I was surprised to see the compliments given to the current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for canceling the double-tracking railway project which was approved by the previous Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

It seems that the act of canceling this project is more skewed towards achieving popularity rather than addressing the future need of transportation of this country.

Logic says that there will be more demand for land cargo transportation within the country. Without an increase in railway transportation capacity, this will mean more and more lorries and trucks plying the trunk roads and highways, day and night. This in turn, will increase the hazards on the roads, thus contributing to a higher probability of traffic accidents.

If the government says that they want to spend money on hospitals and healthcare, wouldn't it be more sensible to spend money on projects that will curb the need for medical facilities, ie. spending money on projects that will reduce accident rates?

A couple of years ago, both Petronas and Shell decided to build a pipeline to link their refineries in Melaka and Port Dickson to a joint-venture depot in Dengkil, Putrajaya. Both companies decided to spend almost RM500 million for the sake of reducing the number of their lorry tankers on the highways.

They also mentioned about the need to have 'alternatives', ie. not to be dependent on one mode of transportation. However, not all companies have deep pockets like Petronas or Shell.

It is therefore imperative for the government to take the initiative to improve our railway system in order to create a bigger capacity to handle both cargo volumes and passengers using alternative mode of transportation.

With regard to financing, logic also says that we do not need to have the money now to finance the project. If the gestation period of the double-tracking project is long, then perhaps the government can issue long-term bonds to finance the project.

It could be a 30-year bond, 99-year bond or even perpetual bond. I'm sure the Treasury has many experts who can advise the government on how to package the financial details.

After all, if the government could easily issue sovereign bonds to finance ridiculous non-essential projects to 'elevate' our profile in the eyes of the world, I am sure the borrowing for the development of railway project can pay for itself.

Shouldn't the decision makers re-think their decision again?