Credit : I thank Che Abdul Roni for his inputs as one of the persons involved with the project with both Crooked Bridge and the Second Link
Note : I am examining the Crooked Bridge project with a focus on objectivity. My aim is to review all available facts, data, and perspectives from both Malaysia and Singapore, including inputs from stakeholders, historical records, and engineering assessments. I am committed to providing a balanced analysis, acknowledging the interests, concerns, and constraints of both sides in this matter.
Those who lived through the late 1990s and early 2000s (the time of Y2K "fantasy chaos") will remember that, just months before the severe economic recession triggered by the attack on the Malaysian Ringgit, there was an ambitious and highly controversial proposal known as the Johor–Singapore Crooked Bridge. Around the same time, a company called Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd (which I almost got involved in) was awarded the project. The company quickly gained public attention because the project itself was regarded as a bold and complex engineering undertaking.
The “Crooked Bridge” between Johor and Singapore is actually a proposed project that was never completed. It became famous mainly because of political debate between Malaysia and Singapore.
- WHAT IS IT?
The Crooked Bridge was a proposal to replace the Malaysian half of the Johor–Singapore Causeway, the land link between Johor Bahru and Singapore.
The existing causeway itself was completed in 1927, originally built as a solid embankment carrying road, rail, and water pipelines.
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad proposed replacing it with a bridge so that ships could pass through the Johor Strait and to improve water flow and reduce congestion.
2. WHEN?
- Idea first discussed: around 2000–2001 still during the reign of 4th PM, Tun Dr. Mahathir
- Official proposal announced: 2002
- Contract for construction awarded: 2003
- Project cancelled: 2006 under the 5th Malaysian Prime Minister, Allahyarham Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
3. WHY?
It got the nickname because of its design shape.
Originally, Malaysia wanted a straight bridge replacing the entire causeway. But Singapore disagree to demolish its side.
So Malaysia proposed building only its half, which meant the bridge would:
- Start in Johor as an elevated bridge
- Curve down
- Connect back to the existing straight causeway at the border
Because of that curved or S-shaped design, the media called it the “crooked bridge.”
4. WHY WAS IT CANCELLED?
Several reasons:
- Disagreement with Singapore over demolishing the causeway and related bilateral issues.
- High cost, estimated around RM2.3 billion.
- Political decision by the new Malaysian government to stop the project in 2006.
When the project was cancelled, Gerbang Perdana had already invested heavily, planning, land acquisition, preliminary works, and financial commitments. To settle the contractual obligations, the Malaysian government reportedly paid Gerbang Perdana more than RM250 million as compensation for losses. This is quite substantial and understandably caught public attention and became a hot debated topic in the Parliament.
5. THE ENGINEERING ARGUMENT
The engineering argument for replacing the Johor–Singapore causeway with a bridge was actually quite strong from a hydrological and environmental perspective. The issue mainly concerns water circulation in the Johor Strait.
6. THE CAUSEWAY ACTS LIKE A DAM
The Johor–Singapore Causeway, completed in 1927, is not really a bridge. It is essentially a solid embankment filled with rock and soil, with only a few culverts (openings) allowing water to pass and due to this :
- Water exchange between the eastern and western parts of the Johor Strait is restricted,
- Tidal flow becomes very slow,
- Sediment accumulates over time,
Engineers often say the causeway behaves more like a dam than a bridge.
7. SEDIMENT AND POLLUTION BUILD-UP
Reduced water circulation causes several environmental effects:
7.1 Sedimentation
- Mud and sand settle easily in slow-moving water,
- Parts of the strait became shallower over time,
7.2 Water quality
- Pollutants from industries and urban areas accumulate,
- Poor flushing increases algae and water stagnation.
This issue was raised by Malaysian planners when proposing the bridge.
8. SHIP NAVIGATION
Another reason for the bridge proposal was navigation.
The causeway only has a narrow channel with a small bridge section for boats. Larger vessels cannot pass through easily.
A new bridge would have allowed:
- Continuous maritime navigation,
- Possible development of water transport along the Johor Strait,
- Better use of the strait for economic activity
9. FLOOD AND WATER FLOW
I recalled discussing with some people from JPS on this matter.
Hydrologists also noted that restricted tidal flow could contribute to localized flooding and tidal imbalance in parts of the strait.
A full bridge would allow:
- Natural tidal exchange,
- Better water flushing,
- Reduced sediment accumulation
10. WHY SINGAPORE WAS NOT KEEN
Singapore had several reasons for hesitation (which also made sense) :
10.1 Infrastructure Dependency
The causeway carries:
- road traffic,
- railway,
- water pipelines supplying Singapore.
10.2 Cost and Disruption
Replacing the entire structure would disrupt one of the busiest land crossings in the world.
