crooked bridge: a rip off for poor commuters

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. ... 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 mutual benefits of a new bridge are not difficult to fathom. Hopefully, economic realities and common sense will win the day for the bridge. by Tan Sri Lim Kok Wing is president of the Malaysian Institute of Directors. i have extracted parts of an article by lim kok wing posted in singaporesurf. i think this is an idiotic parroting of a silly idea that is not tenable economically. the bridge is anything but a ripoff of the people who needs to commute daily to and fro from both sides. with the bridge no one can save a few dollars walking across. with the bridge, all transportation is limited by the bridge and with its dangers of mishaps. with the bridge, room for expansion is so limited than with a land bridge. no sensible person will spend billions to cut off a land bridge to be replaced by a flimsy bridge just for some water to flow under and a few small pleasure craft or small ships to sail through. it is definitely water under the bridge. the people of malaysia and singapore must stand up to protest against this silly bridge concept. when are these people going to think for the people on both sides of the causeway, sincerely, than for their own pockets?

No comments: