is it so difficult taking this step? This is unless one party
feels that it will go against him and nothing further can be done as
the ruling wil be binding!!!!
Mr_Magoo
> frankly, this is free money to malaysia... water doesn't belong to anyone...
> it just happen that malaysia have the lakes, and we don't... if we make it
> into bottled water.. probably malaysia will be asking us to pay in the same
> rate of a bottle of perrier...
>
> then, we have to think of a way how to process urine into XO, and sell our
> urine to Malaysia at XO prices...
>
> geesh.. WAKE UP DR. MA... there is no fixed rate for water... until you
> process it, water from your lake is as good as nothing... and if u want to
Until you burn the petroleum, oil is as good as nothing....wake up to
the reality ler... water is a natural resources just like oil is.
Rgds,
Mr Magoo
Mr_Magoo
Sure it can. Just like Malaysia can also invokes some kind of local
law to superceded the water treaty.... think first before you
play-play with fire or less you gonna get burn too.
Rgds,
Mr Magoo
virgin
"Capablanca" <replyt...@scms.com> wrote in message
news:bfqo6c$i03qm$1...@ID-176031.news.uni-berlin.de...
What'sYrAgenda
>
> aiyah the proof of the pudding is simple, if the roles was reversed
> and LKY and his team is running malaysia, guess what price would they
> sell to Dr M and his team on that island and would they use the above
> arguement when they set the price!
>
> i challenge you to say that LKY and his team of scholars will sell for
> 3 cents 100 years with no revision!
As far as I know, Singapore still abides by the Agreement on Railway
lands in Singapore. Signed for 1,000 years for free use. The line
runs across the heart of Singapore, causing much incovenience but
Singaporeans are keeping quiet. If you look at the railway station at
Tanjong Pagar, you can see how pathetic the place is. Does that
answer your concern?
jereyoung@hotmail
words of FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR as follows :
1) Water Agreements are enshrined in the Separation Agreement and
registered at the United Nations. They are fundamental to our very
existence as an independent nation. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia can
unilaterally change them. This is the root of the dispute between us.
2)It is not a matter of money…the significance of the water price, to
both countries, is Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation
separate from Malaysia, and the sanctity of the most solemn agreements
which Singapore and Malaysia have entered into.
I am amazed on how a case which is so fundamental to a nation's very
existence can rest on such filmsy premise as this. I would thought
that the highly educated and sophisticated Singaporeans should have
some common sense to see that this line of legalistic rationale is
going nowhere and Pro Jayakumar is indeed playing a dangerous
patriotic game though not necesarily in the nation's interest.
Given that very existence of Singapore society is now at stake and
stand on this very thin slice of ice perhaps there should be some
furious debate on the matter without being overly emotional.
The phrase Agreement means party involved had agreed to agree and what
they agreed upon is on something which is reasonable and acceptable
to both party. If I remember my contract law 101 correctly and correct
me if I am wrong this something is called "consideration". This means
if I sign an agreement with you to pay you USD 1 million every year as
rental for one lot of car park then this agreement is not enforcable
and considered null even though this has been registered or stamped in
a legal environment simply because there is no sense in the deal even
the solemn agreement is signed by both party.
The fact remains if only Singapore is a poor country could there be
some sense in the present water agreement. With a GDP per head of USD
27k there is simply no sense for Malaysia to continue on with the
water agreement and hence the needs to negotiate a new water deal that
will make sense.
If indeed as Jaya said water issue is not a matter of money, then what
is the water negotiation about? This argument is already self
contradicted by the negotiation process itself.
My friends, the fact of matter is this issue is all about money...The
first rule is No money no water and no deal. The 2nd is that nothing
is agreed until everything is agreed!
In the absence of an agreeable agreement what has got Malaysia got to
lose? Malaysia don't need the money and can do without it. You would
see the benefit to the last 3 decimals as % of GDP.
What is got Singapore got to lose? Everything! Play delay tactic? The
stake only get higher ... What is there to stop Malaysia to supply
water? A water agreement that does not make sense?
To rely on the goodwill or international pressure or reputation that
Malaysia will keep a senseless agreement is a very dangerous thing to
do. Imagine if Malaysia indeed decide to turn off the tap tomorrow
what would happen? Factory will be shut down..investor lose
confidence, oversea investor would pull out there operation indeed it
is not an understatement that the survival of the nation is at stake.
Will Malaysia do it? There are many many ways to skin a lion...there
can be the unplanned leakage of pipeline, pollution of
reservior...With temperature rising on both side is there not a
technically convenient excuse to disrupt water supply to Singapore or
at the least make the flow irregular but unpredictable as long as it
does not overtly violating the senseless agreement that should be
enough to do some real harm.
Will Malaysia wait until Singapore have enough alternate water supply?
You bet.
Can Singapore afford the Malaysian water? You would not even see it to
the last 3 decimal places on Singapore GDP% growth figure but just one
disruption incident can put some serious dent and many jobs plus loss
of confidence of future FDI. Is Malaysia willing...would anybody say
no to $$$$$ for a reasonable deal?
Wake up to your $en$e$ and pay up, $ingapore.
Jere
Stephen Lim <ker...@deadspam.com> wrote in message news:<9ig3iv4mbnvh0dmmu...@4ax.com>...
What'sYrAgenda
> The crux of Singapore's argument on the water agreement is in the
> words of FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR as follows :
>
> 1) Water Agreements are enshrined in the Separation Agreement and
> registered at the United Nations. They are fundamental to our very
> existence as an independent nation. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia can
> unilaterally change them. This is the root of the dispute between us.
>
> both countries, is Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation
> separate from Malaysia, and the sanctity of the most solemn agreements
> which Singapore and Malaysia have entered into.
>
> I am amazed on how a case which is so fundamental to a nation's very
> existence can rest on such filmsy premise as this.
What is fundamental? To agree on 45 sens, then 60 sens, then R$3 and
then R6? Even before meeting at the negotiation table your PM was
harping on how much Hong Kong pay China for water. His trick didn't
work, though. The negotiation, I say was a non-stater.
>I would thought
> that the highly educated and sophisticated Singaporeans should have
> some common sense to see that this line of legalistic rationale is
> going nowhere and Pro Jayakumar is indeed playing a dangerous
> patriotic game though not necesarily in the nation's interest.
No Singaporean ever claim to be highly educated or highly
sophisticated. Common sense, yes and we also expect some common sense
from your ministers and you.
>
> Given that very existence of Singapore society is now at stake and
> stand on this very thin slice of ice perhaps there should be some
> furious debate on the matter without being overly emotional.
Our existence is no longer at stake. We just don't want to be
roughsod over.
>
> The phrase Agreement means party involved had agreed to agree and what
> they agreed upon is on something which is reasonable and acceptable
> to both party.
That was precisely what was agreed in the two agreements. No one
quetioned it at that time. Why?
>If I remember my contract law 101 correctly and correct
> me if I am wrong this something is called "consideration". This means
> if I sign an agreement with you to pay you USD 1 million every year as
> rental for one lot of car park then this agreement is not enforcable
> and considered null even though this has been registered or stamped in
> a legal environment simply because there is no sense in the deal even
> the solemn agreement is signed by both party.
If you can sign such an agreement, that tells so much about you. Our
carpark lot is S$75 a month in the estates and about S$200 in the
city.
>
> The fact remains if only Singapore is a poor country could there be
> some sense in the present water agreement. With a GDP per head of USD
> 27k there is simply no sense for Malaysia to continue on with the
> water agreement and hence the needs to negotiate a new water deal that
> will make sense.
You would want to see us poor and run down don't you? No matter if
you are rich or poor, the nasi lemak seller will charge the same price
of 50 sens per pack.
>
> If indeed as Jaya said water issue is not a matter of money, then what
> is the water negotiation about? This argument is already self
> contradicted by the negotiation process itself.
Now, it shows that you do not really understand the problem. Do have
some sense, not just pining for sens.
>
> My friends, the fact of matter is this issue is all about money...The
> first rule is No money no water and no deal. The 2nd is that nothing
> is agreed until everything is agreed!
I thought, the three sen was agreed. Want to change it,? Sure it can
be done but not unilaterally.
>
> In the absence of an agreeable agreement what has got Malaysia got to
> lose? Malaysia don't need the money and can do without it. You would
> see the benefit to the last 3 decimals as % of GDP.
Since Malaysia do not need the money tell your ministers to close the
case and see the agreements through. After that, you can state any
price you like, say $1,000 for three gallons.
>
> What is got Singapore got to lose? Everything! Play delay tactic? The
> stake only get higher ... What is there to stop Malaysia to supply
> water? A water agreement that does not make sense?
Whose fault is it if it does not make sense? If Malayia can stop the
flow of water it would have done so.
>
> To rely on the goodwill or international pressure or reputation that
> Malaysia will keep a senseless agreement is a very dangerous thing to
> do. Imagine if Malaysia indeed decide to turn off the tap tomorrow
> what would happen? Factory will be shut down..investor lose
> confidence, oversea investor would pull out there operation indeed it
> is not an understatement that the survival of the nation is at stake.
If tomorrow Malaysia turns off the water, Johore people will get no
water. I remember, Malaysia once stopped exporting bricks to
Singapore to restrict Singapore from its building programme, also
stopped selling grass, sand, and many more stuff. What happened? My
friend it is better to be positive than trying to sabotage.
>
> Will Malaysia do it? There are many many ways to skin a lion...there
> can be the unplanned leakage of pipeline, pollution of
> reservior...With temperature rising on both side is there not a
> technically convenient excuse to disrupt water supply to Singapore or
> at the least make the flow irregular but unpredictable as long as it
> does not overtly violating the senseless agreement that should be
> enough to do some real harm.
There is only one way to skin a lion. Kill it first. Are Malaysians
really that cruel? I thought those rapists and criminals were illegal
immigrants.
>
> Will Malaysia wait until Singapore have enough alternate water supply?
> You bet.
We already have. Your integrity is being tested and this has profound
implications.
>
> Can Singapore afford the Malaysian water? You would not even see it to
> the last 3 decimal places on Singapore GDP% growth figure but just one
> disruption incident can put some serious dent and many jobs plus loss
> of confidence of future FDI. Is Malaysia willing...would anybody say
> no to $$$$$ for a reasonable deal?
If Malaysia can sabo Singapore as you have said, it would have done it
long long ago and made Singapore crawling back. Very sorry, that
though we were kicked out, we have managed to succeed, causing you
some embarrassment. Please do not be sore about it. If we had
remained in Malaysia, we will also be rooting for wawasan 2020.
>
>
> Wake up to your $en$e$ and pay up, $ingapore.
We won't take it lying down. Warm regards..Pek_1301./
michael
Can .. why not ?
Sg can too acquire all assets of Malaysian companies in
Singapore if she wants. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>frankly, this is free money to malaysia... water doesn't belong to anyone...
>it just happen that malaysia have the lakes, and we don't...
Ditto oil in Brunei.
Go ask them for free oil just because
they have and you don't. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
back again
news:bfu64e$j2l69$3...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Subject: Re: Let's pay a fair price for the water.
> From: d1...@hotmail.com (michael)
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
Once you burn fuel, it is gone. Water goes back into the atmosphere and
becomes rain. Your comparison is not very well thought out, is it? :-)
ivano...@removeeurope.com
agreement.
Malaysia is stalling ...coz this issue is always handy to milk for
domestic political purpose.
ivano...@removeeurope.com
It is worthwhile only when you can find a buyer for it. If it flows
into the deep blue sea ...it is worth ZERO.
>Rgds,
>
>Mr Magoo
ivano...@removeeurope.com
(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
>The crux of Singapore's argument on the water agreement is in the
>words of FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR as follows :
>
>1) Water Agreements are enshrined in the Separation Agreement and
>registered at the United Nations. They are fundamental to our very
>existence as an independent nation. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia can
>unilaterally change them. This is the root of the dispute between us.
>
>2)It is not a matter of money…the significance of the water price, to
>both countries, is Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation
>separate from Malaysia, and the sanctity of the most solemn agreements
>which Singapore and Malaysia have entered into.
>
>I am amazed on how a case which is so fundamental to a nation's very
>existence can rest on such filmsy premise as this. I would thought
>that the highly educated and sophisticated Singaporeans should have
>some common sense to see that this line of legalistic rationale is
>going nowhere and Pro Jayakumar is indeed playing a dangerous
>patriotic game though not necesarily in the nation's interest.
To ensure that the politics of the world does not operate on the law
of the jungles, sanctity of treaties are important. Thus, Singapore
has to take the legalistic line.
>Given that very existence of Singapore society is now at stake and
>stand on this very thin slice of ice perhaps there should be some
>furious debate on the matter without being overly emotional.
It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
changing the goal post in negotiations.
There is nothing much Singapore can do - either kowtow to Malaysia or
be self sufficient in water asap.
>The phrase Agreement means party involved had agreed to agree and what
>they agreed upon is on something which is reasonable and acceptable
>to both party. If I remember my contract law 101 correctly and correct
>me if I am wrong this something is called "consideration". This means
>if I sign an agreement with you to pay you USD 1 million every year as
>rental for one lot of car park then this agreement is not enforcable
>and considered null even though this has been registered or stamped in
>a legal environment simply because there is no sense in the deal even
>the solemn agreement is signed by both party.
If this is interpreted in a Malaysian court, your line of argument
would be accepted. Elsewhere, it will be laughed at.
>The fact remains if only Singapore is a poor country could there be
>some sense in the present water agreement. With a GDP per head of USD
>27k there is simply no sense for Malaysia to continue on with the
>water agreement and hence the needs to negotiate a new water deal that
>will make sense.
Malaysia can break the agreements and turn the taps off. And then wait
for international sanctions.
Or do the honourable thing of live by the agreements. A future treaty
with more favourable terms can be negotiated on a willing buyer and a
willing seller case.
>If indeed as Jaya said water issue is not a matter of money, then what
>is the water negotiation about? This argument is already self
>contradicted by the negotiation process itself.
The water negotiation was for a new treaty. Malaysia wanted a much
higher price than what we were willing to pay for water in the
EXISTING agreement.
Singapore was not obligated to pay more for the water covered by the
existing agreement.
We were willing willing to pay more ONLY if there was a new agreement
to extend the treaty.
Sure, we want the water only if it is cheaper than our own source of
water. This is a business deal - we will bargain. Why pay more than
what you need to?
If Malaysia is not happy with the price, then don't sell the water.
>My friends, the fact of matter is this issue is all about money...The
>first rule is No money no water and no deal. The 2nd is that nothing
>is agreed until everything is agreed!
So there is no agreement and no deal.
>In the absence of an agreeable agreement what has got Malaysia got to
>lose? Malaysia don't need the money and can do without it. You would
>see the benefit to the last 3 decimals as % of GDP.
We can agree to disagree.
If Malaysia cannot live by the terms of the existing agreements, then
it can seek to annul it. Just do it by the terms of the agreement.
>What is got Singapore got to lose? Everything! Play delay tactic? The
>stake only get higher ... What is there to stop Malaysia to supply
>water? A water agreement that does not make sense?
Sure we have something to lose. But Malaysia has plenty to lose too if
it abrogates the agreements unilaterally.
I would hope that Malaysia go ahead and turn off the taps because I am
interested to see the international situation that will result from
it.
Trust me, Singapore will survive if the tap is turned off.
>To rely on the goodwill or international pressure or reputation that
>Malaysia will keep a senseless agreement is a very dangerous thing to
>do. Imagine if Malaysia indeed decide to turn off the tap tomorrow
>what would happen? Factory will be shut down..investor lose
>confidence, oversea investor would pull out there operation indeed it
>is not an understatement that the survival of the nation is at stake.
And you expect investors will continue to come to Malaysia, tourism
will remain unaffected ...that all will be well in Malaysia while
Singapore sinks?
>Will Malaysia do it? There are many many ways to skin a lion...there
>can be the unplanned leakage of pipeline, pollution of
>reservior...With temperature rising on both side is there not a
>technically convenient excuse to disrupt water supply to Singapore or
>at the least make the flow irregular but unpredictable as long as it
>does not overtly violating the senseless agreement that should be
>enough to do some real harm.
And there are many ways to expose Malaysians intent.
You can bet that Malaysia will have international publicity.
>Will Malaysia wait until Singapore have enough alternate water supply?
>You bet.
>
>Can Singapore afford the Malaysian water? You would not even see it to
>the last 3 decimal places on Singapore GDP% growth figure but just one
>disruption incident can put some serious dent and many jobs plus loss
>of confidence of future FDI. Is Malaysia willing...would anybody say
>no to $$$$$ for a reasonable deal?
>
We can afford it but we are not going to pay ridiculous prices.
>Wake up to your $en$e$ and pay up, $ingapore.
>
We are awake ...that's why we are not willing to pay the sky for
water.
Capablanca
reasonable people on this issue. CLOB
and water is like comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing Worldcom to CLOB may be a closer match.
michael
>
>Singapore has agreed to submit to arbitration as defined in the
>agreement.
>Malaysia is stalling ...coz this issue is always handy to milk for
>domestic political purpose.
Many of us are in favour of a proactive stance by
Malaysia on this water issue.
Who knows, you may be in for a real surprise later. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
>changing the goal post in negotiations.
Nonsense.
Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
when 2 parties negotiate.
Moreover, the Malaysian PM on record had said that he wanted
to see the total package before he could come to a final
agreement. (Check his letter to LKY).
Singaporeans are so conditioned with a protected mentality.
No wonder Singaporean government officials lost billions in Suzhou
for their country.
Don't see you people claiming compensation from President
Jiang. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
FearLESS
> In article <3f230285...@nntp.etob.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>, ivano...@REMOVEeurope.com says...
> >
> >On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
> >(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
> [deleted]
> >It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
> >changing the goal post in negotiations.
> [deleted]
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
> when 2 parties negotiate.
> Moreover, the Malaysian PM on record had said that he wanted
> to see the total package before he could come to a final
> agreement. (Check his letter to LKY).
Mike, kiasu ppl are very good in bargaining cheap cheap price with
those batam chicks. As long the chick not yet open wide the legs on
the bed, I do not see such bargain is wrong. After this is a business
deal.
>
> Singaporeans are so conditioned with a protected mentality.
> No wonder Singaporean government officials lost billions in Suzhou
> for their country.
> Don't see you people claiming compensation from President
> Jiang. :)
Suzhou blunder is a case study for MBA courses all over the world. :-)
>
> regards,
> michael ... afn2...@afn.org
What'sYrAgenda
> >
> >On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
> >(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
> [deleted]
> >It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
> >changing the goal post in negotiations.
> [deleted]
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
> when 2 parties negotiate.
> Moreover, the Malaysian PM on record had said that he wanted
> to see the total package before he could come to a final
> agreement. (Check his letter to LKY).
I totally agree with you that unless the final agreement (as against
the agreements singed in the past) shold be final.
