posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 06:50 AM
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.