So, in truest form of doublespeak, a crooked bridge has become a scenic bridge. Shakespeare would say, what’s in a name? Despite the doublespeak, I fully support the idea of a bridge, bent or otherwise.
In my opinion, the only reason Singapore is being impossible is because an opening of Tebrau Strait would enable Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP) in Johor to seriously challenge Port of Singapore. The growth of PTP has already alarmed the Singaporean government. For the past few years, several of the world’s largest container ship operators like Maersk and Evergreen have migrated from Singapore to PTP. According to Wikipedia, Maersk’s migration alone represented a 10% drop in business at Singaporean ports.
PTP is growing because it’s a cheaper alternative to Singaporean ports. And it’s growing in spite of the Causeway. Imagine if there were no causeway to prevent sea travels. With clear lines connecting PTP with two other Johor ports in the east – namely Johor Port at Pasir Gudang and Tanjung Langsat Port – PTP would become an even larger entrepot. That itself would encourage PTP to grow even further and faster.
I’m sure the Singaporean government know this and I suspect they’re trying to slow PTP’s growth down. Today in Utusan Malaysia, an article suggests that Singaporean reclamation projects at eastern and western reach of Tebrau Straits might be Singapore’s effort to prevent the strait from becoming a viable sea route. That article helped me sealed my suspicion. After all, narrowing the strait is the surest way to keep PTP and other Johor ports’ growth in check.
Singapore insists that construction of a bridge replacing the Causeway must bring benefit to both sides. However, opening up of the strait will hurt Singaporean trade. Given that, Singapore refusal to agree to a bridge is comprehensible, no matter how frustrating it is. So, when Singapore said it’s not benefiting from the construction of the bridge, Singapore is telling the truth. More importantly, a convoluted truth because Singapore is applying a false dilemma fallacy. The result of “no bridge” has already been guaranteed when they supplied the condition. And not to forget, this is done on top of other nonsense reasons such as traffic volume into Singapore, higher toll and how Goh Chok Tong is feeling nostalgic about the Causeway given by Singaporean government.
A false dilemma is the appearance that only two choices exist when in fact, there are other explorable options. For instance, if Singapore refuses to replace its half of the Causeway, Malaysia could demolish its half and then replace it with a crooked bridge, which is what Malaysia is doing.
A crooked bridge is an unfortunate political turn. Nonetheless, I believe it is important for Malaysia to take our economy into own hands instead of the Singaporeans’. We should never make ourselves as somebody else’s hostage. This bridge is us driving forward. This bridge is us giving the Tebrau Strait back its life.
8 replies on “[718] Of bridge of euphemism”
[…] Singapura. Saya adalah seorang daripada mereka yang menyokong pembinaan jambatan itu atas beberapa sebab. Malah, saya juga menyokong Malaysia untuk tarik diri daripada perbincangan mengenai jambatan itu […]
I’m sorry, but does the pronoun it refers to the Malaysian half of the Causeway?
If so, what makes you think it is international or Singaporean territory?
__earth, you will first need to prove that it is Malaysian territory!
It’s a tragedy yes but like in economics, Malaysia (and Singapore) tries to maximize their gain. more precisely, it’s similar to Prisoners’ dilemma. So, the question is, if the one is not cooperating, why should the other cooperate?
At the same time, I read JB’s MP said that in return for a straight bridge, Singapore wants to use Malaysian airspace for military training and supply of sand. I don’t mind sand but allowing Singaporean airforce to use Malaysian airspace is worse than having a crooked bridge. Hence, a crooked bridge is preferred.
and the list goes on n on n on… to wat purpose and to what end? it would be like having poor environmental control in industries in Germany and France, and let those sorry Scandinavian folks enjoy the acid rain that is created as a result.
sad as it may sound, neighboring countries tend to behave like children… with all that “you did it too” kinda talk n mentality… but wat it really does is to erode the sentiments and trust that the parties have for each other.
maybe tat’s y there is something call diplomacy?
I’ll agree with our leaders on this one. It’s perfectly legal for us to try and neutralise S’pore’s ports by doing this. Singapore’s mighty port has been in trouble for some time now anyways. They had to lay off many workers a few years back, something which has never happened before, due to the port’s rising cost and thus the lowering of its competitiveness.
However, as a JBian, let me tell you that I am quite dissapointed with my former state (I was actually from Penang, but I moved there later). The contrast when someone enters JB from S’pore is not a pretty sight for us. Frankly, IMO, the Johor MB has failed to spruce up JB to compete with S’pore, by building better infrastructure in JB and maintaining the cleanliness. So it’s not all S’pore’s fault that JB hasn’t realised its full potential yet.
A ha but it’s in Malaysian territory. Just like how Singaporean reclamation project is done within Singaporean territory despite objection from Malaysia. No different. That’s Singapore’s national interest, this is Malaysia. If it’s sounds like dubya, so too the reclamation project.
dude…. going by your logic, as long as a country feels that a particular action is best for their economy and national interest, they should go ahead and take biz into their own hands? wow…. tat’s really Dubya sounding man…