Talk:Johor–Singapore Causeway/Archive 1

Justification for using references in the article

I noticed that one of our fellow users added a reference to our article on the process of entering/leaving Malaysia/Singapore. However, the content I contributed is solely based on my observations of entering/leaving Malaysia/Singapore. Yes, I believe the content probably corresponds to those in the book, but I do take mild offence personally in this matter, and the section name Further Reading would be my prefered choice. No other changes. Anyway, a small portion of the content I have taken from another website, and I wouldn't mind citing its source, honestly. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I was the one that added the reference but one of WP's policies is Wikipedia:No original research. Your observation needs to be verified with other sources. Not that I don't trust you but we're just trying to live up to a standard. It's better to cite them, have reference and all. But further reading section seems to have solved the problem. __earth 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the reference for the entire article, and not particularly to your section.--Huaiwei 06:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edit and comment is, a contradiction to Earth's comment and my idea. I can't say whether your main intention is to offend me, or to highlight its parallellity to your denoted book, or both. Anyway, what I'm doing is to highlight my sensitivity towards civic/social, as well as legal issues on wikipedia, but I have no intention to probe into the matter. I have made an edit which I hope, can moderate out things.

For your information, my information is based on the fact that my relative, who drives a Malaysian-registered car, frequently drives me in and out of Malaysia frequently for the past few years. And I have old Vehicle Entry Permit slips, which dated from 1994 until 2001. So, as a vetran traveller, I am entitled to give accurate information in this aspect, even observation. Many people, especially my classmates, travels in and out of Malaysia to come to Singapore to study, is even more familiar with this things. You may ask these people if anybody wish to. Thanks. Mr Tan 16:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To repeat, I added the reference for the overall page, and not neccesarily to the section you added. Your comments above have no bearings on what I did.--Huaiwei 17:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Ok. Trival matter. My good friend User:Johnleemk did the same on several articles too. Just probing in on the social aspect on this arguement, don't go too far to hostility. Ok? That's all. I think I get what you mean. Peace. Confucius said so. Mr Tan 04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks.--Huaiwei 04:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm touched. Let's group hug. *hug LOL! __earth 10:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

lol!--Huaiwei 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Johor-Singapore Causeway

Wait. Is the official name of thecauseway is Johor-Singapore Causeway? Isn't it simply Johor Causeway? __earth ^(Talk) 03:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is simply Causeway. Yes, it will give lots of headache for anyone looking for the info.

--Sltan 04:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think the the history paragraph is poorly written. The following paragraph are inadequate. A paragraph of "Problem of the causeway" will make it less confusing. Thus I pruned the following paragraph. On December 23, 2005, the news at 10pm of MediaCorp TV Channel 8 reported a traffic jam measuring up to 1.5km along Woodlands Centre Road at that night. Automobiles heading towards the customs complex via Bukit Timah Expressway also faced a similar problem. The news reported that travellers travelling by bus across the causeway took about thirty to forty-five minutes, saving about one hour on travelling time compared to other automobiles. Car drivers, randomly picked out by reporters for very short interviews, said that entering Malaysia, particularly at night, took about one and a half hours, while leaving Malaysia takes about two hours.

An Indian driver complained to the reporters that such traffic jams are a daily affair. He also furthered that policemen only concentrated on directing traffic along BKE and the junction between Woodlands Road, Woodlands Centre Road, and the flyover up to the customs complex. The entire road along Woodlands Road and Woodlands Centre Road had no police to direct the traffic. This forced several drivers to risk their lives against automobiles by directing traffic for access of their own vehicles.

--Sltan 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Subtitle Causeway Replacement for the new bridge.

Add Vehicle Entry Permit for the acronym VEP.

I thank you for editing my content, but why did you remove the entire thing? If you think that the content needs a seperate paragraph, then do so. I don't like words without action. I shall do it in accordance to your wishes then. Mr Tan 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The casueway replacement is rather one side story from the Malaysia official. Lack of transparency doesn't show any feasibilities information of the crooked bridge.

The traffics volume of the replacement bridge must meet a traffics volume to be feasible. However, the traffic volumes will create traffics problem to Singapore, which against Singapore policies to reduce the vehicle on road. The VEP and the TOL paragraph is a hint of of policies. A hike for both VEP and TOL will discourage people drive in Singapore. Which will fail the traffic volumes required by the replacement bridge. --Sltan 04:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing is, when the second link was built, the same reasoning was not given. Why should the reason be given now?

