Malaysia, Singapore and the Half/Crooked/Scenic Bridge

I don't have much of a vested interest in the matter, but just to play devil's advocate... before we assume that the fault lies entirely with Singapore, we have yet to see figures on what Malaysia charges Singapore for water. I think it's unrealistic to believe that it's always a matter of Malaysia giving and Singapore taking.

As a related issue I'd be curious to know how much of JB's commercial income can be attributed to visiting Singaporeans. Another case of Singapore not contributing anything?

My understanding of the original causeway's history was that it was a joint project between Singapore and Malaysia - how come Malaysia didn't demand a draw- or raised-bridge originally?

And is it really the case that shipowners would choose the straits of Johor over the straits of Singapore for their shipping transit needs? Even assuming that in 10-20 years JB's facilities could come close to Singapore's, are there more fundamental reasons to choose Singapore over JB? Why didn't the British choose the straits of Johor back when there was no causeway? I understand defensibility may have played a role, but surely if you've got Singapore "defended," you've got Johor defended as well... (which in WW2 turned out to have been more important than port-of-Singapore anyway). Could there be other reasons?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but thought I'd throw them out there.

d sceni bridge is over....d malaysian government took a really brave decision by cancelling all works related to d 'most controversial bridge of d region'. all newzpapers...front page d malaysian congratulate Pak Lah due to his brave decision n d singaporean newzpapers reported...that they're shock wth malaysia government decision....to Singapore..don't ever look down to ur neighbour...ok