>
> Singaporeans are so conditioned with a protected mentality.
> No wonder Singaporean government officials lost billions in Suzhou
> for their country.
> Don't see you people claiming compensation from President
> Jiang. :)
You have conditioned Singapore to a protected mentality? Are you so
sure that Singapore have lost billions in Suzhou Let's have a look at
your facts.
Best regards...Pek_1301
>
> regards,
> michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Ga...@bigfoot.com
> >
> >On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
> >(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
> [deleted]
> >It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
> >changing the goal post in negotiations.
> [deleted]
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
> when 2 parties negotiate.
agree but not to keep on changing, changing, changing or aka "moving
the goal post". negotiate, negotiate, agree, sign. Not negotiate,
negotiate, agree, change, negotiate, negotiate, agree, change and so
and so on never ending. What a waste of everybody's time.
> Moreover, the Malaysian PM on record had said that he wanted
> to see the total package before he could come to a final
> agreement. (Check his letter to LKY).
>
> Singaporeans are so conditioned with a protected mentality.
> No wonder Singaporean government officials lost billions in Suzhou
> for their country.
> Don't see you people claiming compensation from President
> Jiang. :)
>
MY's record in investments is not that good too eg Perjawa Steel
> regards,
> michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Ga...@bigfoot.com
> Singapore has agreed to submit to arbitration as defined in the
> agreement.
> Malaysia is stalling ...coz this issue is always handy to milk for
> domestic political purpose.
This is a very dangerous game to play as it can really get out of
control with dire consequences. The "W" word had already been used
and it just take an over zealous person doing something silly to spark
it off.
Don't Madhatter knows how WW1 started? Madness..........
ignoramus
>agree but not to keep on changing, changing, changing or aka "moving
>the goal post". negotiate, negotiate, agree, sign. Not negotiate,
>negotiate, agree, change, negotiate, negotiate, agree, change and so
>and so on never ending. What a waste of everybody's time.
Go read Malaysia's water booklet, item 4.
'Malaysia never accepted Singapore ’s offer of
45 sen per 1,000 gallons.So the question of
backtracking does not arise.'
michael
==================
Go read
http://www.singapore-window.org/suzhou.htm
=====================
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote in message news:<bg02vk$jc6hl$4...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> In article <3f230285...@nntp.etob.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>, ivano...@REMOVEeurope.com says...
>> >
>> >On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
>> >(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
>> [deleted]
>> >It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
>> >changing the goal post in negotiations.
>> [deleted]
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
>> when 2 parties negotiate.
>
>agree but not to keep on changing, changing, changing or aka "moving
>the goal post". negotiate, negotiate, agree, sign. Not negotiate,
>negotiate, agree, change, negotiate, negotiate, agree, change and so
>and so on never ending. What a waste of everybody's time.
It's a matter of perception.
One sees a cup as half filled, the other sees as half empty.
The bottom line is that unless the final agreement is
signed, everything can still change when 2 parties
negotiate.
>> Moreover, the Malaysian PM on record had said that he wanted
>> to see the total package before he could come to a final
>> agreement. (Check his letter to LKY).
>>
>> Singaporeans are so conditioned with a protected mentality.
>> No wonder Singaporean government officials lost billions in Suzhou
>> for their country.
>> Don't see you people claiming compensation from President
>> Jiang. :)
>
>MY's record in investments is not that good too eg Perjawa Steel
Of course, many of our Bumiputra businessmen are protected.
That's why they are poor to react to market forces.
Singapore too ?
Meritocracy ? :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
It's also there in Dr M's letter to LKY.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Mr_Magoo
It worth 30 sen per 1000 gallon when the Johor state decided to sell
it to Melaka. So you don't think that it is possible for Johor state
to sale it to other states (especially the highly populated Klang
Valley area) within Malaysia in future?
Rgds,
Mr Magoo
Stephen Lim
wrote:
>You have conditioned Singapore to a protected mentality? Are you so
>sure that Singapore have lost billions in Suzhou Let's have a look at
>your facts.
>
>Best regards...Pek_1301
>>
>> regards,
>> michael ... afn2...@afn.org
you should also look into this as an angle why president ong cannot
get a clear answer on the reserves that singapore has when singapore
can do such a good job on finding out how much some fella whom they
are not happy about owe the government in taxes..
jereyoung@hotmail
> On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
> (jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
>
> >The crux of Singapore's argument on the water agreement is in the
> >words of FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR as follows :
> >
> >1) Water Agreements are enshrined in the Separation Agreement and
> >registered at the United Nations. They are fundamental to our very
> >existence as an independent nation. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia can
> >unilaterally change them. This is the root of the dispute between us.
> >
> >both countries, is Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation
> >separate from Malaysia, and the sanctity of the most solemn agreements
> >which Singapore and Malaysia have entered into.
> >
> >I am amazed on how a case which is so fundamental to a nation's very
> >existence can rest on such filmsy premise as this. I would thought
> >that the highly educated and sophisticated Singaporeans should have
> >some common sense to see that this line of legalistic rationale is
> >going nowhere and Pro Jayakumar is indeed playing a dangerous
> >patriotic game though not necesarily in the nation's interest.
>
> To ensure that the politics of the world does not operate on the law
> of the jungles, sanctity of treaties are important. Thus, Singapore
> has to take the legalistic line.
Yes agreed. But a treaty cannot be one sided. Look at the treaty that
was signed by Germany at end of WW1. The German feel so unfairly
treated that it lead to the elation of Hilter and plant the seed for
WW2.
Like it or not the law of jungle will prevail if there is not a fair
treaty.
>
> >Given that very existence of Singapore society is now at stake and
> >stand on this very thin slice of ice perhaps there should be some
> >furious debate on the matter without being overly emotional.
>
> It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
> changing the goal post in negotiations.
Look at what Jaya write. Jaya choose to stick to legalistic
line...what is there to talk if Singapore insist that the current deal
is fair?
Law is simply human's feeble attempt for everybody can live in some
sort of civilised manner. The law by itself is not an end to itself.
Tell me what law is applicable for a nation to sell its resource at
that ridiculous price?
> There is nothing much Singapore can do - either kowtow to Malaysia or
> be self sufficient in water asap.
Nonsense. Paying for a fair price of water does not mean kowtow, as
much as buying a Japanese car does not mean kowtow to Japan.
You pay what you get..this is the princplie of free market.
>
> >The phrase Agreement means party involved had agreed to agree and what
> >they agreed upon is on something which is reasonable and acceptable
> >to both party. If I remember my contract law 101 correctly and correct
> >me if I am wrong this something is called "consideration". This means
> >if I sign an agreement with you to pay you USD 1 million every year as
> >rental for one lot of car park then this agreement is not enforcable
> >and considered null even though this has been registered or stamped in
> >a legal environment simply because there is no sense in the deal even
> >the solemn agreement is signed by both party.
>
> If this is interpreted in a Malaysian court, your line of argument
> would be accepted. Elsewhere, it will be laughed at.
Cut this emotional bullshit out. Just correct me with an intellectual
reply.
I stand humbled on this argument.
It can be argued vice versa that only in Singapore this does not
apply,. what does it prove?
>
> >The fact remains if only Singapore is a poor country could there be
> >some sense in the present water agreement. With a GDP per head of USD
> >27k there is simply no sense for Malaysia to continue on with the
> >water agreement and hence the needs to negotiate a new water deal that
> >will make sense.
>
> Malaysia can break the agreements and turn the taps off. And then wait
> for international sanctions.
This is again another emotional bullshit. Threat of internation
sanctions? I should question the Malaysian PM how this allowed to drag
on.
Explain the case for international sanctions.
> Or do the honourable thing of live by the agreements. A future treaty
> with more favourable terms can be negotiated on a willing buyer and a
> willing seller case.
Living by an agreement that does not make sense is not honorable. The
honorable thing to do is to maintain the nations's soverignty by
maintaining the Malaysian has the right to manage its resource.
Meaning that Malaysia should turn off the tap and negotiate on a
willing buyer and willing seller then. The fact that it is not done
yet mean Malaysia still give face to Singapore...
>
> >If indeed as Jaya said water issue is not a matter of money, then what
> >is the water negotiation about? This argument is already self
> >contradicted by the negotiation process itself.
>
> The water negotiation was for a new treaty. Malaysia wanted a much
> higher price than what we were willing to pay for water in the
> EXISTING agreement.
> Singapore was not obligated to pay more for the water covered by the
> existing agreement.
See my line of argument above on the absurd agreeement. A agreement
that does not make sense is not an agreement at all..I still have not
received a reply on this.
> We were willing willing to pay more ONLY if there was a new agreement
> to extend the treaty.
The crux of matter is that this treaty is not fair. All Malaysia is
asking is for a fair review of the price agreement.
> Sure, we want the water only if it is cheaper than our own source of
> water. This is a business deal - we will bargain. Why pay more than
> what you need to?
> If Malaysia is not happy with the price, then don't sell the water.
101 % Agreed. You have come to your sense.
>
> >My friends, the fact of matter is this issue is all about money...The
> >first rule is No money no water and no deal. The 2nd is that nothing
> >is agreed until everything is agreed!
>
> So there is no agreement and no deal.
Why still supply water to Singapore when there is no deal?
>
> >In the absence of an agreeable agreement what has got Malaysia got to
> >lose? Malaysia don't need the money and can do without it. You would
> >see the benefit to the last 3 decimals as % of GDP.
>
> We can agree to disagree.
