Although the present administration has abandoned plans to build the infamous crooked bridge, a ‘half-bridge’ joining the existing Johor-Singapore causeway at midpoint, different and perhaps more substantial links between Singapore and Malaysia have been under construction.
Leaders from both countries met briefly during the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Finland earlier this week where they discussed bilateral ties. Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his Singaporean counterpart Lee Hsien Loong agreed to cooperate on the economic development of Southern Johor.
Mr Badawi said plans to develop the South Johor Economic Region, revealed under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP), were meant to complement and not compete with Singapore. The PM has expressed hopes that development in Southern Johor would echo that of China’s Shenzhen province which had grown to become an extension of metropolitan Hong Kong.
Apart from bilateral ties, regional issues were also discussed. Both leaders voiced concern over the lack of interest on the part of foreign investors towards South East Asia, who favoured India and China instead.
They agreed that greater cooperation between the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was vital to get the region on the map. ASEAN needed to be seen as a single entity instead of ten distinct nations since together they boasted a total population of 530 million –a figure surely large enough to attract the attention of foreign investors.
It would also be wise for Malaysia to be on good terms with its immediate neighbour in order for both parties to be adequately prepared in the fight against global threats such as international terrorist groups or a potential worldwide SARS outbreak.
At the height of bridge-related antagonism, Singapore abandoned talks to replace the existing causeway with a new suspension bridge in 2002 after Malaysia refused to discuss supplying water to the city-state after 2061.
The bridge idea was rejected under the pretext of ‘nostalgic value’ and the claim of costs being too high in comparison to benefits received. One reason for this lack of enthusiasm could have been because the existing causeway led traffic flow away from the port in Johor to Singapore’s benefit.
The problem of pollution in the Straits of Johor would be solved at the advent of the new bridge. The current causeway had obstructed the natural flow of tide leading to unhealthily stagnant waters.
The new bridge would also ease severe traffic conditions in Johor Baru as it would cater to double the present traffic volume. But even with the crooked bridge, drivers would face traffic congestion anyway as long as Singapore continued using their half of the old causeway.
The bridge had to be high enough to allow ships to pass beneath it. It also needed to gain this height gradually as too steep a climb would hamper access for heavy vehicles.
Both these physical conditions coupled with Singapore’s refusal to replace the causeway left then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad with “no choice but to opt for a crooked bridge”. In August 2003, Malaysia unilaterally announced intentions to push ahead with the RM460 million-project anyway.
In October 2003 however, a change in administration left the project in limbo as Mr Badawi attempted to mend broken ties.
His efforts have certainly been fruitful. The Malaysia-Singapore relationship has been on an upward trend under Mr Badawi’s watch after sinking to unprecedented lows towards the end of the Mahathir-led administration.
Even the former premier admitted that relations with Singapore had improved as a result of Mr Badawi’s gentler approach.
Mr Badawi’s first visit to Singapore in January 2004 produced a pleasant surprise when it was announced that plans to resolve issues through an international court had been scrapped. It was agreed that both countries were to give bilateral talks another shot.
Singapore’s Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said on Tuesday that cooperation between both countries was certainly encouraged. His affirmation of Mr Badawi’s non-confrontational style was implicitly evident when he urged Mr Abdullah “to look forward and not look back into the past. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s time and my time, that’s over.”.
Large-scale projects to construct cutting-edge architectural wonders are most certainly welcome in Malaysia. These will not only boost the local construction industry but also serve as a source of national pride.
Nonetheless, if Malaysia wanted to impress its neighbour and the rest of the world it should have focused on the efficiency and cleanliness of immigration counters first rather than making enemies in the pursuit of white elephants.
4 comments:
From thecicak.com
Koalabear:
Regarding the bridge, I will argue it from the side of practicality.
Suppose, indeed Malaysia DID have the RIGHT to build that bridge on our side WITHOUT Singapore’s AGREEMENT.
You talk about economic benefits:
1. Suppose the Jambatan Bengkok has one extra lane on each side. When they meet Singapore’s causeway, the lanes will have to merge. Where is the extra capacity? All I see is a bottle neck.
2. Even if Singapore widens their end of the Causeway, if our Immigration and Customs remain slow, there will be a hold up and traffic jam on the causeway. (First World Hardware, Third World Work Ethic).
3. Even if they widen the causeway/Jambatan Bengkok and increase lanes and efficiency at JB and Woodlands CIQ, how about the roads through JB? Another bottleneck?
I am not saying that it is not our right to do so. But I am saying it is stupid to go ahead while Singapore doesn’t. I want a new (complete and straight) bridge to Singapore.
I am not disputing our right to do so. You know, we have the right to change our road systems from driving on the left side of the road to the left, no? We also have the right to stop trading in the US dollar, no? We can also drop the Roman alphabet and use Jawi, no? We have the right to stop using the metric system and resume using kati, depa, hasta etc.
