Will the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine complex (CIQ) in Johor Bahru be another white elephant to swell the herd? By putting the cart before the horse, topsy-turvy Bolehland is left saddled with a wagon carrying RM1.266 billion in taxpayers' load. In the meantime, the horse may trot away with a staggering RM100 million.

In its usual knee-jerk reaction, the government announces that in the absence of The Bridge, there will be instead a flyover to connect the CIQ to the Causeway. Since the Crooked Bridge was allegedly to facilitate traffic flow, how will diverting vehicles from the six-lane flyover back onto the four-lane Causeway ease the congestion?

This Malaysia Boleh solution only adds to the distance the motorist must cover to clear Customs, just as the Crooked Bridge would have trebled the distance along Malaysia's half of the connection, so that more (and expensive) petrol is burned.

Does Gerbang Perdana, turnkey contractor for the bridge-that-wasn't, merit the generous ang pow promised it for work that didn't materialise? Gerbang Perdana, by the way, is owned by a consortium comprising Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd, DRB-Hicom Bhd and Detik Nagasari Sdn Bhd.

Pretzels change flavour

When the government had earlier insisted on going ahead with the Crooked Bridge plan, the mainstream media obligingly twisted themselves into pretzels championing the brilliant idea. Senior editor Zainul Arifin, in an op-ed ( New Straits Times , April 5) extolled the benefits the bridge would purportedly confer Singapore. Upon reading Zainul's full-page paean to the Crooked Bridge, to comprise a section the writer dubbed "the engineering marvel that is the swing rail bridge", a Malaysian professional in the building industry chortled loudly.

It's obvious that while the Press had solicited a surfeit of views from a select group of Barisan Nasional representatives, these self-same Pressmen have correspondingly failed to source critical appraisal from independent engineers. Another Singaporean managing director of an engineering firm told me he thought the idea of the Crooked Bridge was "really ridiculous".

The ridiculous reality of the bridge project helpfully made it easier for the suddenly upended pretzels to defend its sudden cancellation, on the pretext that the government had suddenly "listened to the voice of the people and respected their wishes". I really wonder if the voice of the people would be able to penetrate through the fog enveloping the haze shrouding the wheeling and dealing behind the Crooked Bridge.

As it is, details filtering out to the public were sketchy indeed, to say the least. What would have happened to the railway line and the water pipe when the Causeway was cracked in two? It'd be most interesting to see "the engineering marvel" that would have been the crooked railway.

Frankenstein's child

The half bridge (a half reservoir, anyone?) proposal implies that our part of the structure, where 100,000 people cross daily, needed to be cobbled to the old Causeway in a groundbreaking design worthy of an Eighth Wonder of the World. Such a flawed design would surely incur further towering expenses to repair its inevitable anomalies, and to what purpose?

The new half would not have increased traffic capacity as the same number of lanes would connect to the existing Causeway at mid-point. Even if the lanes on the crooked side were to be added, the Singapore side of the Causeway would remain unchanged, causing a bottleneck. Furthermore, the curve and incline of the elevated "scenic" section would create a hazard as winding traffic will slow down in climbing.

While a full, straight bridge would not necessarily have been objectionable, strident proponents of the Crooked Bridge were liable to be 'hoist by their own petard' - the facts they quoted were at odds with the writers' intent and propaganda.

NST's Zainul had written "[t]he bridge will not result in a new commercial sea lane as the structure will not be high enough to allow cargo, cruise ships or tankers to pass through." Thirteen paragraphs later, he pens, "Instead, I was made to understand, it will only allow pleasure craft and smaller boats, most likely from Singapore, too". So what are the enormous "benefits" for Malaysia blared in his article headline then? Whither the argument that the bridge will provide a boost to Johor shipping?

As for a cleaner Johor Strait, Singapore Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo had commented that studies showed there won't be much improvement in water quality. In whom do we trust? Widespread public scepticism greeted the Malaysian government's recent pronouncement on improving public transport vis--vis the fuel price hike. If Malaysian households could first see potable and clear water flowing from their taps at home, then the government's environmental card might come across more credibly.

Belligerent bully

While in the past Singapore has been a bogeyman for the rabble-rousers, this time the farcical 'sandiwara' just doesn't wash.

