Rumblings in Singapore and Beijing have begun

Common sense says we must ask basic questions, such as: how are costs shared, who gets the most benefit, is one side taking advantage of another, what if the agreements are unfair?

COMMENT

TK Chua

I can see that rumblings in Singapore and Beijing have begun. They are justifying why those mega projects like the High-Speed Rail (HSR) and East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) should be allowed to proceed.

Similarly, in Malaysia, those linked with the previous administration, too, are asking for explanations as to why these “essential” projects are now put on hold.

I am just a layperson without privy to confidential information. So I will just write or ask questions based on common sense.

First, how did we share the cost of the HSR between Malaysia and Singapore? Was it 50:50 or 90:10 or 80:20 in favour of Singapore? After all, according to the reports I read, only 10% of the work on this link is being built on Singapore’s side.

However, if we look at the benefits, Singapore could gain as much as Kuala Lumpur from this project. What is the point then for Malaysia to finance and own 90% of the track but obtain only half of the benefit?

Maybe I have not taken into consideration the potential multiplier effects along the route from Kuala Lumpur to JB but surely this can’t be as significant as the benefits accruing to Singapore.

Everyone now says that international agreements are binding and any violation will have consequences. But what if there are unfair agreements or agreements that involve deception?

What if one party is taking advantage of the another? What if one of the parties can’t meet the obligations due to a change in circumstances? What if the compensations are too daunting to honour?

Second, many say the ECRL is an investment from China. Is it?

As a Malaysian, I would be the first to ask the Pakatan Harapan government not to review the ECRL project if it is really an investment from China.

We should get our bearings right: China did not invest in the ECRL, China only provided a loan for the project which Malaysia must repay eventually.

Who has done the comparative costs and viability studies on this project? Did China do it? But why? The risk is not with them.

Did Malaysia do it? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Even the East Coast highway is not fully utilised at the moment.

TK Chua is an FMT reader.