> If Malaysia cannot live by the terms of the existing agreements, then
> it can seek to annul it. Just do it by the terms of the agreement.
No need for terms of agreement. An annulled agreement has no agreed
terms.
> >What is got Singapore got to lose? Everything! Play delay tactic? The
> >stake only get higher ... What is there to stop Malaysia to supply
> >water? A water agreement that does not make sense?
>
> Sure we have something to lose. But Malaysia has plenty to lose too if
> it abrogates the agreements unilaterally.
What is there for Malaysia to lose?
> I would hope that Malaysia go ahead and turn off the taps because I am
> interested to see the international situation that will result from
> it.
Another lot of rubbish. Malaysia will be applauded for its no nonsense
business approach.
> Trust me, Singapore will survive if the tap is turned off.
>
Take your chance mate.
> >To rely on the goodwill or international pressure or reputation that
> >Malaysia will keep a senseless agreement is a very dangerous thing to
> >do. Imagine if Malaysia indeed decide to turn off the tap tomorrow
> >what would happen? Factory will be shut down..investor lose
> >confidence, oversea investor would pull out there operation indeed it
> >is not an understatement that the survival of the nation is at stake.
>
> And you expect investors will continue to come to Malaysia, tourism
> will remain unaffected ...that all will be well in Malaysia while
> Singapore sinks?
you just contradict yourself. Will Singapore survive without Malaysia
water?
>
> >Will Malaysia do it? There are many many ways to skin a lion...there
> >can be the unplanned leakage of pipeline, pollution of
> >reservior...With temperature rising on both side is there not a
> >technically convenient excuse to disrupt water supply to Singapore or
> >at the least make the flow irregular but unpredictable as long as it
> >does not overtly violating the senseless agreement that should be
> >enough to do some real harm.
>
> And there are many ways to expose Malaysians intent.
Surely a pipeline and resevour need some maintenace and flushing job
to do.
The fact is Malaysia does have a case not to supply.
> You can bet that Malaysia will have international publicity.
>
Yes good one.
> >Will Malaysia wait until Singapore have enough alternate water supply?
> >You bet.
> >
> >Can Singapore afford the Malaysian water? You would not even see it to
> >the last 3 decimal places on Singapore GDP% growth figure but just one
> >disruption incident can put some serious dent and many jobs plus loss
> >of confidence of future FDI. Is Malaysia willing...would anybody say
> >no to $$$$$ for a reasonable deal?
> >
> We can afford it but we are not going to pay ridiculous prices.
Is the price asked ridiculous?
>
> >Wake up to your $en$e$ and pay up, $ingapore.
> >
> We are awake ...that's why we are not willing to pay the sky for
> water.
You are still in a slumber. Think critically do not be ruled by
emotion...then
only then may the force be with you..
MalaysiaBoleh!
d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote in message news:<bg02vk$jc6hl$4...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de>...
FearLESS
you want to make him pusing with long sentence?
tok_kok
>In article <3f230285...@nntp.etob.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>, ivano...@REMOVEeurope.com says...
>>
>>On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
>>(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
>[deleted]
>>It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
>>changing the goal post in negotiations.
>[deleted]
>
>Nonsense.
>
>Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
>when 2 parties negotiate.
~ yeah like 45sen, then 60sen, then MYR3, then MYR8, then...
>Moreover, the Malaysian PM on record had said that he wanted
>to see the total package before he could come to a final
>agreement. (Check his letter to LKY).
~ still doesn't justify funny prices outside of an in-principle
agreement..
~ if the dr M wants to use that as an excuse, then what has changed to
justify 5 to 13 times in-principle agreement?
>
>Singaporeans are so conditioned with a protected mentality.
>No wonder Singaporean government officials lost billions in Suzhou
>for their country.
~ so what was the iniital capital structure that lost us the billions?
>Don't see you people claiming compensation from President
>Jiang. :)
>
~ only if you believe one penang boy who claims SAJ is making obscene
profits when they are struggling with costs and need to raise prices..
tok_kok
>>You have conditioned Singapore to a protected mentality? Are you so
>>sure that Singapore have lost billions in Suzhou Let's have a look at
>>your facts.
>
>==================
>
>Go read
>
>http://www.singapore-window.org/suzhou.htm
>
~ where does it say "singapore have lost billions in Suzhou"?
Ga...@bigfoot.com
> In article <3c26c6c0.03072...@posting.google.com>, Ga...@bigfoot.com says...
> >
> >d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote in message news:<bg02vk$jc6hl$4...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >> In article <3f230285...@nntp.etob.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>, ivano...@REMOVEeurope.com says...
> >> >
> >> >On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
> >> >(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
> [deleted]
> >> >It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
> >> >changing the goal post in negotiations.
> >> [deleted]
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >>
> >> Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
> >> when 2 parties negotiate.
> >
> >agree but not to keep on changing, changing, changing or aka "moving
> >the goal post". negotiate, negotiate, agree, sign. Not negotiate,
> >negotiate, agree, change, negotiate, negotiate, agree, change and so
> >and so on never ending. What a waste of everybody's time.
>
> It's a matter of perception.
> One sees a cup as half filled, the other sees as half empty.
>
> The bottom line is that unless the final agreement is
> signed, everything can still change when 2 parties
> negotiate.
>
Agreed.
However, signing off is just to formally confirm in black and white as
to what was verbally agreed to to be signed off during the process of
negotiations or discussions.
This is the norm in any business discussions or negotiations.
Discuss, negotiate, agree, re-negotiate and then formal signing off in
black and white on what was finally verbally agreed during
discussionsor negotiations.
This is in order to prevent any misunderstanding as to you say, I say,
I mean, you mean sort of scenarios.
Agreed that final verbally agreed positions can "move" before it is
formally signed off. However, would there really be any point in
continuing such negotiations if such verbally agreed final positions
to be signed off keep on changing?
So, both MY (no agreement until it is sign off) and SG (goal post keep
on moving) are correct.
Integrity and creditbility is paramount in any negotiations or
discussions.
Personally, I prefer to negotiate with someone whose word is his bond.
>
> regards,
> michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Stephen Lim
wrote:
>> you should also look into this as an angle why president ong cannot
>> get a clear answer on the reserves that singapore has when singapore
>> can do such a good job on finding out how much some fella whom they
>> are not happy about owe the government in taxes..
>
>you want to make him pusing with long sentence?
orrr sorry lah cikgu...
michael
>
>On 27 Jul 2003 08:37:09 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>>In article <3f230285...@nntp.etob.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>, ivano...@REMOVEeurope.com says...
>>>
>>>On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
>>>(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
>>[deleted]
>>>It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
>>>changing the goal post in negotiations.
>>[deleted]
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>>Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
>>when 2 parties negotiate.
>
>~ yeah like 45sen, then 60sen, then MYR3, then MYR8, then...
It a pity SG got lousy negotiators looking for a bargain.
Yet they still thought they were so close to a deal.
That's a hard fact of life that protected islanders must
learn to swallow.
However, swallow they did at the excuses dished out by their million
dollar ministers when the latter failed to perform. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
Of the US3.24 billion committed and losing $90 million in operation
up to 2000, how much of the 3.24 billion is Singapore getting back
after winding down their participation from 65% to 35% ?
Any parliamentary white paper on this ?
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
That's what I call perception.
Anyway, the initial negotiation is for the whole package.
If other items in the package (details of which were not disclosed
as clearly as those on water) were not agreeable, then earlier
verbal agreements on water could still alter.
>So, both MY (no agreement until it is sign off) and SG (goal post keep
>on moving) are correct.
>
>Integrity and creditbility is paramount in any negotiations or
>discussions.
>
>Personally, I prefer to negotiate with someone whose word is his bond.
I prefer not to negotiate with someone who will publish
private exchanges for self justification when he/she fails
to secure the contract for whatever reason.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Kelvin
sh...@usa.com says...
> Kelvin <keltan71@-NO-SPAM-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bfre1o$btv$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
> > In article <3F2107B...@computer.org>, han...@computer.org says...
> > > If the Singapore government sells land to condominium and commercial
> > > building developers at 1 SGD per square meter, I doubt the Malaysia
> > > government will complain when the Singapore government decides to
> > > acquire the land at the same price.
> > >
> > I wonder...if the Compulsory Acquisition Act can be invoked to claim
> > back these lands.
>
> Sure it can. Just like Malaysia can also invokes some kind of local
> law to superceded the water treaty.... think first before you
> play-play with fire or less you gonna get burn too.
>
Precisely why no one is making such a move even though the de facto MY
Law Minister has suggested it!
> Rgds,
>
> Mr Magoo
>
ignoramus
>Agreed.
>
>However, signing off is just to formally confirm in black and white as
>to what was verbally agreed to to be signed off during the process of
>negotiations or discussions.
If everything was verbally agreed and settled, there wouldn't have
been any more meetings. There would just be the signing ceremony.
It wasn't as if at the last minute before a signing ceremony that
Malaysia unveiled a new proposal or new terms. There wasn't even one
on the cards.
>
>This is the norm in any business discussions or negotiations.
>Discuss, negotiate, agree, re-negotiate and then formal signing off in
>black and white on what was finally verbally agreed during
>discussionsor negotiations.
>
>This is in order to prevent any misunderstanding as to you say, I say,
>I mean, you mean sort of scenarios.
>
>Agreed that final verbally agreed positions can "move" before it is
>formally signed off. However, would there really be any point in
>continuing such negotiations if such verbally agreed final positions
>to be signed off keep on changing?
>
>So, both MY (no agreement until it is sign off) and SG (goal post keep
>on moving) are correct.
