A Malaysian's view on the scenic bridge:
Bridge saga makes all poorer
By raising sand and military overflying rights, Singapore ensures
these issues remain out of reach. Chandra Muzaffar, The Sun
May 15, 2006
Kuala Lumpur - AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi Abdul Razak
has provided a rational explanation on why the Malaysian government
decided not to build "the bridge" to replace the Johor
Causeway.
The first three options that he outlined would have been
detrimental to our national interest.
1. The first option - acceding to Singapore's request for a lifting
of the 1997 ban on the export of sand to Singapore and allowing the
Singapore military access to Malaysian airspace as trade-offs for
the building of a full straight bridge - would have been perceived
by a lot of Malaysians as an affront to our national
sovereignty.
2. The second option - building a half bridge to join the Singapore
part of the Causeway - would have embroiled us in contentious legal
wrangles, sapping our financial resources.
3. The third option - building a half bridge in the hope that
eventually it can be linked to a full bridge - would have placed us
at Singapore's mercy and subjected the nation to ridicule.
4. The fourth option - not to build the bridge at all - was perhaps
the only way out of a difficult situation. By exercising this
option, however, Malaysia has had to pay a heavy price.
The Mahathir administration had already constructed a RM1.2 billion
Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) complex without obtaining
a firm, formal agreement from its Singapore counterpart on the
building of the bridge.
It had also awarded the contract for the bridge to a developer who
will now have to be compensated - to the tune of RM100
million.
It was neither responsible nor intelligent to make decisions of
this sort which have become an "albatross around the neck" of the
present government.
The Singapore government also "shot itself in the foot" by
insisting upon sand and airspace as the trade-offs for its consent
on the bridge.
Because of this episode, no Malaysian government in the foreseeable
future will even be able to open a discussion with the Singapore
government on the question of allowing the Singapore Air Force
access to Malaysian airspace.
It has merely reinforced the suspicion that pervades a significant
segment of the Malaysian populace about the real intentions of the
Singapore government, which is perceived as a close security ally
of both Washington and Tel Aviv.
The Singapore government could have used the bridge proposal from
the Malaysian government to improve its image among the Malaysian
people.
True, the bridge would have benefited Malaysia - specifically
Southern Johor - more than Singapore but it would have also further
enhanced the cross border flow of people and goods to the advantage
of the latter.
Besides, the water flow in the Johor Strait that the bridge would
have facilitated, and the return of marine life, would have
benefited both neighbours.
More than anything else, a bridge would have been a wonderful
symbol of the importance we accord to friendship and understanding
between our two peoples.
But when one is obsessed with reaping the most from every
situation, when one's kiasu mentality has instilled in one a morbid
fear of losing out, how can we expect a magnanimous gesture of
goodwill from our dear neighbour?
Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement
for a Just World (Just).