But should we? There are probably some benefits from driving on the right hand side of the road. And the same with avoiding the US dollar. etc. But as long as our neighbours and trading partners don’t, we will be only hurting ourselves.
No body is saying tak boleh. It’s just that when we have this arrogant attitude of an unconditional Malaysia Boleh, we are only shooting ourselves.
Mahathir talks about sovereignity as if it is all about sand and airspace. We sell sand to Singapore so that they can reclaim more land. And they build factories and research institutes on those reclaimed land. But who works in those factories? Malaysians.
We let Malacca reclaim land. If you head to Malacca, head to Pulau Melaka and see what a Satu Lagi Projek Terbengkalai Kerajaan Barisan Nasional looks like. Look at that wasteland eyesore and massive environmental destruction.
And they say that knocking down the causeway will improve the environmental condition of the Tebrau Straits.
You want to talk about economic development? How about eradicating corruption first and opening up the tender for all these projects? How about housing all the poor first? How about ensuring a clean water supply into our homes?
How about taking some time to learn how Singapore has gone ahead of us? How about letting trade and investment between both countries increase? (look at this Singapore-bashing Pantai-Parkway thing). How about Singapore letting AirAsia fly into Changi and Tiger Air into KLIA?
***
Marvin:
What does ships being able to pass Tebrau Straits have to do with turning the Johore Ports - Tg Pelepas / Pasir Gudang / Senai - into an entreport?
If the crooked bridge is built, the space for ships to pass through will be very narrow. In fact the railway bridge will have to be swung open everytime a ship wishes to pass.
And with it being so narrow, how many big ships will be able to pass through? Take a look at Google Earth / Maps and see how narrow and windy the Tebrau Straits are.
How much time/distance will be shaved by ships avoiding the south of Singapore then?
Look at the maps again and you will find Tg Pelepas Port a few miles West of the Second Link.
Compare its position with that of other Singapore Ports (Jurong or Keppel and others). Tg Pelepas is in a position almost as good as Singapore’s. It is almost next to the open sea.
What the government ought to do (and from what I’ve been reading, they are planning to), if it really wants to be a competitive entreport is to develop the land links in Johor properly. Connect all the rail/road/seaports properly with good roads.
Singapore Port isn’t just great because of its size and position. It is also great because of the many supporting manufacturing and processing industries nearby. We should develop it in the area of SW Johor.
Why do Malaysian and so many other freight movers avoid Malaysian ports?
Because of our inefficient Customs.
Because moving goods through Singapore is cheaper, less risky and faster. No need to bribe officers. No tea breaks every 2 hours. Singapore Port workers (probably mainly Malaysian anyway) are much more well paid and motivated.
Think about it properly, what difference does it make for ships to stop in Port Klang, Tg Pelepas or Singapore? Either way, they have to turn the ship around the peninsula. They all aren’t very far apart. If ships do want to stop, they will stop, and they choose one that is best for them.
They choose their stop based on things like the business/political climate, how fast the port clears, how expensive are the services, how corrupt and inefficient the customs are, how close they are to industries and distribution channels.
I don’t think the option of just saving 10 miles, while having to undergo a lot of other costs is good enough.
We need more than just hardwared to become World Class. Mahathir is telling us that hardware is all we need to be that.
Mahathir promised that with infrastructure like the Twin Towers, MEASAT, KL Tower, KLIA, Cyberjaya and Putrajaya, we can beat our regional competitors.
No doubt, with these, we are better off. But we are still not good enough.
Bangkok and Changi Airports are still busier than and preferred to ours. Telekom Malaysia is not the number 1 telecoms provider in SEA. Singapore has no Cyberjaya, but their broadband is broader and the island is more intelligent.
Singapore doesn’t have any petroleum resources of its own. Yet it has more petroleum refining capacity than Malaysia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries
Do you think ExxonMobil/Shell simply decided to choose to refine more oil in Singapore than in PD/Malacca for silly reasons?
Putrajaya and Cyberjaya have relieved some congestion in the smaller Klang Valley. But people (without cars) still find it very difficult to get around those two townships.
I am no sympathiser of Badawi. His (and his administrations’) handling of the crooked bridge was horrible.
But Mahathir’s case for the second bridge (economic development and environment) is an unintelligent and very costly one.
Besides if we cut a hole in the causeway and build a jambatang bengkok, there’s nothing to stop Singapore from building another port north of their Island.
***
Tattler:
In [the] future, there won’t be just one or two bridges between Malaysia and Singapore. There will be lots.
Abdullah Badawi, Building bridges with Singapore, The Edge Malaysia, 11 September 2006.
Glad to read the latest news on the bridge here. I sense a little "nicety" here and I'm looking forward to more news on the "encouraging bilateral ties between Singapore and Malaysia"
what's a nicety?
it's interesting to read the reasons of having the crooked bridge from a malaysian pt of view. heh..but im still glad the project is put behind, and hopefully it'll be for a good few years.
Post a Comment