The issue of the crooked bridge continues to draw readers' comments. All those responsible for the fiasco should be hauled up, says one.

Joey Chan: Samy Vellu's comment that the price of the Gerbang Perdana contract to build the overhead access road to the CIQ complex is "cost-effective" is simply outrageous. The government made the decision to scrap the crooked bridge project only weeks ago, and the design of the alternative access road is probably still in wet ink, and yet he had the temerity to tell Malaysians that Gerbang Perdana was best placed to undertake the job for "cost-effectiveness". He must think that most Malaysians are idiots.

But my issue goes beyond Samy Vellu. It is with Pak Lah who has promised transparency and accountability, and he has remained quiet simply because this is an Umno project, and that therefore open tenders can be avoided. I think the opposition should just institute legal proceedings against the government for breach of trust, or for misuse of public funds.

Dhammika: I get amused reading what Samy Vellu said in Dewan Rakyat. What he did was not upholding the PM's transparency policy. This is tantamount to insubordination. How can there be a 'no tender' exercise for such million-ringgit projects. This also involves conflict of interest. If he cannot understand why the tender system is necessary, then he must be reprimanded with a final warning letter issued by the PM. The opposition leader must be commended for questioning of the Works Ministry's awarding method for this project. Again, here's another vote for an alternative government.

Hjangus: There is just too much to ignore. We need an official inquiry to find out why the government committed so much money on a scheme that had not been properly agreed with Singapore before we embarked on a billion ringgit project. All those responsible for the fiasco should be hauled up.

Lim: The current revelations on the discussions and negotiations concerning the bridge issue is very interesting. The two sides involved are both the previous and current administration. Each time as new information is brought up, one may even change one's opinion on who was right or wrong on this matter. We can see now that free exchange of information is a necessity and one does not, and should not, suppress any information. Freedom of information is an absolute necessity here. Would the previous PM care to assist those who want to push for these things?

PT Tan: I, a Johor Baru resident, and among those who use the causeway the most the last 20 years, says this, "We don't want the bridge!". Thank God the money was saved. Use it to increase the software at the ICQ, ie methods, people and management.

Stupidhead: Matthias Chang is a lawyer, and I'm not but let take a look at the facts:

LKY said: "...I have briefed Prime Minister Goh and cabinet of our discussions and they have given in-principle approval of our oral agreement."

"...You (Mahathir) asked me at the end of the meeting whether work on the bridge can proceed. I said yes, we are unlikely to withdraw our offer..."

"As I had said to you, Singapore will be reclaiming our side nearly to the boundary, and will build our side of the bridge to meet up with the Malaysian side at the boundary"

"It is necessary to settle these details before work on the bridge begins as was done when the two sides built the Second Link or the two segments will not meet smoothly at our international boundary..."

"...These technical discussions may take some time, so I suggest that officials in charge of the bridge and reclamation project on both sides should begin discussions early on these issues. Our officials are ready to meet up with their Malaysian counterparts,"

Even a first year student of the common law system can tell that there was no contract hence no agreement of the sort Chang is trying to mislead people into believing. The agreement was in-principle, non-committal, and subject to further discussion.

If indeed there was an agreement between Lee and Dr Mahathir then it seems the latter had agreed to Singapore reclaiming land on her side almost to the border - effectively reducing the width of the strait by half. So, Chang, please tell us again: Did your boss agree to that?

Disillusioned Malaysian: Matthias Chang is only half right when he said that in Japan, ministers resign when national policies are mishandled. In most cases, they would have experienced much humiliation leading them to commit harakiri or seppuku . Well, what do our people know about shame anyway. After all, the many bungles we have seen so far, e.g. the drop in our university rating, the losses suffered by many of our GLCs, corruption in the police force, inferior highway/flyover construction, APs, etc, life goes on as usual as though nothing has happened. For once, can someone just resign like a man for the sake of the nation.

Chippy Chip: The saga of the bridge held my breath for a few months. The verdict - it is not to be. The solution to all these hiccups is to consider building a wood bridge to cool the minds of the old faithfuls. A monthly promenade celebration, a firework display programme will attract a good audience from both sides of the causeway. This will draw tourists from all over the world - thus drawing billions of tourist dollars that will make the Johor MB and the Singapore PM laughing all their way to the Maybank and UOB respectively. Let us dare to dream the impossible. Remember - Majulah Singapura and Malaysia Boleh!

Alvin Lee: Yes, Singapore agreed to construct the bridge when Malaysia made concession on raw water price at 45 cents and 60 cents plus other bilateral issues in a package deal. Since Tun Mahathir suddenly changed his mind and wanted to treat it issue by issue instead of solving all bilateral issues at one time. A package deal is based on the principle that Singapore will give way on the bridge, CPF, etc, whereas Malaysia on railway lands, water, etc. Since the package deal was off, thus the Singapore's offer to build the bridge was also off the table.