2. True, I did not negotiate successfully the increase of the 3 sen per 1000 gallons of raw water. You know why? If we demand an increase to 6 sen (100%), Singapore would increase the treated water price to RM1.00 (100%). Of course if we increase to RM6.00 Singapore would demand an increase to 50 x 2000% = RM100.00.

3. Yes, Malaysia profited by buying treated water at 50 sen. Malaysia’s entitlement was only 12% of the raw water it sold to Singapore. The cost of treatment is not RM2.40 as alleged. It was only RM1.20. However, since the Singapore dollar has appreciated against the Malaysian Ringgit from being at par to RM2.40, the same cost to Singapore would now be about 2.4 times the original RM1.20.

I reproduce here the payments made by Petronas to the Federal Government since 1976. That year the Government received RM300 million. The amount increased to RM2 billion in 1981. By 2003 it paid RM15.6 billion to the Federal Government. The total from 1981 to 2003 is RM168.8 billion in 22 years.

From then onwards it increased from RM19 billion in 2004 to RM67.8 billion in 2009. The total for six years is RM253.6 billion.

I am sure the Government had spent the money wisely. It would be interesting to know what the RM253.6 billion was spent on.

2) I cannot reproduce his long article but some extracts relevant to Malaysia merit attention by the Malaysian public who may be worried that the people’s right to be governed by leaders of their own choice has been eroded.

3) Can the King dismiss the Prime Minister? The answer is;

1. I put the document on the financing of the construction of the Johor Causeway because a Minister in Tun Abdullah’s Government claimed that it is jointly owned by us and Singapore. Therefore Singapore must agree before anything (demolition) is done to the causeway.

2. There has never been any agreement or treaty to say that the causeway is jointly owned. If at all 2/3rd of the causeway belong to Johore. And the 2/3rd must be the part which ends in Johore Bahru because the border on the Tebrau Straits is the deep water line which runs midway between Singapore and Johore. This must also be the border on the causeway. The northern half of the causeway therefore belong to Malaysia, a sovereign independent nation.

3. The suggestion that we may not touch the causeway without Singapore’s permission is not part of any agreement with Singapore. What we do to the part of the causeway which is ours is our sovereign right. Not to exercise our sovereign right is akin to not being independent.

1. Mike, pengusaha keju mozzarella di Langkawi telah kembangkan perusahaanya dengan membuat keju dari susu kambing yang di ternak olehnya.

2. Kualiti kejunya amat baik dan diterima oleh hotel lima-bintang di Langkawi.

3. Mike menunjuk banyak lagi hasil dari proses membuat keju susu kambing dan semua by-products ini boleh diguna untuk buat pizza dan lain-lain.

2. But we already have a new Middle Kingdom now. During Lee Kuan Yew’s triumphant visit to Malaysia he made it known to the Malaysian supplicants that Singapore regards the lands within 6000 miles radius of Singapore as its hinterland. This includes Beijing and Tokyo and of course Malaysia.

3. Of course this self-deluding perception places Singapore at the centre of a vast region. It is therefore the latter day Middle Kingdom. The rest are peripheral and are there to serve the interest of this somewhat tiny Middle Kingdom.

2. Isterinya yang turut bersama mencelah, “Anak saya tak tahu pun ibukota negeri-negeri. Dulu semasa saya di sekolah saya hafal nama semua ibukota bukan sahaja negeri-negeri di Malaysia, tetapi negara-negara di dunia.”

3. Saya baca dalam akhbar bahawa bahasa Inggeris tidak perlu diwajibkan. Jadi apakah yang diwajibkan jika sejarah tak wajib, bahasa Inggeris pun tidak.

1. Why is it that when I defend UMNO or the Malays I am labelled a racist but not when others speak up for Chin Peng?

2. If speaking up for the Malays is considered racist then are the Malays to be denied their right to speak for themselves?

3. Liberalism is fine but it should not benefit only certain people and not others. By definition not benefiting certain people contradicts the very concept of liberalism.