The following are readers comments on other burning issues.By announcing the plan to go ahead with the bridge project irrespective of whether the Singapore government agrees with it or not, the government hoped that the Singaporeans would be forced to compromise. The bluff obviously failed.

HL Too: Somehow I find it hard to accept the reasons given by the prime minister for abandoning the scenic bridge. When it was first announced that Malaysia would go ahead with the bridge, straight if possible, crooked, if necessary - all we heard (and read) from the mainstream media was a whole bunch of people supporting (sokong, sokong) the government and praising the government for its great wisdom. Now, the same 'penyokong' are supporting the decision and calling it a wise decision.

Come on, spare us. The real reason, I believe, is that the Malaysian government decided to play poker. By announcing the plan to go ahead with the bridge project irrespective of whether the Singapore government agrees with it or not, the government hoped that the Singaporeans would be forced to compromise. The bluff obviously failed. Please stop playing poker with the taxpayers' money.

Hakimah Hassan: The fundamental issue is whether building the bridge is in our national interest. On this issue, Dr Mahathir is correct. Why does the present cabinet need to bend to Singapore's demands? Didn't Abdullah Badawi support the plan to build the bridge when he was in the previous administration? When national integrity is at stake, national pride demands that our politicians act with courage and conviction. I reject the excuse that the cabinet took into account Malaysian public opinion. They cannot claim to speak for me.

What happened to our 'towering personality'? I suppose that particular personality melted when sand and airspace are mentioned from across the causeway. Build that bridge, Datuk Seri Badawi. Allow the free flow of water underneath the bridge and allow foreign ships to pass through the Johor Strait on our side of territory. The Pasir Gudang port can only stand to gain from this. One wonders whether Singapore is really only using "sand", "airspace" and nice legalities as red herring. And it appears that our cabinet bought it hook, line and sinker.

Krishnad: Any man with common sense knows that Malaysia cannot build the crooked bridge half way as a lot of factors need to be taken into consideration, mainly the pipelines, railway tracks, and of course, the bridge. The causeway was built with old technology without any sub-lots like you see nowadays on bridges. Malaysia cannot break the causeway without the consent of the Singapore government. If you were to read the full verdict of the international court case on the sand issue near Tanjung Pelepas, you would understand.

Singapore won't approve the bridge either, as it involves business being taken away if the water flows through the bridge and allow ships to pass through Singapore to cut their traveling time. We, the Malaysians should make the government and ministers involved to be made accountable and the government should take action against those who have wasted taxpayers' money.

A concerned taxpayer: Surely someone must be accountable for the RM100 million to be paid to the bridge contractor for work done and expenses incurred. If not in this world then in the next world.

ManiamSankar: I have no doubt the bridge was scrapped for good reason but as with all things with the Barisan National government, obviously after some embarrassing, earlier oversight! If only less things were secret and openly discussed, the limitations of the government own think-tank would be overcome.

In my mind, I do believe the oversight must be the railway land in Singapore. I cannot imagine the new half bridge could take trains. And if no trains went to Singapore, I'm sure the PAP would waste no time in acquiring that real estate.

Nevertheless, it is good of our government to stop wasting time to appease the Singaporeans. And what would be better is if someone was made responsible for the blunder especially if it was the former PM who so proudly declares he was the proponent.

CTLee: Why still talk about who lost and who won? If we are so unhappy with Singapore, we should not build the crooked bridge in the first place. Rather we should reduce our bilateral ties and even consider the demolition of the existing bridge if it is possible. If there is a poll, I for one would definitely vote against the new bridge. The money saved can be channeled for more pressing needs such as education and public health. Well done to our current prime minister and all the BN MPs who now also agree with him.

The following are readers comments on other burning issues. On Lovebirds nest at DBKL .

Devan: The moral standards of our young people sometimes can be very much poor. I personally observed two college students in broad daylight in front of the public. They were sitting on one chair in front of Jaya supermarket in Petaling Jaya. The young lady was sitting on top of the young man and obviously enjoying it. How obscene.

This kind of behaviour may be acceptable to westerners but we are from eastern cultures, and this is certainly is not acceptable

As an elderly person I find it offensive. There was nothing much I could do. This type of behaviour needs policing by the government. However, when the laws are made, the decision to arrest and charge the offenders must be done by officers using video cam evidence so that there is absolute proof.

On the proposed increase in electricity charges.

Murugan: Does TNB acknowledge that they are overweight? It is about time they look into their staffing and benefits that is extended even to retired staff. I am sure this should be one of the many factors besides looking into being prudent in its operations. A rise in electricity tariff is acceptable but it has got to be reasonable to meet raising costs.

Iskandar Shah: Nampaknya rakyat akan terus dibebani kenaikan kos hidup. Beban kenaikkan minyak baru sahaja dirasai pelbagai lapisan masyarakat kini kita berhadapan dengan kemungkinan tarif eletrik dinaikkan pula. Majoriti pengguna akan terasa bebannya.

Siapa harus dipersalahkan? Halakan jari kepada pasaran harga minyak mentah dunia?

Mengenai MP Loh Seng Kok vs Umno Youth

Lim Ah Kau: Isu pengurusan dan pengembangan agama lain selain dari Islam yang dibangkitkan oleh ahli Parlimen Kelana Jaya, Loh Seng Kok patut ditangani dengan hati terbuka.

Kita perlu ingat Parlimen merupakan tempat wakil rakyat menyampaikan isi hati rakyat dan pengundi yang diwakili. Jika Parlimen bukan tempatnya, di mana tempat pula hendak berbincang? Tambahan pula wakil rakyat kebal apabila berbincang kebanyakan isu di Parlimen asalkan tidak bertentangan dan dengan isu-isu sensitif.

Dalam isu Loh Seng Kok ini saya nampak peranan Yang Berhormat diperlekehkan. Mengapa ada isu-isu yang lebih seinsitif yang dibangkitkan tetapi tidak dikenakan sebarang tindakan? Contohnya, gelagat Yang Berhormat Jerai yang mengatakan "Ini negara Islam, jika kamu tidak suka, boleh keluar." Tidakkah itu lebih menyinggung perasaan rakyat pelbagai kaum di negara ini?

Nampaknya Loh keseorangan dalam isu ini, tetapi jangan pula kita memperlekehkan "suara senyap" yang terdapat di luar dan di dalam ruang internet.

Cara pemuda Umno Kelana Jaya menangani isu Loh ini menunjukkan kejahilan mereka tentang undang-undang. Tidakkah mereka sedar negara ini terdiri daripada rakyat pelbagai kaum. Semua bangsa mempunyai peranan dan sumbangan masing-maisng.

Jangan lupa kata-kata bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad kita, orang Cina merupakan pembayar cukai yang terbesar kepada negara. Wang ini yang digunakan untuk menjayakan projek-projek kerajaan. Rakyat jelata sama-sama memberi sumbangan untuk menjayakan Wawasan 2020.

Loh diharapkan akan terus membincangkan isu-isu yang bernas dan bukan menjadi "yesman" saja.