>
>Integrity and creditbility is paramount in any negotiations or
>discussions.
>
>Personally, I prefer to negotiate with someone whose word is his bond.
>
I prefer to negotiate with someone who doesn't put words into my
mouth.
DumGai
chronology of events that happened.
Do not pluck out just anything you like to support the
arguments. Read the whole thing and understand the whole
process.
Wonder why Malaysia does not print the whole chronology
of events to support it's arguments.
"michael" <d1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg14st$jqr4c$3...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de...
DumGai
Which also means that Malaysia has no rights to review
price of water if it's not agreeable to the rest in the package deal.
If one is true to his words, why should he fear the correspondence
being published ?
DumGai
If so, the process of Arbitration would not have been dragged
so long........
The million dollar ministers obviously knows where they stand,
else, why would they be worth the million dollars ?
Go, bring the million dollar ministers to court and tear them to
shreds if the Malaysian ministers are worthy of their job.
michael
>
>d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote in
>news:bfu64e$j2l69$3...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> Subject: Re: Let's pay a fair price for the water.
>> From: d1...@hotmail.com (michael)
>> Newsgroups: soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.singapore
>>
>> In article <3f21666d$1...@news.starhub.net.sg>, peter...@yahoo.com
>> says...
>>>
>>>frankly, this is free money to malaysia... water doesn't belong to
>>>anyone... it just happen that malaysia have the lakes, and we don't...
>>
>> Ditto oil in Brunei.
>> Go ask them for free oil just because
>> they have and you don't. :)
>
>Once you burn fuel, it is gone. Water goes back into the atmosphere and
>becomes rain. Your comparison is not very well thought out, is it? :-)
Water is a natural resource.
If you don't have and you want it,
you must pay for it.
Otherwise, make your own rainwater. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Hann Wei Toh
>
> Agreed that final verbally agreed positions can "move" before it is
> formally signed off. However, would there really be any point in
> continuing such negotiations if such verbally agreed final positions
> to be signed off keep on changing?
Just wondering. Would there be any point in continuing negotiations if
Malaysia reduced the price from 0.45 MYR to 0.30 MYR and finally down to
0.05 MYR per thousand gallons? If negotiations would continue in this
case, then the changing of positions cannot be a valid reason for the
termination of negotiations.
Hann Wei
Anonymous
wrote:
>Kindly read the whole negotiation process and the whole
>chronology of events that happened.
>
>Do not pluck out just anything you like to support the
>arguments. Read the whole thing and understand the whole
>process.
>
>Wonder why Malaysia does not print the whole chronology
>of events to support it's arguments.
printing the whole chronology is not to Malaysia advantage
Anonymous
wrote:
>
>Which also means that Malaysia has no rights to review
>price of water if it's not agreeable to the rest in the package deal.
>
>If one is true to his words, why should he fear the correspondence
>being published ?
Malaysia story is just a story, so there no truth.
There is a difference between the words from Malaysia mouth & what
Malasyia put on paper.
Ga...@bigfoot.com
Agreed but talks appears to be focusing on water only and not
concurrently with all the other package issues until the water issue
is resolved.
> >So, both MY (no agreement until it is sign off) and SG (goal post keep
> >on moving) are correct.
> >
> >Integrity and creditbility is paramount in any negotiations or
> >discussions.
> >
> >Personally, I prefer to negotiate with someone whose word is his bond.
>
> I prefer not to negotiate with someone who will publish
> private exchanges for self justification when he/she fails
> to secure the contract for whatever reason.
From what I can see, accusations of insincereity, unreasonableness,
unfairness etc etc were hurled at SG by MY Govt and published in the
media over a period of time prior to the release of documents in Jan
03.
During this period there were no response from the SG Govt in engaging
in a public war of words. This is commendable as nothing will be
achieved by it as negotiations are still continuing.
When negotiations were deadlocked, SG then proceeded to refute MY
allegations by releasing documents disproving MY's allegations.
The issue is not in the release of the documents. The issue is that
Madhatter landed with egg all over his face as a result of it.
If someone makes public accusations against your credibility and
sincereity and you have documents to prove otherwise, would you not
release it to prove that it is not the case?
Who would believe you if you had simply verbally denied it without
collaberating documentry proof?
> regards,
> michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>
>Which also means that Malaysia has no rights to review
>price of water if it's not agreeable to the rest in the package deal.
Which also means you don't read the agreement and
understand it's contents which is plain English.
Right of review is not subject to a new agreement.
>If one is true to his words, why should he fear the correspondence
>being published ?
Tell me ...
Are you the type who would spill the beans on your girlfriend
after the both of you parted ?
Why ?
Cannot accept failure ? :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
>> That's what I call perception.
michael
>
>And you thought you had fantastic negotiators from Malaysia ?
Malaysia had lousy negotiators and Singapore ones
were even worse.
>If so, the process of Arbitration would not have been dragged
>so long........
I am in favour of a more proactive role on the question
of interpretation.
>The million dollar ministers obviously knows where they stand,
>else, why would they be worth the million dollars ?
Haha ... just because they are paid millions, they must
know where they stand ?
What about the question of a stupid employer ?
>Go, bring the million dollar ministers to court and tear them to
>shreds if the Malaysian ministers are worthy of their job.
No need .. just bring them to tears in a Malaysian court. :)
michael
>
>Kindly read the whole negotiation process and the whole
>chronology of events that happened.
>
>Do not pluck out just anything you like to support the
>arguments. Read the whole thing and understand the whole
>process.
I've read all the letters.
The Malaysian PM had been casual with those mail
exchanges because he never expected the other party
to spill the contents in public when the negotiations
failed. Else, he would have been more careful with
his choice of language/words or not reply to
SM Lee at all.
Quite unlike the scheming million dollar minister who
had done this before, even to the Americans.
>Wonder why Malaysia does not print the whole chronology
>of events to support it's arguments.
It is not the way we conduct diplomacy, which is friendly,
courteous and straight forward.
This country has never released official/private government
correspondences to score a point.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote in message news:<bg38c8$k0dor$2...@ID-170766.new>s.uni-berlin.de>...>> >d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote in message news:<bg13lv$jl72i$4@ID-170766.>news.uni-berlin.de>...>> >> >d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote in message news:<bg02vk$jc6hl$4@ID-1707>66.news.uni-berlin.de>...
" 'Appears to be' ... focusing" itself is your perception. :)
Now you are implying fixation even before we talk about
other issues.
You've got to understand a wider meaning of the words
used by the various dignitaries in the letters.
1. Not final until agreed and signed by respective PMs. - LKY
2. See whole package first before coming to a decision. - Dr M.
>> >So, both MY (no agreement until it is sign off) and SG (goal post keep
>> >on moving) are correct.
>> >
>> >Integrity and creditbility is paramount in any negotiations or
>> >discussions.
>> >
>> >Personally, I prefer to negotiate with someone whose word is his bond.
>>
>> I prefer not to negotiate with someone who will publish
>> private exchanges for self justification when he/she fails
>> to secure the contract for whatever reason.
>
>From what I can see, accusations of insincereity, unreasonableness,
>unfairness etc etc were hurled at SG by MY Govt and published in the
>media over a period of time prior to the release of documents in Jan
>03.
The washing of dirty linen in public was mutual.
>During this period there were no response from the SG Govt in engaging
>in a public war of words. This is commendable as nothing will be
>achieved by it as negotiations are still continuing.
>
>When negotiations were deadlocked, SG then proceeded to refute MY
>allegations by releasing documents disproving MY's allegations.
>
>The issue is not in the release of the documents. The issue is that
>Madhatter landed with egg all over his face as a result of it.
>
>If someone makes public accusations against your credibility and
>sincereity and you have documents to prove otherwise, would you not
>release it to prove that it is not the case?
>
>Who would believe you if you had simply verbally denied it without
>collaberating documentry proof?
1. No one would have believed that Singapore took all
the flaks lying down prior to the release of those
letters in parliament. Very unsingaporean. :)
Go back to the archives please.
2. The issue is very simply this.
The negotiation failed, for whatever reason.
(Just like a failed relationship)
One party decides to spill the beans by revealing
past love letters.
Not that he has never done that before to others. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Kelvin
> This country has never released official/private government
> correspondences to score a point.
>
LKY wrt the new Causeway...even had Hamid as witness (must have had his
eyes closed since it was a 4-eye meeting).
michael
Are you sure you understand the meaning of
the word "correspondences" ? :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
Kelvin
@hotmail.com says...
qualms about revealing official discussions in public, written or
not...the difference is that one depends on his recollection of events,
the other in black and white. So let's get off the high horse, shall
we?
> regards,
> michael ... afn2...@afn.org
>
>
michael
The difference is, if you know the other party is going to use
your letters to score points, you would be terribly careful about
what you write and not let your guard down when the other party
tells you that it's OK to explore ideas and that nothing is final
unless it's signed by the PM of both parties.
I hope Malaysian ministers learn from this lesson.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@af.org
DumGai
However, once someone else has been hurling accusations out,
there is no reason for the other party to keep quiet.
If you cannot be trusted even with within words, who would
trust you with verbal words.
It is not a matter of being careful with writings...... the fact is that
you cannot even be trusted with what you write.
"michael" <d1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg641t$l7elp$1...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de...
DumGai
We agree to review based on a packaged deal.
No package deal....... no review.......
You want to review...... sue us then.
"michael" <mic...@wang.pc.my> wrote in message
news:105945221...@wang.pc.my...
