Malaysia's embarrassing flip-flop on the half-bridge project is only the tip of the iceberg of a deeply flawed government - one that continues to be plagued by Mahathirism.

Yes it is alive, in spite of the paradoxical scene of an angry Dr Mahathir Mohamad shouting juvenile protests against the government for having scrapped his signature project - the infamous crooked half-bridge .

Let us be very honest from the outset. This very expensive project was never motivated for the benefit of the people. It is a typical Mahathir-era mega project - grandiose, high-cost and crony-driven for bumper profits without a tender being called and with no proper rationale.

Having been suspended for 2.5 years since Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) took over the premiership, the half-bridge recently sprang to life when Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak signaled the immediate resumption of work by declaring on March 18 that no country could deny Malaysia's right to construct the bridge in its sovereign territory.

Najib said it was imperative that the causeway be demolished as it was no longer feasible because the traffic volume and water pollution had reached dangerous levels ( Straits Times , March 18, 2006). He expressed Malaysia's determination to complete the bridge come what may. If Singapore agreed to a straight full bridge, fine, we would have a full bridge. If not, Malaysia would build a 'scenic bridge' to replace its half of the causeway. Pak Lah echoed the sentiment a few days later.

Then, out of the blue, the Prime Minister s Office released a statement on April 12 that there would be no bridge - all works and negotiation on the bridge was to cease forthwith. This abrupt U-turn has shocked and puzzled many people. Why? What happened? The answer lies perhaps in a statement made in Singapore's Parliament on April 3.

Singapore's Second Foreign Affairs Minister Raymond Lim then said in Parliament that Malaysia did not have the right to unilaterally replace its half of the causeway with a bridge without the concurrence of Singapore.

He reminded Malaysia that it had in 2003 applied for an injunction to the International Tribunal of the Law of the Seas (ITLOS) to stop Singapore's reclamation works when these works were carried out in Singapore s sovereign territory.

While rejecting Malaysia's application, ITLOS had ruled that all future engineering works in the Johor Straits would henceforth be subjected to the joint scrutiny of the two neighbours. This rule is premised on the principle that works in one sovereign territory in the Straits could affect the other.

The Malaysian government must have woken up to the fact that it could no longer practise double standards and that there was no way it could escape a bruising legal battle, particularly in reference to the water pipeline to Singapore, unless Malaysia was prepared to sell sand to Singapore and to allow the Singapore air force to take off over the southern tip of Johor.

But the Malaysian government could not overcome hostile local sentiments to make that trade-off with Singapore. Hence the decision to abandon the bridge.

Project critical?

No sensible person would quarrel with the government over this decision. In fact, Pak Lah has won praise all round for making this logical move. But the question is: why made out the bridge project to be a life-or-death issue in the first place? Umno leaders from the top guns down have been hyping it up in collusion with the local media, that this so-called southern gateway project is such a critical and glorious project; that Malaysia, in particular Johor, cannot live without it.

We have been repeatedly bombarded with publicity that this project is absolutely indispensable to the solution of Straits pollution and causeway traffic congestion, and that the project would bring economic boom by boosting tourism, opening up shipping in the Straits and spurring growth in Tajung Pelepas Port and Pasir Gudang Port (to the detriment of Singapore, of course), enhancing beauty and prestige etc. But now, all of a sudden, we are told that we will be just doing fine without the bridge.

Aren't we worried about the unbearable pollution, choking traffic or stagnant economy, now that we have no bridge? No, apparently not.

The truth is: All this hype is mere propaganda to provide a faade for the cronies and hidden beneficiaries to reap a bonanza from this mega project. Before I dwell on the shady side of this project, let me first set the record straight by scrutinising the official rationale. I will be brief as I have already debunked each of these official claims of justification in past articles.

Pollution

The cause of pollution is the discharge of untreated sewage and waste water from industries, agriculture and urban dwellings into the Straits through Sungei Skudai, Sungei Segget, Sungei Tebrau, Sungei Johor and Pasir Gudang. This was confirmed in the Murray-North report which was commissioned by the two governments in 1993. This report also stated that opening up the

causeway had only marginal effect on the pollution level of the waters, and could not be justified in benefit/cost term.

