Bridge over Troubled Water

Many people see a storm brewing over the horizon. It involves the issue surrounding the construction of a bridge over to Singapore. During Dr Mahathir's time he supported the construction of a scenic bridge over to Singapore.

Some say this is another harebrained idea by Dr Mahathir. A contractor was selected and some works on the bridge were in fact already carried out. When Abdullah Badawi took over as PM, the bridge project was cancelled.

The government paid the contractor concerned for the 'some works' completed. Samy Vellu paid millions and he justified the amount. Was it RM150 million?

Almost everyone who was a cabinet member under Abdullah then supported the cancellation. Most of them were the very same fellows who supported the idea of building the bridge during Dr Mahathir's time.

If the bridge was agreed upon and then cancelled and if it is now revived, then this could only mean:-

1. The idea of building the bridge has sound reasons.
   
2. But because the idea is personality dependent, it becomes an on, off and on again game.
   

The fundamental issue is, does building the bridge make sense for Malaysia? This line of questioning suggests we are motivated by self interest first. We make no apologies of that. Every nation is guided by its own self interest first. Malaysia it seems, is not given that latitude. When it comes to Malaysia, its interests are conditional and contingent.

The economic sense of building a bridge if they are strong ones, override the need to fit in the good neighbourliness arguments put forth by several writers in the international media. Their arguments sound so artificial and are only resurrected when it involves other countries. Thus I find it erroneous and condescension-laden the arguments submitted by writers in Asia Sentinel and Telegraph of UK.

To these people, the idea of building the bridge is inherently bad simply because it is associated with Dr Mahathir. Their writings seem so farcical because they seem to be pushing for a blanket acceptance that what Dr Mahathir did during his 22 years premiership was a nightmarish episode in Malaysian history.

I also find it farcical the deafening silence by supporters of Dr Mahathir on the internet, when parallels were drawn between Mahathir and Mugabe, or with Noriega and other tin pot despots. But when I wrote something mildly critical of Dr Mahathir on specific aspects, they descend like vultures scavenging on carcasses. Hence the comments coming from them have the foul smell of rotting flesh. Hello boys, now is the time to support TDM.

That a bridge is actually needed seems to be sidelined now. When it was agreed, the decision must have been supported by extensive technical and feasibility studies. Since building such bridge is very unlike building a Lego model, the technical arguments FOR must have overwhelmed the arguments AGAINST. Hence, we must assume such a bridge is doable.

It is the second leg of the issue which is getting a bigger attention.

The bridge issue is touted by certain people as Najib's Mahathir dilemma. It is to choose whether to revive or banish the idea of building the bridge once and for all. The dilemma is to decide between rejecting calls to revive the bridge project and with it marking his own territory or accepting its revival and with it the stigma of buckling under Dr Mahathir. Najib has to decide who the boss is.

Dato Najib should be mindful of the arguments on both sides but should not be herded into making his decision if only to satisfy either sides of the divide. Which of these arguments make economic sense? Not because to reject the idea will be seen as being THE MAN or to accept as being Dr Mahathir's stooge. The idea of the bridge must be elevated beyond whether its Mahathir or not Mahathir's labels.

The real issue that must be answered is: is the second bridge needed? If it is, the issue of whether Najib is capitulating to Mahathir does not arise. If the construction of the bridge has its own intrinsic merits, the fact that it was mooted by Dr Mahathir should not be an excuse to reject the idea. To do so, would be to capitulate and surrender to those who harangued the former premier. Dr Mahathir is not the issue here.

Why should building the bridge be seen as buckling under Dr Mahathir's feet and that the only way to assert the PM's I-am-my own-person persona, he must reject the idea of building the bridge?

Does it make economic sense is a more important question. Will it confer strategic advantage? Will it confer competitive advantage?