:: Why the need of replacing the Causeway? ::

Well, after a while (and after thinking and keeping mum about this issue for a very long time), I think it's time for me to write on why there is a dire need of replacing the Causeway.

For those who disagree, or disgruntled about this idea, no apologies are made. I am a Malaysian, and I should voice what I think is good for my country.

Maybe, some of my friends from the bordering southern country might be pissed, or think that I'm pissed with them, but afraid not, I mean no harm. But my country will always comes first.

Reasons why the Causeway should be removed/replaced:
1. To accommodate the free flow of water and ships. Better flow would mean better nautical environment.
2. By providing access there (under the replacement bridge), the ports (Pasir Gudang, and Tanjung Pelepas) would have a greater amount of trade. These ports would then be the most vital southern-most tip of the Asian mainland.
3. This would then work in tandem with the proposed double-track railway from these ports to KLIA and up north into Thailand.
4. As the double-track railway will be big enough to carry the trade items shipped as cargo, these cargoes can then be carried by it, and then be flown from KLIA, or be transported direct to mainland Asia (through Thailand).
5. Since we already have a good network of highways in the Peninsular which is joined to the major network of Asian highways, this also means that the trade items can also be transported through road.
6. Millions of jobs can the be generated as trade is increased, and this would also lead to greater development of road and rail links (and new cities) in the Eastern part of the Peninsular.
7. Another port can then be developed in either Kelantan or Terengganu, or any of the Northern states to provide better connection. Hence, leading to even a chance that ther is no need to stop at the ports down there in the south.
8. As per point #1, there can then be development of the waterfront of the most Southern state in the Peninsular. It can be a new Venice-like city, which can be a twin to the one that should be build in KL (as the city would be leased congested due to the transfer of Government facilities to Putrajaya).
9. This would also allow installation of better checkpoints or scanning facility on the new bridge. Traffic flow in the southern-most city in the Peninsular would also be improved. And better naval control and surveillance.
10. Hence, better connection of the already built or soon-to-be-built infrastructure network in the Peninsular. No need to worry about security, the bridge could be cut off if there the need arise. (Just like why the new administration capital was built on a man-made island. Think about it, by cutting off the bridge, the 'island' can still be protected by naval, air and land forces, and can still work as the beating heart of the nation).
11. It's as a show of our brave stand and authority as a proud sovereign nation with rights. We can still be good neighbour, but one which is also intelligent and brave.

There you go, those are the reasons. Some people might say that it's dumb to give full reasoning, as your enemy might see your 'secret' planning. But my idea is this: sometimes, you have to 'accidentally' leak your might and intelligence to others, so that they have a hint of what they'll be dealing with should they toy with the idea of confrontation.

All in all, I truly support the idea of replacing it.

Now, go forth, and build it!





p/s:

On a lighter note, I remembered when Malaysians were celebrating the 31st August here in Australia, they was a big banner on which everyone wrote their wishes / statements of love for the country. One fellow Singaporean even wrote 'Malaysia tanah airku' (maybe trying to pass as one of the my fellow countrymen).

I came and changed it to 'Malaysia: sumber airku'.. Partly as a joke, and partly as a reminder/lesson to the others (esp. from Malacca) that they're paying more for water, as compared to a particular foreign country.