10.3 Political and Bilateral Issues
Discussions during the tenure of Tun Mahathir Mohamad and Goh Chok Tong involved multiple linked negotiations. These issues were often discussed as a package deal.
The idea was:
- Malaysia: approval for bridge construction,
- Singapore: agreement on water, airspace, and railway matters
But negotiations stalled because both sides had different priorities.
11. WHY THE CROOKED BRIDGE DESIGN APPEARED
When Singapore did not agree to demolish the whole causeway, Malaysia proposed building only its half.
That meant the bridge would:
- Rise high enough for ships,
- Curve downward,
- Connect back to the existing causeway
The unusual geometry led to the nickname “Crooked Bridge.”
Key Indicators Explained
1. Existing Causeway (Straight Section)
The current Johor–Singapore Causeway would remain on the Singapore side.
Malaysia’s bridge would connect to it near the border.
2. Curved / “Crooked” Section
The Malaysian bridge would curve downwards to meet the causeway.
This unusual geometry created the S-shaped alignment that led to the nickname “crooked bridge.”
3. Elevated Bridge Deck
Designed about 25 m above the water so ships could pass underneath.
4. Navigation Channel
The raised bridge would allow vessels to move through the Johor Strait, improving maritime navigation.
5. Johor Side Highway Connection
The bridge would connect to roads near Johor Bahru CIQ and local highways.
14.0 THE ALTERNATIVE - THE SECOND LINK (BACK TO THE BASICS)
14.1 Why the Second Link Exists
The Second Link, opened in 1998, connects Tuas (Singapore) to Tanjung Kupang (Johor).
It was meant to relieve the Woodlands Causeway, especially for cargo trucks and long-distance commuters.
Essentially, it was a bigger, straighter, less politically sensitive project than the original Crooked Bridge.
14.2 Construction in Malaysia
- Carried out by Ranhill Engineers & Constructors Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysian contractors led the Malaysian portion)
- Malaysian side included roads, customs/immigration facilities (CIQ), and the bridge deck up to the midline of the Johor Strait.
14.3 Construction in Singapore
- Managed by Singapore-based contractors, including Hyundai Engineering & Construction for the bridge section,
- Singapore handled its own approach roads, Tuas CIQ, and the bridge deck to midline.
It was a bilateral project with each country responsible for their side, coordinated through Malaysia–Singapore Joint Committee to ensure alignment in the middle.
14.4 Cost
The Malaysia–Singapore Second Link had an estimated construction cost of about RM1.3 - RM1.6 billion when it was built in the 1990s. At that time, it's far more cheaper and more efficient than the "Crooked Bridge" where the Second Link delivers greater long-term traffic capacity.
14.5 The Talks among Civil Engineers
Many engineers believe the optimal solution would have been:
- Remove the entire Johor–Singapore Causeway,
- Replace it with a full straight international bridge
This would solve:
- tidal flow problems,
- navigation restrictions,
- traffic congestion
However, I believe personally believe that political and bilateral considerations prevented that option.
15.0 CONCLUSION
The saga of the Crooked Bridge and the construction of the Malaysia–Singapore Second Link illustrates the delicate balance between ambition, engineering feasibility, and diplomacy. While the Crooked Bridge was never completed, its planning highlighted Malaysia’s desire to modernize infrastructure and maintain regional competitiveness. The Second Link, in contrast, became a symbol of successful bilateral negotiation, technical coordination, and mutual trust.
Ultimately, the two countries demonstrated that disagreements, even on high-stakes projects, need not disrupt the broader relationship. Like a form of brotherhood, arguments were resolved through dialogue, compromise, and respect for sovereignty. The story of these bridges offers a lesson not just in civil engineering and infrastructure planning, but in diplomacy: sustainable progress depends on collaboration, patience, and an understanding of shared history and mutual interests.
Additional Note :
The Effectiveness of the Second Link and why a Crooked Bridge Project appeared
The Second Link partially replaced the need for a Crooked Bridge, but didn’t fully solve all geographic, traffic, and strategic needs.
- Proximity: The Second Link is far west, making it inconvenient for people living closer to central Johor (Johor Bahru city) and Singapore’s central/northern areas.
- Capacity & Congestion: Woodlands and the existing Second Link still face congestion during peak hours. The Crooked Bridge would provide direct relief to that corridor.
- Political/land-use limitations: The Crooked Bridge was also controversial because it would have cut across sensitive environmental or private land areas, which made it politically tricky, hence the “replacement” by the Second Link.
- Future-proofing: Even if the Second Link exists, Singapore and Johor’s trade, commuting, and tourism continue to grow. Additional links reduce risk of bottlenecks.
No comments:
Post a Comment