DumGai
make the employer bleed as well !!!!! That is.. if your minister is
capable!
"michael" <mic...@wang.pc.my> wrote in message
news:105945253...@wang.pc.my...
tok_kok
>>~ where does it say "singapore have lost billions in Suzhou"?
>
>Of the US3.24 billion committed and losing $90 million in operation
>up to 2000, how much of the 3.24 billion is Singapore getting back
>after winding down their participation from 65% to 35% ?
>
>Any parliamentary white paper on this ?
>
~ what 3.24billion commitment? equity? loan? by whom?
~ and why would a commitment be a loss? the last i checked CSSD is
still a limited company.. any idea what was the start-up capital?
tok_kok
>>Sure, sure, pick on the semantics. The point is that DrM too has no
>>qualms about revealing official discussions in public, written or
>>not...the difference is that one depends on his recollection of events,
>>the other in black and white. So let's get off the high horse, shall
>>we?
>
>The difference is, if you know the other party is going to use
>your letters to score points, you would be terribly careful about
>what you write and not let your guard down when the other party
>tells you that it's OK to explore ideas and that nothing is final
>unless it's signed by the PM of both parties.
>
>I hope Malaysian ministers learn from this lesson.
>
~ the last time we argued, you *used* the correspondence to back your
points.. while accusing Jaya for a lack of decorum.. thats
hypocritical..
~ to plead innocence when the truth is exposed is the equivalent of
croc tears.. which is a common excuse..
~ "..nothing is final unless it's signed by the PM of both parties" is
an attempt to trivalize POAs, in-principle agreements, official
correspondence, and the weight of the words of senior ministers of
both countries..
tok_kok
>>However, signing off is just to formally confirm in black and white as
>>to what was verbally agreed to to be signed off during the process of
>>negotiations or discussions.
>>
>>This is the norm in any business discussions or negotiations.
>>Discuss, negotiate, agree, re-negotiate and then formal signing off in
>>black and white on what was finally verbally agreed during
>>discussionsor negotiations.
>>
>>This is in order to prevent any misunderstanding as to you say, I say,
>>I mean, you mean sort of scenarios.
>>
>>Agreed that final verbally agreed positions can "move" before it is
>>formally signed off. However, would there really be any point in
>>continuing such negotiations if such verbally agreed final positions
>>to be signed off keep on changing?
>
>That's what I call perception.
>
>Anyway, the initial negotiation is for the whole package.
>If other items in the package (details of which were not disclosed
>as clearly as those on water) were not agreeable, then earlier
>verbal agreements on water could still alter.
~ in-principle agreement isn't merely "verbal" agreement..
>
>>So, both MY (no agreement until it is sign off) and SG (goal post keep
>>on moving) are correct.
>>
>>Integrity and creditbility is paramount in any negotiations or
>>discussions.
>>
>>Personally, I prefer to negotiate with someone whose word is his bond.
>
>I prefer not to negotiate with someone who will publish
>private exchanges for self justification when he/she fails
>to secure the contract for whatever reason.
>
~ then for goodness sake stop using same correspondence to justify
your points :)
~ in fact, if you want to plead moral high ground, renounce your
reading of the correspondence..
tok_kok
>In article <3f2570a1$1...@news.starhub.net.sg> lenn...@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>Which also means that Malaysia has no rights to review
>>price of water if it's not agreeable to the rest in the package deal.
>
>Which also means you don't read the agreement and
>understand it's contents which is plain English.
>
>Right of review is not subject to a new agreement.
>
>>If one is true to his words, why should he fear the correspondence
>>being published ?
>
>Tell me ...
>Are you the type who would spill the beans on your girlfriend
>after the both of you parted ?
>
>Why ?
>Cannot accept failure ? :)
>
~ since when was Malaysia a "girlfriend"? why do you keep parroting
your leaders?
~ and why is it a failure already when en Hamid is calling the
Singaporeans back to the negotiating table?
~ miss your boyfriend?
tok_kok
>>Agreed but talks appears to be focusing on water only and not
>>concurrently with all the other package issues until the water issue
>>is resolved.
>
>" 'Appears to be' ... focusing" itself is your perception. :)
>Now you are implying fixation even before we talk about
>other issues.
>
>You've got to understand a wider meaning of the words
>used by the various dignitaries in the letters.
>
>1. Not final until agreed and signed by respective PMs. - LKY
~ still won't explain why a 45/60sen in-principle agreement has been
unilaterally withdrawn for an unexplained jump to tiga ringgit..
>2. See whole package first before coming to a decision. - Dr M.
~ do you know which part of the package was a problem?
~ the crux of the problem is that the Malaysians still want to play
"abang".. and whenever "adik" refuses to play the part, Malaysians get
"hurt" and uses terms like "girlfriend" to indicate grief..
~ grow up..
tok_kok
>In article <sbk9ivca59r9eeiip...@4ax.com>, tok...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>On 27 Jul 2003 08:37:09 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3f230285...@nntp.etob.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>, ivano...@REMOVEeurope.com says...
>>>>
>>>>On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
>>>>(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
>>>[deleted]
>>>>It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
>>>>changing the goal post in negotiations.
>>>[deleted]
>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>>
>>>Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
>>>when 2 parties negotiate.
>>
>>~ yeah like 45sen, then 60sen, then MYR3, then MYR8, then...
>
>It a pity SG got lousy negotiators looking for a bargain.
~ 60 sen was the "fair price" given by the Prime Minister of Malaysia
after consulting Johor..
>Yet they still thought they were so close to a deal.
~ both dr M and LKY signed an "in-principle" agreement for 45/60sen
plus a package worth about MYR1.5BiLLioN..
>That's a hard fact of life that protected islanders must
>learn to swallow.
~ sure, when it suits you, the Malaysians are naive.. or the
Singaporeans naive.. only "abangs" like you has the measure of the
truth.. i imagine all Malaysian horses have stratospheric saddles..
>However, swallow they did at the excuses dished out by their million
>dollar ministers when the latter failed to perform. :)
>
~ nah.. we have official agreements and correspondence in the public
domain.. not cartoons in the local papers..
tok_kok
>>Go, bring the million dollar ministers to court and tear them to
>>shreds if the Malaysian ministers are worthy of their job.
>
>No need .. just bring them to tears in a Malaysian court. :)
>
~ Jaya has left the matter to arbitration under Johorean law in Johor
courts.. why is en Hamid calling back his boyfriend to negotiate?
FearLESS
> "abang".. and whenever "adik" refuses to play the part, Malaysians get
> "hurt" and uses terms like "girlfriend" to indicate grief..
>
> ~ grow up..
Actually Malaysia does not want to treat you like adik who need
subsidies from us. That's why Malaysia decided to ask for price review
because you are no longer adik after has had enjoying almost free
water for 40 years and earn a few billions of dollar from our water.
michael
>
>There was never any intention to let those correspondence out.
>However, once someone else has been hurling accusations out,
>there is no reason for the other party to keep quiet.
Well, Dean Rusk would not have put his points in
writing if he knew LKY would too publish his
letter in the press.
Dr M is the second person in my memory.
There could be more since I am not a fan
of ST.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>You have no right to review.......
>We agree to review based on a packaged deal.
>No package deal....... no review.......
>
>You want to review...... sue us then.
We could turn off the tap on a "no review no
water" stance and challenge you to sue us.
Sure you are not that stupidly crazy to
think we should do that .. right ?
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
Don't know even the capital involved and you are so
terribly sure the money are still there.
There should be a parliamentary white paper on this
for public accountability. Surely you are not going
to say CSSD should run like Perwaja. :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On 29 Jul 2003 15:32:14 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>
>>>Sure, sure, pick on the semantics. The point is that DrM too has no
>>>qualms about revealing official discussions in public, written or
>>>not...the difference is that one depends on his recollection of events,
>>>the other in black and white. So let's get off the high horse, shall
>>>we?
>>
>>The difference is, if you know the other party is going to use
>>your letters to score points, you would be terribly careful about
>>what you write and not let your guard down when the other party
>>tells you that it's OK to explore ideas and that nothing is final
>>unless it's signed by the PM of both parties.
>>
>>I hope Malaysian ministers learn from this lesson.
>>
>~ the last time we argued, you *used* the correspondence to back your
>points.. while accusing Jaya for a lack of decorum.. thats
>hypocritical..
Am I a party to the negotiations ?
You argue as if I am one. :)
That's stupid.
[deleted]
>~ "..nothing is final unless it's signed by the PM of both parties" is
>an attempt to trivalize POAs, in-principle agreements, official
>correspondence, and the weight of the words of senior ministers of
>both countries..
"Nothing is final" is LKY's own words and both Jaya and
LKY trivalised it.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On 28 Jul 2003 13:27:37 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>
>>>However, signing off is just to formally confirm in black and white as
>>>to what was verbally agreed to to be signed off during the process of
>>>negotiations or discussions.
>>>
>>>This is the norm in any business discussions or negotiations.
>>>Discuss, negotiate, agree, re-negotiate and then formal signing off in
>>>black and white on what was finally verbally agreed during
>>>discussionsor negotiations.
>>>
>>>This is in order to prevent any misunderstanding as to you say, I say,
>>>I mean, you mean sort of scenarios.
>>>
>>>Agreed that final verbally agreed positions can "move" before it is
>>>formally signed off. However, would there really be any point in
>>>continuing such negotiations if such verbally agreed final positions
>>>to be signed off keep on changing?
>>
>>That's what I call perception.
>>
>>Anyway, the initial negotiation is for the whole package.
