Screenshots

A: "There are actually two U-turns in this matter."

Neil: "two?"

A: "The first one was why did Badawi reverse the go-ahead in such a short time. Was he wrongly advised? Did he not ask for proper legal advice beforehand?

The second one is actually by Mahathir. Why does he now talk about sovereignty if Malaysia doesn't go ahead? Is he saying the people of Johor who had complained about losing their bumi and langit are less concerned about national sovereignty? One would have thought THAT was exactly the reason they had objected."

Neil: "go on."

A: "Badawi must have balanced the risks and rewards of stopping the project. It seems the overriding factor was that the causeway agreement nullified unilateral action. Mahathir seems to be saying the agreement allows for Malaysia to build our side of the bridge, and that since Goh had agreed in writing to the bridge, we could fight it out in international court if Singapore now reneges on that written agreement, especially if its 'balance of benefits' contention is introduced to ask for other benefits not covered in the original M-G compact."

Neil: "this is getting murky, doesn't it?"

A: "Point is, why build a half-bridge for certainty, when you can't be sure the other half will be joined by the other side, especially if the arbitration, if it comes to that, hasn't taken place."

Neil: "then Badawi should have called it a suspension of decision instead of peremptorily cancelling it?"

A: "Doing so might pose another problem - the Gerbang Perdana people may start imposing penalties for suspension of contract for who-knows how long; cancelling it sets the cutoff point for compensation, now some RM100 million, with the overhang of the CICQ complex, now at RM2Billion plus RM250 million for the new road-link."

Neil: "So, where are we now?"

A: "Let me ask you, if something is going well, why should a politician call it off?

After all, if the bridge is built, connected and serves its purpose of opening up the waterfront in two states, besides increasing commuting comfort of both sides, Mahathir would be the one toasted for having the right vision, AND, if i may add, Badawi would be the one toasted for making it happen.

Now BOTH are toast."

Neil: "so what was the butter?"

A: "Some said it was the sales contract for the sand. You can't sell the airspace, so it was the sand. Now if Badawi removes that by dint of cancelling the contract, how could anyone attached to him have benefited on the sly? You can only make if money goes out. So, was it the intention for it to go on so that someone makes from the sand, on top of the construction? Who was it to be?

In any case, it's like Proton today."

Neil: "What about that?"

A: "Its board is now pushing some serious restructuring and changes. Let me ask you, if Proton has been doing well, as we were made to believe, why should the present board be taking such drastic steps now when some of its present members were also on the board before, under Mahathir's wing of flight, some say, of fancy?

Do you see what i am trying to say here? There's a rashomon effect on the governance of big projects in this country. Even the way the MRR2 fiasco has been defended in the earlier stage reeks of vagualities."

Neil: "vagualities? that's a new word."

A: "On that matter, the present administration seems to have screwed up too on the automotive industry. On the one hand it says it envisions Malaysia to be a hub. On the other hand, it comes out with a NAP that precisely discourages foreign automakers from investing here big time. Isn't this not walking the talk? My question is simple: do they really know what they're doing? i mean the previous as much as the present administration?"

Neil: "It has been said a politician shakes your hand before an election, and your confidence, after."

A: "That's true - they seem not to have two qualities so paramount for making a success of the main imperative of their jobs which is to make Malaysia relevant to a hypercompetitive world. To do the right thing well within the setting of a real-world, closed-loop perspective. That's the two-things. And if they're reading this and can't figure that out, it doesn't matter then.

Furthermore, it's alarming if you look at the credentials of the cabinet, even if that's a superficial indication. You would be excused for thinking these are people who're going to be just reactionary ad-libbers of what their speechwriters put on their plate, not direction-setters and will-galvanizers of modern progress in their own right.

Given that Malaysia has retrogressed in so many aspects, from brain drain to FDI immobilisation, one is not confident anymore that all of them are too lost, or too smugly vacuous of the precipicial dangers awaiting this country's folks.

And you know what, the people who carry the rural votes who can ultimately ring the right alarm bell on their heads are the ones who're just as asleep about the whole dingaling.

Now you tell me, if we've been seeing nothing done right for so many years, and you can measure that by how many times the yes-men have been in a hurry to blow trumpets despite facts from the ground, then do you honestly and frankly think there's much hope for the future of this country?"

Neil: "It depends how you want to define future. If it's somewhere like Brunei but better than Indonesia and Philippines, then i guess we'll coast by."

A: "Neil, what if it's just better than Ghana, 2020?"

Neil: "That would be too presumptuous, wouldn't you think so? After all, all sleeves are rolled up on this 9MP."

A: "So what about it? What's needed is not a percentage here, a percentage there, above the numbers of the previous plan. Especially if the previous plans are nothing to shout about in the first place. You need something really tangible, galvanizing, that will spark quantum leaps in all arenas of what makes this country progressive. Right now, it looks more like a tango between two camps, and for what? lessons on dejavu? Children are growing up, folks are getting old, the middle-aged need something openings to bite on.

As I've said before, we don't want to feel good. We just want to feel the goods."

Neil: "Maybe the old suggestion to cut down the size of the politician corp needs to be recalled. Some have asked what's the use of politicians, except to create reason to raise media circulation by confusing and agonizing the rakyat. Others have asked what's missed if you replace ninety percent of them with professional managers who'll be given doable KPIs on an up-or-out basis that replaces the voting vagaries."

A: "A point there. KPIs for the politicians. If they can ask that of their GLCs, why not of themselves?".

I for one am happy that we didn't continue with the stupid crooked bridge.

We are connecting to their shores, of course we need mutual agreement. The use of the word "sovereignty" seems to me a little exagerated.

Why is it convenient to talk about "sovereignity" when he created a situation at one time in Malaysian where more than 1.5million illegals here are treated better than some 50% of its own rakyat? Even a first generation born of this group could qualify to become an MB why some 50% are discriminated to enjoy some "equality" as common citizens of a land we all proudly call NegaraKu.
And don't anyone dare call me less than patriotic just because I dare stand up to be counted, or did not hoist the tallest or biggest Jalu Gemilang on Ogos 31.