I refer to the letter Crooked bridge would have brought in billions. Perhaps I should point out some facts for the writer to ponder.

Pollution of the Johor Straits emanates from the Johor side. With the existing Causeway, water is still able to flow under the causeway as there are culverts beneath the Causeway. Even if half the Causeway is demolished (which cannot be done unilaterally), the water pollution will still be there as the discharge from Johor will continue.

As for Tanjung Pelepas and Pasir Gudang benefitting at the expense of Singapore, well, dream on.

Take a look at the map of Singapore. Ships going from the Malacca Straits to the South China Sea by passing north of Singapore (assuming the Causeway is half demolished) will not save any distance compared to the current practice of going south of Singapore. In fact, given the meandering course, the distance is slightly longer.

Next, take a look at the hydrographical chart of the Johor Straits. Many places are very shallow and some places have underwater rocks which are almost impossible and very costly to blast away. Next, look at the existing width and height clearance of the exiting Second Link at Tuas. Can big ships pass through safely?

Assuming that ships can pass north of Singapore, does that mean that Pasir Gudang and Tanjung Pelepas will be the port of choice? Don’t forget Sembawang port is just opposite. Also, if the Causeway is demolished, will Singapore sit idly by if there is a real threat to its own ports? They can decide to regularly hold regattas and yachting races near Changi Point which is entirely within its territorial waters. Ships will have a hard time passing through. And then, there might be some shipping accidents now and then given the busy stretch. Worse, a shipwreck may just block the passageway between Changi and Pulau Tekong.

And finally, what makes the writer think that Johor Port can compete with Singapore’s ports?

The same strategy by Dr Mahathir Mohamad to bypass Changi Airport by building KLIA does not support this argument. KLIA is newer, much larger, more fanciful, more modern with the landing and aircraft parking charges much lower than Changi’s. The jet fuel is cheaper too. Did the world’s airlines pull out of Changi and come to KLIA? Has Changi even suffered a dent?

One thing I have to agree with is the title of the above letter. Yes, indeed the crooked bridge would have brought in billions - but only to Dr M’s cronies who are involved in its construction and the subsequent realignment of the railway track and water pipelines.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Mohd Ayub. You know why no one has informed the Malaysian public of the benefits of the crooked bridge? Because there are none for the public, they’re only for the cronies.