I refer to the letter How Singapore is run by Saif. Saif has some interesting observations based on his six years stay in Singapore. One question for him to ponder is this - wouldn't it worry him if his own country's leaders don't think in term of 'What's in it for our country or people?' whenever making a decision?

With his six years stay in Singapore, it wouldn't have taken him long to realise that Singapore being a 'tiny red dot' does not have any natural resources like Indonesia and Malaysia for export or vast land for cultivation of food. Even water is scarce due to limited land. So every decision made is important for a small country especially decisions that have an economical impact. A small mistake can be big for a small country.

Any foundation and basis for collaboration should be mutually beneficial to the countries involved. If any country feels they that it's of no benefit, they should, and can choose, not to go ahead with it. Simple as that.

I would also like to respond to the letter Singapore has gone overboard by Suria Kenchana

'Singapore has yet again tested the limits of our patience and impudently underestimated our intelligence and our ability to safeguard our honour', he writes.

I would like to hear Suria's basis for the statement above. Is he referring to the scenic bridge in particular? If so, how has Singapore (who rejected the idea of the scenic bridge) underestimated Malaysia's intelligence and her ability to safeguard her honour?

The separation of Singapore from Malaysia was done in a legal and peaceful manner and by mutual consent of both countries' leaders at that time. The separation was more due to different political standpoints.

The idea to built a full or half-bridge came from Malaysia. Part of the population in Singapore and Malaysia are against the idea due to the high cost, lack of added benefits and potentially higher toll fees. The decision to call off the half-bridge plan was also made by Malaysia.

According to Malaysia's prime minister, the cancellation was due to possible legal implications. If it was Malaysia's right to build the half-bridge, why doesn't the Malaysian government fight it out in the International Court of Justice? Obviously, there must be some doubts as to this 'right'.

It's better to be wrong now rather than build the bridge then realise the legal implications later. If Singapore's demands are unreasonable, it's definitely Malaysia's right to reject them. If Malaysia does not think the terms offered to them are beneficial, they can choose not to take up the offer.