>>If other items in the package (details of which were not disclosed
>>as clearly as those on water) were not agreeable, then earlier
>>verbal agreements on water could still alter.
>
>~ in-principle agreement isn't merely "verbal" agreement..
You either agree with the other person in writing or
you agree with him verbally.
Only people losing their sense of reasoning on enforceable agreement
can come out with a so called in principle agreement.
Why not sign an MOU ?
At least there is still a piece of paper for LKY to flash around. LOL
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
A big heart to save a nation from recycled jamban juice
lest the other party call us heartless again since Singapore
has gone on written record that they are still in the water
talks.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:18:08 GMT, mic...@wang.pc.my (michael) wrote:
>
>
>>>Agreed but talks appears to be focusing on water only and not
>>>concurrently with all the other package issues until the water issue
>>>is resolved.
>>
>>" 'Appears to be' ... focusing" itself is your perception. :)
>>Now you are implying fixation even before we talk about
>>other issues.
>>
>>You've got to understand a wider meaning of the words
>>used by the various dignitaries in the letters.
>>
>>1. Not final until agreed and signed by respective PMs. - LKY
>
>~ still won't explain why a 45/60sen in-principle agreement has been
>unilaterally withdrawn for an unexplained jump to tiga ringgit..
Ah .. you "in principle " becomes the "sole principle" why
Malaysia can no longer vary its position in any stage of
the discussion after LKY announcement in KL eventhough
Malaysia's position had been that there was no agreement.
(Go buy that 3 sen book)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On 28 Jul 2003 12:49:49 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>>In article <sbk9ivca59r9eeiip...@4ax.com>, tok...@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>>On 27 Jul 2003 08:37:09 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3f230285...@nntp.etob.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>, ivano...@REMOVEeurope.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 26 Jul 2003 02:17:03 -0700, jere...@hotmail.com
>>>>>(jereyoung@hotmail) wrote:
>>>>[deleted]
>>>>>It was Malaysia that called off the talks. It was Malaysia that kept
>>>>>changing the goal post in negotiations.
>>>>[deleted]
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>Unless the final agreement is signed, everything can change
>>>>when 2 parties negotiate.
>>>
>>>~ yeah like 45sen, then 60sen, then MYR3, then MYR8, then...
>>
>>It a pity SG got lousy negotiators looking for a bargain.
>
>~ 60 sen was the "fair price" given by the Prime Minister of Malaysia
>after consulting Johor..
>
>>Yet they still thought they were so close to a deal.
>
>~ both dr M and LKY signed an "in-principle" agreement for 45/60sen
>plus a package worth about MYR1.5BiLLioN..
Wah ...Signed somemore ?
How come that piece of paper on which the purported signatures
were inked never appear in the MFA download ?
tok_kok
>>~ what 3.24billion commitment? equity? loan? by whom?
>>
>>~ and why would a commitment be a loss? the last i checked CSSD is
>>still a limited company.. any idea what was the start-up capital?
>
>Don't know even the capital involved and you are so
>terribly sure the money are still there.
~ same old pattern.. just anyhow gasak a big number to mock the
Singaporeans.. but when asked to elaborate on the US$3.24billion -->
another grandfather story.. another attempt to obfuscate and divert
attention..
>
>There should be a parliamentary white paper on this
>for public accountability. Surely you are not going
>to say CSSD should run like Perwaja. :)
>
~ come on lah.. you think the Singaporeans are stupid ha.. you make
the unsubstantiated claims and expect the Singaporeans to do your
homework is it? you never give up, do you :)
tok_kok
>>~ the last time we argued, you *used* the correspondence to back your
>>points.. while accusing Jaya for a lack of decorum.. thats
>>hypocritical..
>
>Am I a party to the negotiations ?
>You argue as if I am one. :)
>
>That's stupid.
~ its very simple.. if you're not happy that Jaya released the
official correspondence, then pls don't quote said correspondence..
>
>[deleted]
>>~ "..nothing is final unless it's signed by the PM of both parties" is
>>an attempt to trivalize POAs, in-principle agreements, official
>>correspondence, and the weight of the words of senior ministers of
>>both countries..
>
>"Nothing is final" is LKY's own words and both Jaya and
>LKY trivalised it.
>
~ the first indication was 30sen.. Singapore was to pay a 50%
premium.. thus 45sen.. later dr M said that was the subsidized rate..
instead, the Prime Minister of Malaysia (after consulting Johor)
indicated a "fair price" of 60sen.. the ballpark was thus
established.. and two senior ministers had an in-principle agreement..
~ 6mths later, dr M unilaterally introduced MYR3.. which was never
discussed before.. there was no justification to this day why has the
"fair price" of 60sen jumped exponentially to MYR3.. if there was a
problem with the other parts of the 1.5BiLLioN ringgit package, it was
never brought up to this day that it justified the quantum jump in the
"fair price"..
~ if MYR3 is fair price for filthy, sewage laden longkangjui, why did
dr M raise Singapore's 50sen treated water to just MYR1?
~ we buy MYR3 of filthy, sewage laden longkangjui.. spend more to
treat it and deliver treated, clean water for MYR1? you might as well
go and rob :)
tok_kok
>>>Why ?
>>>Cannot accept failure ? :)
>>>
>>~ since when was Malaysia a "girlfriend"? why do you keep parroting
>>your leaders?
>>
>>~ and why is it a failure already when en Hamid is calling the
>>Singaporeans back to the negotiating table?
>[deleted]
>
>A big heart to save a nation from recycled jamban juice
>lest the other party call us heartless again since Singapore
>has gone on written record that they are still in the water
>talks.
>
~ correction.. the last iteration was left to arbitration.. in your
own country.. under your laws.. "bloody nose".. "war".. were words
used.. so pls stop pretending there was any cordial relations..
~ the entire process was "wayang" until Semanggar can displace
Singapore's archaic, cheapo, and shameful 50sen treated water for
Johoreans that no other Malaysian state can match.. least of all SAJ
(whom you claim to be making "obscene profits")..
~ you're allowed to continue playing the "abang" bit.. you're allowed
to ride in time and again on your high horses to pontificate (and mock
the Singaporeans).. but few will play "adik"... having a backbone tend
to get in the way..
~ the ballpark numbers were established by the Prime Minister of
Malaysia after consultations with Johor.. its in the Sep 01
in-principle agreement.. its more than any of your inter-state
transactions.. its more than a fair price for excess, raw, untreated
water..
~ we need a wayang-less, fair-minded neighbour.. not a boyfriend nor a
girlfriend..
tok_kok
>>~ in-principle agreement isn't merely "verbal" agreement..
>
>You either agree with the other person in writing or
>you agree with him verbally.
~ you referred to "verbal agreement" on the water issue.. the two
senior ministers of Malaysia and Singapore held a *joint* press
conference to announce the 45/60sen in-principle agreement..
~ are you trying to tell me that that was tak pakai?
>
>Only people losing their sense of reasoning on enforceable agreement
>can come out with a so called in principle agreement.
~ its hard to explain to the unprincipled what is an in-principle
agreement..
>
>Why not sign an MOU ?
>At least there is still a piece of paper for LKY to flash around. LOL
>
~ POAs are signed as well.. when dr M indicated his "fair price" of
60sen.. it was signed as well.. its all been "flashed around" in the
Singapore parliament and currently resides in the public domain..
~ you're still welcomed to call Jaya, GCT, LKY, etc "liars"..
tok_kok
>>~ 60 sen was the "fair price" given by the Prime Minister of Malaysia
>>after consulting Johor..
>>
>>>Yet they still thought they were so close to a deal.
>>
>>~ both dr M and LKY signed an "in-principle" agreement for 45/60sen
>>plus a package worth about MYR1.5BiLLioN..
>
>Wah ...Signed somemore ?
>How come that piece of paper on which the purported signatures
>were inked never appear in the MFA download ?
>
>LOL
>
~ have some decency.. don't scold the kind Singapore FM for lack of
decorum while looking through said correspondence..
tok_kok
>>~ still won't explain why a 45/60sen in-principle agreement has been
>>unilaterally withdrawn for an unexplained jump to tiga ringgit..
>[deleted]
>
>Ah .. you "in principle " becomes the "sole principle" why
>Malaysia can no longer vary its position in any stage of
>the discussion after LKY announcement in KL eventhough
>Malaysia's position had been that there was no agreement.
>(Go buy that 3 sen book)
>
~ of course they can vary the price.. it was 45sen.. dr M came back to
say it was "subsidized".. and produced a "fair price" of 60sen..
meaning the explanation was accepted.. it was the ballpark.. Singapore
was flexible enough to accept the higher price..
~ to then unilaterally raise the price manifold to MYR3 without
justification (after years of negotiation) indicates the Malaysians no
longer want to sell.. that is the simple truth..
~ to then wayang and accuse the Singaporeans for not complying to a
unnegotiated quantum jump is dishonest..
~ and like you, the Malaysians haven't a clue which part of the
package was so dissatisfactory to justify MYR3..
michael
>
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:18:53 GMT, mic...@wang.pc.my (michael) wrote:
>
>
>>>~ what 3.24billion commitment? equity? loan? by whom?
>>>
>>>~ and why would a commitment be a loss? the last i checked CSSD is
>>>still a limited company.. any idea what was the start-up capital?
>>
>>Don't know even the capital involved and you are so
>>terribly sure the money are still there.
>
>~ same old pattern.. just anyhow gasak a big number to mock the
>Singaporeans.. but when asked to elaborate on the US$3.24billion -->
>another grandfather story.. another attempt to obfuscate and divert
>attention..
