Opinion: Good bridges make good neighbours
LIM KOK WING
February 13, 2006
New Straits Times

Feb 13 Singapore’s worries about its trade being affected by the economic emergence of Johor after the replacement of the Causeway are unfounded, writes LIM KOK WING.

THE shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This is simple logic. It is why anyone would prefer a full, straight bridge to replace the 83-year-old Johor Causeway.

If we were to have it any other way, this would simply suggest that there is something amiss in the otherwise close relationship between Malaysia and Singapore. However, this need not be so. Differences standing in the way of a straight bridge can be better appreciated and reconciled if considered in the larger regional context.

To Malaysia, the new bridge is not just an artery to replace the Causeway. If it were that simple, then, honestly, retaining the Causeway as a mere transportation link could well be an acceptable option rather than going through the trouble of negotiations with a foreign country.

It is certainly far more than that. The proposed new bridge is a crucial component of the huge plan to create a regional economic and transportation hub in Johor with Tanjung Pelepas Port as a key pillar. This plan, if fully implemented, would have widespread economic impact.

To contend that there is already a second link that is not optimally used is to miss the larger role that the new bridge will play. It is not just the traffic volume that is the central issue here, although it is important.

Replacing the Causeway with a new bridge will open up exciting opportunities with economic ramifications. It will enable smoother traffic across the waterway and ease the congestion in Johor Baru.

Opening the Tebrau Strait will have obvious environmental advantages and reduce pollution. Further dredging and deepening of the strait will enable bigger ships to sail through.

With the Causeway gone, people can freely indulge in sailing and other recreational sport activities. There is also the vast potential for commercial and other property development. Malaysia is looking primarily at the future of Johor and a southern region that is economically vibrant. Replacing the Causeway with a bridge is a part of that bright future.

But, sadly, it is also apparent that Singapore is not wholly on the same wavelength when it comes to the fate of the Causeway. Singapore may not admit it outright but there are obviously fears and apprehensions that the proposed bridge would benefit mainly Malaysia while Singapore would gain little from it.

This is especially when it has to bear half of the cost, estimated to be above RM1 billion in total. Worse still, getting rid of the Causeway may even be detrimental to the republic’s future economic growth.

These fears and apprehensions are far from the truth. In fact, the spin-offs and multiplier effects generated by regional economic expansion and an enhanced transportation hub in Johor will spill over into Singapore as well.

We must avoid the myopic view that what is good for Malaysia’s southern region could well be at the expense of Singapore, or vice-versa.

The Port of Singapore will not suffer greatly just because some ships will bypass it with the Causeway barrier gone. World and regional trade is continuing to grow by leaps and bounds, and many more ships will ply the seas and oceans. There is ample business for both Singapore and Tanjung Pelepas.

The economic potential opened up in the southern region will eventually encompass Singapore, too. This is the beauty of economic inter-dependence, mutual benefit and integration. Benefits can flow naturally across the economic landscape, lifting the growth and incomes of diverse countries and regions, whether big or small.

The last thing our friends from across the Causeway should be apprehensive about is a vastly improved economic hinterland in Johor. They should actually welcome it. Being neighbours, a more prosperous Johor invariably means contributing to a richer Singapore. They reinforce each other.

If there are doubts, then just take a look at the European Union. Germany, France and Italy are major economies. As they progress and become more sophisticated, the smaller countries in the EU, such as Holland and Belgium, are not diminished or marginalised.

On the contrary, they thrive and prosper along with the bigger economies, complementing them with their own strengths and niche areas. The smaller countries do not find themselves overwhelmed, although, like their bigger neighbours, they are all industrialised and developed countries within the EU.

Taking a leaf from the EU example, there is much room for optimism that Singapore, being the smaller of the two parties, will not lose out with the construction of the new bridge.

We must all move forward. To do so with confidence, we must accept the reality that the Causeway, as an umbilical cord linking Singapore with Malaysia, has to be replaced one day for the larger good.

After more than eight decades, it has really outlived its usefulness, painful though this may be for some of us to admit. It is understandable that there are those who cling on to the Causeway and loathe to see it go.

It is so much a part of their psyche that its demolition could well leave a psychological, sentimental and emotional vacuum in their version of the republic’s history.

Such sentiments could be shared by some Malaysians, too. But this is the 21st century. We owe it to the younger generations on both sides of the strait to optimise the economic potential of the region.

The economic and non-economic arguments for the Causeway’s removal are compelling. Opposition to the new bridge should not be rooted in outmoded fears about Singapore Port’s status, perceived threats to its economic well-being and its regional role as a transportation hub.

The republic has progressed way beyond its once heavy dependence on its port. It has climbed up the ladder of economic sophistication into state-of-the-art electronics and IT industries. It has made advances in biotech and pharmaceuticals. It has built a large and growing external economy by prudently investing its substantial surpluses in foreign assets.

A respected former Singapore newspaper editor, Seah Chiang Nee, in a recent article, quoted an economist of international investment bank Morgan Stanley as saying that the size of Singapore’s external economy would expand to US$500 billion (RM1.9 trillion) by 2020. This would be more than five times the republic’s 2003 nominal gross domestic product of US$91 billion.

Looking at the big picture, the possibility of more ships bypassing Singapore to call at Johor’s ports, should the Causeway be demolished, would have fewer economic consequences for the republic than previously.

In fact, the beneficial impact on Singapore from an improved economic hinterland in Johor with the Causeway’s removal will far outweigh any adverse effect, if at all there is any. Johor is already a major destination for Singapore’s investment dollars, which have contributed immensely to the State’s economic growth and prosperity. There will be more commercial and investment opportunities when the bridge is built.

The negotiations between the two countries on the new bridge have dragged on for many years, much longer than expected. We all agree that discussions cannot go on forever without arriving at a definite conclusion, one way or another.

The mutual benefits of a new bridge are not difficult to fathom. Hopefully, economic realities and common sense will win the day for the bridge.

Source: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Monday/Columns/20060213074200/Article/index_html