The "scenic" bridge, which is how we describe it, and "half bridge" as the Singaporeans call it, to my mind, is a win-win for both nations. Thus, I am perplexed by the vehement objections by Singaporeans; but maybe that’s because, I’m a Malaysian.

As far as I can gather, the bridge, together with the soon-to-be-completed Customs, Immigration and Quarantine complex (CIQ) in Johor Baru, will improve significantly land transport infrastructure between the two nations. And since Singapore is not keen on it, it will not cost the republic anything, except for inconvenience during its construction.

The 1.4km bridge, which will end at the Malaysian side of the Causeway or roughly the midpoint, will comprise three sections: the cable-stayed bridge, a section approaching the CIQ complex, and a 150m swing rail bridge that would allow ships to pass.

If Singapore could agree on a bridge, then it would be a shorter link with the kink straightened, and the engineering marvel that is the swing rail bridge will be scrapped. And the whole Causeway can be done away with. But none of us is holding our breath.

The bridge issue — now known in the diplomatic world as "bridge politics" — has been heating up a bit lately, with terse statements coming from both sides of the Johor Strait, or Selat Tebrau as some of our nationalists would like to call it, following Putrajaya’s decision to go ahead with its construction.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was quoted as saying that it is Malaysia’s right as a sovereign nation to build one since it would be within its internationally recognised territory.

Singapore’s Second Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim fired back in the country’s Parliament, saying that the republic cannot accept its neighbour’s right to unilaterally replace its side of the Causeway with the half bridge, since any major work on the Causeway, which also has water pipes and rail tracks, would affect "a variety of areas of vital importance to both countries".

Its officials have also said that breaking the Causeway, even if only on the Malaysian side, would infringe its rights and may contravene international law.

His concerns aside, I am sure when we build the bridge, we will make sure that water supplies and rail links will continue during its construction, and after its completion. We are not heartless people.

Of course, we should not be pushing for the bridge as a means to exercise our rights and thumb our noses at our southern neighbour. That would be playground politics; wrong, counter-productive and silly. We are building it to make us more competitive by upgrading major infrastructure that could go a long way to improving our quality of life and possible business opportunities for the southern region.

Obviously, being initiated by Malaysia, the bridge will benefit us, and especially Johor Baru and the whole of southern Johor, more. But it will benefit Singapore, too. I do not see how it could disadvantage Singapore, unless there is some insidious scheme plotted by our Government that we are not aware of.

The yet-unnamed curved bridge cannot be spoken of in isolation. It is a part of an integrated project aimed at improving, modernising and making more efficient the southern gateway. There will also be a whole lot of urban redevelopment arising from it, which would help alleviate the chronic traffic situation in Johor Baru and open up new residential, business and industrial opportunities.

The Causeway was built more than 80 years ago to meet economic necessities, when transporting rubber and tin by ferry to Singapore, which was the entrepot for the peninsula, was no longer efficient. The bridge, and the entire southern gateway project, is also rooted in economic realities since the Causeway is getting inefficient and congested.

Currently, about 100,000 people use the Causeway daily, and it is the entry point for 70 per cent of foreigners into Malaysia, or about eight million per year. The number is expected to increase further.

It is also a major thoroughfare for goods from both countries, and on weekends and public holidays it will be chock-a-block with Singapore-registered vehicles carrying our neighbours looking for cheap stuff, a highway away from the physically-constricting island to thrash their cars, and generally have a good time. Nowadays, if their media are to be believed, they are even risking property and self from marauding carjackers and kidnappers just by crossing the Causeway. But I digress.

Singapore’s official position has been that there are no compelling reasons for the bridge when the Causeway is fine, and that it would cost it some S$500 million (RM1.1billion) to build its side of the bridge. Now the curved bridge will not cost them anything.

The bridge, as far as I can fathom, will not likely erode Singapore’s competitiveness as an entrepot for the region. The bridge will not result in a new commercial sea lane as the structure will not be high enough to allow cargo, cruise ships or tankers to pass through. Instead, I was made to understand, it will only allow pleasure craft and smaller boats, most likely from Singapore, too.

In fact, the CIQ complex and the bridge will likely enhance Singapore’s role as an entrepot for the region by improving the cross-border movement of goods that now come from as far away as Thailand.

It will also improve the flow of labour into the republic, and it would complement nicely Singapore’s spanking new CIQ complex in Woodlands. Incidentally, the new Woodlands CIQ was built in recognition of the growing needs coming from the Causeway.

A bridge will allow water to flow again in the Johor Strait. Reinstating natural tides and sea currents will flush the strait, dilute pollutants and overcome the stagnation and see the return of marine life. With dredging work, pollutants buried deep for the last 80 years will be cleared. No one in his right mind would argue that still water is better than flowing water. But then I could be wrong.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, and on sleepless nights I tend to drift that way, I would conclude that objections to the bridge are part of a strategy by Singapore to get some outstanding bilateral issues resolved. Their officials implied as much when they argued that Malaysia’s bridge intentions would not help ongoing bilateral talks on them.

On the table, as far as I can remember, are the issues of water supply, air rights for its air force, the sale of sand, and the KTM land that runs all the way to Tanjung Pagar railway station. One of its former leaders even said he had some sentimentality attached to the Causeway, hence the republic’s heavy heart to see it go.

Nostalgia aside, if Malaysia were to agree to all the terms requested by Singapore with regard to the air, sea, land and sand issues, would we have an uncontested bridge? If so, the argument against the bridge, in the first place, would be nothing more than diplomatic drivel.

It is well-known that Wisma Putra is not too keen on public discussion of this issue, which it feels could hamper bilateral talks. I can understand why details of negotiations should be kept confidential, for now, but the bridge, to Malaysians, is more than a concrete structure connecting two land masses.

It has evolved into an issue of national importance that grabs the people by their hearts. You cannot tell people not to feel or care about the sovereignty of their nation, especially when another nation is telling us what we can or cannot do in our own territory.

We want to talk about it. Our Parliamentarians, elected by us, should be able to discuss it. The issues are real and affect us as Malaysians. We are also always told to wear our patriotism on our sleeves.

Is Singapore jerking our chain and using the bridge to delay resolution of all other issues? Is it a stalling strategy by the republic? Is the bridge a bargaining chip? Should we at the end of the day agree with Singapore that it is a waste of money and there should be no need for a bridge at all?

I have often contemplated that in the wildest of scenarios, if Malaysia were to secede or lease a portion of south Johor to Singapore, the first thing its planners would do is perhaps not only replace the Causeway with a bridge, but also build a couple more here and there. But that could be the teh tarik talking.

                                                      Home