Traffic congestion

The traffic bottleneck is at the immigration check-point and has nothing to do with the width or length of the bridge or causeway. By increasing the number of immigration booths at the causeway and employing fast track clearance such as the long-proposed electronic smart card system, traffic flow can be spectacularly increased. In any case, traffic congestion nowadays is much more serious at the Singapore end, as can be verified from frequent commuters. So, building a bridge would not help, unless Singapore takes steps to expedite its immigration and security clearances.

Navigation

It s a fallacy that ocean going vessels will prefer to sail through the Straits, as there is no saving in distance. On the contrary, the narrow and shallow channel and height restriction will preclude any such navigation, safe small vessels (even more so in the case of the crooked half bridge).

Port development

Can Pasir Gudang Port be linked to Tanjung Pelepas Port via the Straits? Yes, for smaller vessels only. Even that would not be economical, as it is cheaper and faster to transfer goods from one port to another by truck than by ship. So, the bridge project will not be a catalyst for the growth of the ports.

Environment

The bridge will allow free flow of water and free passage to boats through the Straits, though sailing time is restrictive due to the operation of the rail bridge.

Esthetics and prestige

The crooked half-bridge looks queer and will more likely attract ridicule than admiration. The straight full bridge looks acceptable though not spectacular due to its short span over the water. But it is debatable whether it looks more impressive than the present causeway, keeping in mind that the rock-filled causeway exudes solidity and invokes rich memory of historical links between the two countries and their peoples.

Tourism

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the bridge will bring in more tourists. On the other hand, drastic reduction of the present rampant crime rate and the development of worthy tourist attractions (there is none now) will definitely boost tourist arrival to Johor Bahru and its vicinity.

Fuctionality

The bridge is less user-friendly, as it is twice as long and involves climbing a height equivalent to an eight storey building, while the causeway crossing is leveled and serves as the shortest link between the two territories. Structurally, the causeway is better equipped to withstand natural or man-made disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or sabotage and wars; and it is almost maintenance free.

Cost

While it costs very little to expand the immigration check point at the causeway, the entire bridge cum custom complex project costs a whopping RM2.5 billion. That works out to an average burden of RM500 per Malaysian family. And what benefits do the people get in return? Negligible, compared to the costs.

It is apparent from the above deliberation that this project could not withstand the first round of a cost/benefit analysis, not forgetting the messy problem of the water pipeline to Singapore and the railway crossing. Then why was it pursued with such dogged determination and urgency?

Mahathir must answer

It is recalled that shortly before Mahathir stepped down in 2003, he travelled twice within a month to Johor Bahru, first to witness the signing of the construction contract, then to witness the launching of construction work.

Noting that the contractor was appointed and the price fixed without tender, and knowing the poor justification for this project, can one be blamed for imputing improper motivation in the unusual haste with which the retiring premier was forcing through the implementation of this project in the lingering hours of his office?

In this connection, would Mahathir please answer these questions:-

1. Would he agree to an open debate on the merits and demerits of this project - the full bridge as well as the crooked half-bridge?

2. Has there been a cost/benefit analysis? If yes, disclose the details. If not, why not?

3. Why was there no tender for such a major project?

4. On what basis was the contractor appointed? What was the financial status and construction track record of the contractor?

5. How was the price negotiated? What mechanism was employed to ensure that the price was fair and competitive?

6. What was the compelling reason for forcing the implementation in such haste, to the extent of risking infamy through launching a crooked half-bridge?

Since the halting of the bridge construction, Mahathir has been quite vocal spewing adverse comments, some of which have the effect of stirring up animosity across the Straits.

But does Mahathir realise that unless he can give satisfactory answers to the above questions, he has very little credibility in his words and further comments could only bring greater disrepute to himself.

Tomorrow: Pak Lah's indecision