The Scenic bridge

Categories: Malaysia, Singapore

So will the 'scenic' bridge materialised? Whatever the outcome of the planned meeting between the Foreign ministers of Malaysia and Singapore, a bridge will definitely be build. Question is whether it will be straight or in 'S'-shape.

The bridge is definite because of what the Dr Mahathir had said when he was the Prime Minister. He had said that Malaysia does not need Singapore's agreement if she wants to replace the Causeway in its territorial waters. Therefore he had already put national pride at stake. Therefore there is only one course of action and that is to built the bridge. Only the shape of the bridge is in question.

The disadvantage of building a half-bridge in an 'S'-shape is certainly one of cost. To build a straight bridge is expensive enough but to build an 'S'-shaped one will certainly magnified the cost given the extra length needed. Not only that, when and if a straight bridge is to be build, this 'S'-shaped section would probably have to be removed. This is because the end of the S-shaped bridge is to be linked to the existing Causeway on the Singapore side.

Another problem is the railway and the water pipes that runs parallels to the Causeway. The train certainly can't take the crooked bridge. And if the train can't take the crooked bridge, then the idea behind replacing the Causeway would be irrelevant. In fact if Malaysia decides to stop the train service in JB, then this will only be to her disadvantage as the agreement on the railway in Tanjung Pagar is tied to the use of the railway station.

But whatever disadvantage and impracticality there is overshadowed by national pride. Therefore the bridge must be built!

Singapore, on the other hand, has more room to manouver. They have left the issue open when they said that they will agree to the bridge if 'both sides benefits from the arrangements'. They will not looked stupid if they don't go ahead with building the bridge. But what may the 'benefits' that Singapore is looking for?

My thinking is that of the Tanjung Pagar railway station and the question of the check-point. Tanjung Pagar railway station had proven to be a stigma. Physically it prevented the expansion of the Keppel Harbour. Emotionally it represented the 'colonisation' of Malaysia. Therefore by removing the railway station the benefits are huge.

Another issue may be the use of SAF planes in the Malaysian airspace. Previously SAF planes could fly past Malaysian airspace on their take off. After the fallout between Dr Mahathir and Mr Goh Chok Tong, this privilege was stopped. Since then, all SAF planes that needed to intrude the Malaysian airspace on its take-off needs individual clearance. This has definitely hindered the efficiency of the SAF. This also cause a dent in Singapore's national pride.

Singapore may also be looking in the opening of Malaysia air space to commercial flights. If this happens, SIA will be the main beneficiary. Malaysia has many places of interest especially it natural beauty. With Singapore being the main tourist hub and stop over, this will let Singapore to exploit Malaysia's eco-tourism sector as its own backyard. This will further enhance Changi Airport. Malaysia will also benefit from this arrangement but its benefit will be less.

The renewal of water from Johor has loss its urgency since the introduction of NeWater. Of course this may provide the sweetener that Singapore may be looking for.

Malaysia has more to loose compare to Singapore if there is no agreement. Therefore it may be in Malaysia's interest to provide some 'leeway' to Singapore. The only thing Singapore will loose is the cordial ties it is currently enjoying with Malaysia. Then again, given the cordial relations between Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi and Mr Lee Hsian Loong, an agreement may be hammered out. If that happens, Malaysians will be deprived of a 'scenic' bridge, the world's first crooked bridge and a place in the Guiness Book of Records.