US$3.24 is committed capital lah .. go read the web site
I gave.
It's not something plucked from the thin air.
>>There should be a parliamentary white paper on this
>>for public accountability. Surely you are not going
>>to say CSSD should run like Perwaja. :)
>>
>~ come on lah.. you think the Singaporeans are stupid ha.. you make
>the unsubstantiated claims and expect the Singaporeans to do your
>homework is it? you never give up, do you :)
Still not interested in how much money was actually lost ?
People like you are not thick but simply Singaporean. LOL.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On 30 Jul 2003 13:15:17 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>>>~ the last time we argued, you *used* the correspondence to back your
>>>points.. while accusing Jaya for a lack of decorum.. thats
>>>hypocritical..
>>
>>Am I a party to the negotiations ?
>>You argue as if I am one. :)
>>
>>That's stupid.
>
>~ its very simple.. if you're not happy that Jaya released the
>official correspondence, then pls don't quote said correspondence..
Stupid argument fit for 5 year old. :)
>>[deleted]
>>>~ "..nothing is final unless it's signed by the PM of both parties" is
>>>an attempt to trivalize POAs, in-principle agreements, official
>>>correspondence, and the weight of the words of senior ministers of
>>>both countries..
>>
>>"Nothing is final" is LKY's own words and both Jaya and
>>LKY trivalised it.
>>
>~ the first indication was 30sen.. Singapore was to pay a 50%
>premium.. thus 45sen.. later dr M said that was the subsidized rate..
>instead, the Prime Minister of Malaysia (after consulting Johor)
>indicated a "fair price" of 60sen.. the ballpark was thus
>established.. and two senior ministers had an in-principle agreement..
There was no agreement on water price.
If there were, LKY would have produced a SIGNED paper, like
what he extracted from the Tunku.
In their own words.
LKY - "exploratory, not final until signed by both PMs."
Dr M - " Not until he sees the whole package."
New SCM/SCS version
- There was an in principle agreement.
In principle ? Whose principle ?
Where ? Any piece of signed paper indicating so?
No ? Not even an MOU ?
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On 30 Jul 2003 13:23:28 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>>>>Why ?
>>>>Cannot accept failure ? :)
>>>>
>>>~ since when was Malaysia a "girlfriend"? why do you keep parroting
>>>your leaders?
>>>
>>>~ and why is it a failure already when en Hamid is calling the
>>>Singaporeans back to the negotiating table?
>>[deleted]
>>
>>A big heart to save a nation from recycled jamban juice
>>lest the other party call us heartless again since Singapore
>>has gone on written record that they are still in the water
>>talks.
>>
>~ correction.. the last iteration was left to arbitration.. in your
>own country.. under your laws.. "bloody nose".. "war".. were words
>used.. so pls stop pretending there was any cordial relations..
The money MY collected from water sales was pittance.
No real reason to continue talking except to save
people like you from recycled Jamban juice.
Better turn off the tap for SG failure to perform
and have you people sue us instead.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On 30 Jul 2003 13:21:00 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>>>~ in-principle agreement isn't merely "verbal" agreement..
>>
>>You either agree with the other person in writing or
>>you agree with him verbally.
>
>~ you referred to "verbal agreement" on the water issue.. the two
>senior ministers of Malaysia and Singapore held a *joint* press
>conference to announce the 45/60sen in-principle agreement..
>
>~ are you trying to tell me that that was tak pakai?
You missed out the part where Dr M mentioned that he
wanted to see the whole package before coming to a
decision.
Otherwise crafty Lee would have nailed Dr M with a signed
statement like he did to Tunku.
So how to pakai with an unprincipled one sided story ?
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
Signed "in principle agreement" ? LOL
It's bad enough to lack decorum.
It's even worse to lie.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
michael
>
>On 30 Jul 2003 13:27:26 GMT, d1...@hotmail.com (michael) wrote:
>
>
>>>~ still won't explain why a 45/60sen in-principle agreement has been
>>>unilaterally withdrawn for an unexplained jump to tiga ringgit..
>>[deleted]
>>
>>Ah .. you "in principle " becomes the "sole principle" why
>>Malaysia can no longer vary its position in any stage of
>>the discussion after LKY announcement in KL eventhough
>>Malaysia's position had been that there was no agreement.
>>(Go buy that 3 sen book)
>>
>~ of course they can vary the price.. it was 45sen.. dr M came back to
>say it was "subsidized".. and produced a "fair price" of 60sen..
>meaning the explanation was accepted.. it was the ballpark.. Singapore
>was flexible enough to accept the higher price..
While the officials are still talking, any price and
proposal can be put forward since it's a total package
that we are talking about at that time.
If both party think they have an agreement, the next thing
they should do is to get the parties to pen a so-called
"in principle" agreement on what has been agreed.
Otherwise, we can assume that the officials were far
from any agreement.
Like that also must teach million dollar ministers ? :)
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
tok_kok
>>~ same old pattern.. just anyhow gasak a big number to mock the
>>Singaporeans.. but when asked to elaborate on the US$3.24billion -->
>>another grandfather story.. another attempt to obfuscate and divert
>>attention..
>
>US$3.24 is committed capital lah .. go read the web site
>I gave.
>It's not something plucked from the thin air.
~ first of all, i still don't see US$3.24billion capital commitment..
secondly, you point me to a site with more than a dozen articles.. why
don't you be more specific? and thirdly, ".. is committed capital lah"
still doesn't answer the questions: is it equity? loan? capital was
committed by whom? what is its liability?
>
>>>There should be a parliamentary white paper on this
>>>for public accountability. Surely you are not going
>>>to say CSSD should run like Perwaja. :)
>>>
>>~ come on lah.. you think the Singaporeans are stupid ha.. you make
>>the unsubstantiated claims and expect the Singaporeans to do your
>>homework is it? you never give up, do you :)
>
>Still not interested in how much money was actually lost ?
>People like you are not thick but simply Singaporean. LOL.
>
~ not interested? we've been through the SIP and "billions already
lost" crowd many moons ago.. you might like to try the archives..
tok_kok
>>>Am I a party to the negotiations ?
>>>You argue as if I am one. :)
>>>
>>>That's stupid.
>>
>>~ its very simple.. if you're not happy that Jaya released the
>>official correspondence, then pls don't quote said correspondence..
>
>Stupid argument fit for 5 year old. :)
~ its a fact.. you mock Jaya for a lack of decorum in publishing the
correspondence.. if you want to claim moral high ground, than you
shouldn't have read the correspondence..
~ but you shamelessly did..
~ if you want to quote those correspondence, then apologize.. if not,
have some decency and stop quoting said correspondence..
>
>>>[deleted]
>>>>~ "..nothing is final unless it's signed by the PM of both parties" is
>>>>an attempt to trivalize POAs, in-principle agreements, official
>>>>correspondence, and the weight of the words of senior ministers of
>>>>both countries..
>>>
>>>"Nothing is final" is LKY's own words and both Jaya and
>>>LKY trivalised it.
>>>
>>~ the first indication was 30sen.. Singapore was to pay a 50%
>>premium.. thus 45sen.. later dr M said that was the subsidized rate..
>>instead, the Prime Minister of Malaysia (after consulting Johor)
>>indicated a "fair price" of 60sen.. the ballpark was thus
>>established.. and two senior ministers had an in-principle agreement..
>
>There was no agreement on water price.
>
>If there were, LKY would have produced a SIGNED paper, like
>what he extracted from the Tunku.
~ you have a SIGNED paper indicating there was no agreement on water
price?
>
>In their own words.
>
>LKY - "exploratory, not final until signed by both PMs."
>Dr M - " Not until he sees the whole package."
>
>New SCM/SCS version
>
> - There was an in principle agreement.
>
> In principle ? Whose principle ?
> Where ? Any piece of signed paper indicating so?
> No ? Not even an MOU ?
>
~ you think agreements are signed on blank A4 size papers without
official letter heads?
~ and after both senior ministers had held a joint-press conference in
KL, and after releasing info that no Malaysian ministers had disputed
before the MYR3, you want to marginalize that in-principle agreement
to signatures? you're so sure there are no signatures? that what the
Prime Minister of Malaysia (after consulting Johor) indicated as "fair
price" wasn't "final".. that during those years of negotiation, they
thought it was MYR3? but they never said a word, even agree to
45/60sen but in fact it should have been MYR3?
~ so do something that none of the Malaysian big wigs have done to
this day.. why the quantum jump? what basis? if its a problem with the
package, which part?
~ to help you along (and try not to delete this again):
tok_kok
>>~ correction.. the last iteration was left to arbitration.. in your
>>own country.. under your laws.. "bloody nose".. "war".. were words
>>used.. so pls stop pretending there was any cordial relations..
>[deleted]
>
>The money MY collected from water sales was pittance.
~ for some of your excess, filthy, sewage-laden longkangjui.. it is
3sen.. what you and the entire northern neighbourhood has deliberately
left out is the fact that we offered to revise it to 45/60sen.. a
price none of your states will pay for filthy longkangjui..
~ plus the important fact that we have been subsidizing Johoreans for
donkey years with clean, drinking water for an archaic, pre-war,
cheapo, shameful 50sen that not even Penang, Pahang or Timbaktu can
match..
>
>No real reason to continue talking except to save
>people like you from recycled Jamban juice.
~ so pls ask your Datuks to go to arbitration.. no need to call after
"girlfriend"..
>
>Better turn off the tap for SG failure to perform
>and have you people sue us instead.
>
~ they will do more than just sue you..