Malaysia's display of sabre-rattling has included Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Syed Albar saying, "The scenic bridge is not a subject of negotiation," referring to Singapore's request for talks on a package of issues. In any case, the "sovereignty" of our nation is more threatened by the erosion of the judiciary's independence, the emasculation of the legislature and our sliding into a police state, than by the sale of sand to Singapore.

Although it is to be expected that the mainstream media proffer such inanities like Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin taking the island republic to task for not doing its bit to improve bilateral ties, one particular newspaper exceeded even my expectations with its man-in-the-street article. Collating the reaction of Malaysians, The Star (April 13) was blithely oblivious to the irony of its own report that only the Singaporeans it quoted expressed any concern at all about the colossal amount of money wasted over the Crooked fiasco!

Singapore is not the villain of the piece in this spat. Deputy Foreign Minister Leo Toyad on September 2004 had proclaimed that "the construction of the bridge does not need either [sic] the approval, agreement or involvement of Singapore because it is being built on the Malaysian side of the border".

It was conveniently forgotten that Malaysia had earlier turned to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to stop Singapore from undertaking reclamation work within Singapore's own territory. What is sauce for the goose is evidently not sauce for the gander in Bolehland.

By proceeding with the work despite Singapore's objections, Malaysia had attempted to coerce the republic into acquiescing to a fait accompli. The Lion City, a sovereign nation and not the 15th Malaysian state, does not have to put up with our government's highhandedness, warping of facts or bullying tactics. And when push came to shove, Malaysia blinked. It backed down, citing legal implications.

Bemused international observers would have marked that Singapore's understanding of diplomacy reflects a steadfast adherence to the letter of the law, whereas Malaysia's waffling - "sekejap nak, sekejap tak nak" (blowing hot and cold) couldn't have inspired much confidence in foreign investors.

Cavalier approach

Contrary to Malaysian media reports, Singapore disputes that it had ever agreed to a new bridge. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying "The report is not an accurate reflection of what transpired at the meeting between Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on March 1 (2005)".

Mahathir, whose brainchild the bridge is, was quoted sometime ago as saying "If you want to wait, you can wait till kingdom come" regarding Singapore's intransigence. It is this same overbearing, cross-eyed standpoint that led Proton, of which Mahathir is special advisor, to buy a valueless motorcycle company for acquiring Mini Moke technology. (Incidentally, the Mini Moke, first popularised more than 40 years ago in the UK, has been described as a "bizarre utility vehicle" without good ground clearance or 4WD.) And the man wanted to build a bridge over water to solve traffic woes when it would have been better to restudy Johor Bahru's urban planning.

The MV Agusta SpA debacle cost Proton half a billion ringgit according to estimates but it is "only a small amount" in Mahathir's calculation. For Singapore, her half of the non-negotiable bridge is half a billion Sing dollars too expensive. Why replace something that is perfectly serviceable, goes Singapore's sensible rationale.

Our neighbour is exercising the sort of fiscal prudence we should aspire to, especially as the government has called upon the people to tighten their belts. For Singapore-bashers to argue that the bizarre bridge scheme would not cost the republic a single sen is like willfully flushing money down the drain to engage in a reckless game of brinkmanship with Singapore.

The vintage Mahathir response to it all - "Tak apalah saya waste money lebih banyak mega projects" over the cancellation is totally irresponsible. He used his visit to the CIQ, three days after Pak Lah's about-face, as an occasion for more defiant grandstanding and without showing a whiff of dismay for hard-earned taxpayers' money frittered away.

As with the Agusta fiasco, we should not be breathing a sigh of relief that such a foolhardy venture has been written off at astronomical cost. The pressing issue is why such a flawed idea even saw the light of day?

Ill-conceived and ill-planned, it is sheer incompetence that is the keystone of this entire misadventure. With the strong sycophantic culture in civil service and mass media, the Pak Turut will sway whichever way the political wind blows and parrot what they think the top men care to hear.

But if the national leadership is of that calibre which concurs with apple-polishing "advisors" that the best way to get from point A to point B is not a straight line but a crooked detour, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for public accountability lest I turn (a ghastly Barisan) blue.