[748] Of a bridge, some airspace and a whole lot of sand
In return of Singaporean cooperation for a straight bridge, Singapore wants to use Malaysian airspace to train its air force and a guaranteed sand supply to continue its reclamation projects. Without going too deep into the issue, I'd say this as highly unreasonable; I feel it's impossible to meet. That impossible demands and the need to fuel economic growth in southern Malaysia are the reasons why I support a construction of a bridge to replace the Causeway, without Singaporean cooperation.
Concerning air space, I simply don't trust the Singaporean government and their military even less. Hell, I don't trust my own government. Singapore says it wants to use Malaysian airspace for training purposes. However, it isn't too hard for Singapore or anybody for that matter to turn this little maneuver into some sort of espionage missions. I don't know what high value targets are there in Johor but I bet Singapore would know if Malaysia is to allow Singapore to conduct "training" in Malaysian Johor airspace.
More interesting is sand supply. Singapore has been aggressive in reclaiming lands from the sea; the reclamation projects have attracted Malaysian and Indonesian attention. Both have expressed concerned about the projects but Singapore ignored it. Malaysia was especially concerned with Singaporean reclamation at Tuas in the west and at Pulau Tekong in the east; both border Malaysian state of Johor. In 2003, both countries went to the International Court of Justice to resolve the issue once and for all. The ICJ in turn sided with Singapore with reservations.
Regardless of the result, it doesn't matter because Singapore had to stop its reclamation effort, thanks to Indonesia. Previously, Indonesia provided the raw materials Singapore needed for its reclamation project. Like Malaysia, Indonesia was suspicious of the Singaporean effort. In the end, Indonesia cut off the supply, fearing Singapore redrawing the Singaporean-Indonesian border. The projects are still on hold. Now, Singapore needs to find a new source of sand. And guess who Singapore is turning to now?
If Malaysia agrees to supply Singapore the sand, it would be an odd thing to do. Malaysia is against Singaporean reclamation project. For Malaysia to supply the sand and enable Singapore to continue a project that Malaysia is so vehemently disagree of, is, again, odd. It defies logic.
Perhaps, this is because Malaysia knows that Singapore could get the sand that its need from somewhere else. We know how Singapore managed to buy a company of strategic importance in Thailand. Given that, it wouldn't be hard for Singapore to get some sand from Thailand. Maybe here's is just Malaysia doing a "hey, why not make some money out of it?" act.
Unless Singapore could sweeten the pot - like allowing Malaysians that work in Singapore to withdraw money that the Singaporean government has been withholding - I definitely believe a crooked bridge is a better deal. Of course, a straight bridge is good but circumstances make it not too favorable.
With the bent bridge, Malaysia gets a little less of what it wants without giving Singapore anything. If Malaysia accedes to Singaporean demands, Malaysia would get what it wants by giving too much to Singapore.
dude.... cannot just take and dun give lah... this is wat negotiation is all about lah... you get your way in one areas, but must relent in other areas mah... omg...
By , at 14 March, 2006 21:19
In a negotiation, there's always a outside outcome i.e. the crooked bridge. If the outcome of negotiation is less than the outside outcome, than that's outside outcome is better. That's why some negotiation fails - the outside outcome is greater than negotiated outcome. In Malaysia-Singapore case, I feel the outside outcome is better.
Now, we know Malaysian outside outcome. What's the Singaporean outside outcome?
Whatever it is, I wager than Malaysian outside outcome is better than Singapore outside outcome. And I've said that I see Malaysian outside outcome currently is greater than cooperated outcome.
Unless Singapore could make the cooperated outcome greater than Malaysian outside outcome, isn't it only rational to build a crooked bridge instead?
Heh, you know I had too much game theory.
By __earth, at 15 March, 2006 01:35
i think we're on the losing end of this deal. cis.
By Desparil, at 16 March, 2006 04:39
I do not understand why Malaysian support the crooked bridge? What is the whole purpose of building it beside giving money to the crony contractors? Even if the bridge is few lanes wider, immigration and custom are much more efficient, what is the point? Bottle neck is still bottle neck. This is just about another money getting and feel good project by BN.
By , at 17 March, 2006 00:34
Kindly visit another of my post at [718] Of bridge of euphemism. The explanation of why I and some others support the bridge is there.
The main reason is the opening of Tebrau Strait.
Traffic is not the main reason of the bridge. It's a minor, supporting point. In fact, no matter how wide the bridge is, Singapore has restriction on vehicles entry. That rules out traffic volume as a point to support the bridge (at least Msia->Spore).
As for JB, the bridge along with the new CIQ redirects traffic out of the city center, thus reducing unnecessary traffic volume in the city. Note that, this point is about reducing traffic in the city, not on the Causeway. This is one of those essential points that many bridge opponents missed. Another being the half-bridge myth.
Concerning cronism, there is a need to fight corruption; that much I agree. But halting the construction of infrastructures that the country needs is not the way. If it were, then we should stop building all highways, buildings, airports, ports, etc.
By __earth, at 17 March, 2006 05:10
Thanks for you feedback which gave me a clearer picture of the whole situation.
BTW, an information that you might had known, Thailand is planning to open a canal cutting across its narrowest peninsular section to divert shipping traffic away from Malaysia and Singapore. Ships will also avoid passing through one of the most notorious pirate infested water in the world, the Strait of Malacca.
By , at 18 March, 2006 22:24