Anyway, I doubt Malaysia is interested in road traffic volume. Malaysia is more interested in developing its port, namely Port of Tanjung Pelepas. A bridge will enable Port of Tanjung Pelepas to connects with two other Johor ports in the east. Once that happens, PTP will grow even further. PTP has already caused growth in Singaporean ports to slow down, especially when Maersk moved its operation to Johor in 2000/2001. __earth ^(Talk) 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an update of this matter in Current events in Malaysia and Singapore, it says:

Malaysia Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak says that Malaysia will proceed to build a bridge across its half of the Johor Strait replacing the Johor-Singapore Causeway. The bridge is referred to as "scenic bridge" instead of the previous label "crooked bridge". Singapore is seeking clarification about the plan. (The Star) (The Star) (Bernama)

It seems that Malaysia is prepared to proceed with its plan unilaterally, and Singapore government is apparently caught off-guard by this announcement. --Vsion 04:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Malaysia is going ahead to build the bridge? Hope the bridge will not be crooked like as planned. :D The Malaysia side has built their new CIQ (or immigration), why isn't there no information on that. Or are there seperate articles for immigration checkpoints? --Terence Ong 05:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha. I like the euphorism. scenic bridge! __earth ^(Talk) 05:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha... so that when we are stuck in the traffic jam, we can at least enjoy a better scenery while on the scenic bridge! --Vsion 10:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth does the Causeway connects to the Skudai Highway, thought its Jalan Tun Abdul Razak? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I donno. dont ask me. I've only crossed the causeway twice - both by train. __earth ^(Talk) 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Toll charges

Anybody travelling by car via the causeway? Please help me check the Vans and other small good vehicles for the Malaysian toll charges when any of you pass through any of the Plus toll counter to pay your toll before you can head out for Jalan Skudai. Thanks! Mr Tan 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, the next time I go to Malaysia. :D I travel by car. Is Jalan Tun Abdul Razak is also known as Skudai Highway. And cars don't drive out to Jalan Tun Abdul Razak, they use a road by the seaside called Jalan Ibrahim I think. I thought it was after Danga Bay there, then it is Skudai Highway. Anyway, Tun Abudl Razak is currently one way from Jalan Stesen to the Immigration. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Traffic Jam section

the section sounds like a newspaper article. I think it has a wrong tone for an encyclopedia. __earth ^(Talk) 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Too much direct copying from a news bulletin I suppose. Reading it remind me of the bulletin in question! :D--Huaiwei 08:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

heh. Which bulletin? maybe we could refer to it for a rewrite. __earth ^(Talk) 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a new bulletin on Singaporean tv. The edit mentioned its source. I arent sure how we are going to actually verify it as we would with text-based sources thou! :D--Huaiwei 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. You meant bulletin as in news program on tv bulletin. I thought it was internet news bulletin. __earth ^(Talk) 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Why did you remove the section even after knowing the citation in the passage? You replied on )4:25 yet you removed it on 06:57. Can you explain what is your intention on your edit, please? I will revert back until you can give a proper explanation. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I instead moved it to Traffic navigational channels. You should check the history first before reverting. In fact, I don't think the traffic jam section belong under history section. Why should it be under history section? Mind explaning that? Otherwise, I hope you'll revert back. __earth ^(Talk) 07:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. My error. Anyway, I feel that your move is really feasible. But why citation needed is still there? I thought Huaiwei explained the reason for not needing a citation: It is in the paragraph instead.

I certainly can't give an internet citation as I watched it directly from the news. The only way is to go to Mediacorp office at Thomson to check it out yourself if you persistently doubt me. I"ll remove it first, but please explain if you oppose otherwise, or reconsider Huaiwei's explanation. I have given the best citation that I could. Cheers! Mr Tan 08:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. But I still think it needs a rewrite. It sounds too much like a newspaper article. =( __earth ^(Talk) 16:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead please. Feel free to do so at your own will. Cheers! Mr Tan 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The new Malaysian side scenic bridge does not build

I have heard news from Malaysian TV3 that the government decided to stop building the scenic bridge on Malaysian side on 12 April 2006. I hope with the new CIQ complex. Many from/to Singapore will used this complex using a temporary road from Johor Causeway. Aiman abmajid 12 April 2006

dude, you incoherent as your edits. __earth ^(Talk) 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

heh. apparently, I'm incoherent too. LOL! __earth ^(Talk) 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Flow of water

Is there any hole beneath the causeway to allow water to flow from one side of the causeway to the other? — Instantnood 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A small hole. But I somehow remember there were two. __earth ^(Talk) 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How large are they? — Instantnood 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That I don't know. I estimate less than 5 m in diameter? __earth ^(Talk) 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Is there any alternative plan revealed to reduce pollution? — Instantnood 07:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

the water or sea flowing toward south china sea are only go into 2 nos overfow pipes below the causeway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.18.40 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph removed - Bad reference, verifiability, source and personal opinions

I've removed this paragraph from the article as it fails to comply with the following Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
• Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Additionally, stating that "some ... say", "some ... claim" and other such forms of reference to the source of the information doesn't lend credibility to the article.

The paragraph in question is: Some Malaysians and many Singaporeans feel that the causeway already serves the purpose of linking Singapore and Malaysia, and there is already a bridge known as the Second Link between Tuas in Singapore and Gelang Patah in south-western Johor state. Some Malaysians and Singaporeans cynically think the only purpose of having a bridge to replace the causeway is if some Malaysian businessmen and politicians might somehow personally benefit financially or politically, and have dubbed the proposed scenic bridge "the cynic's bridge". The lack of transparency and public accountability on public projects in Malaysia and the enormous wealth of some Malaysian businessmen and politicians only fuels their views. Some people expect the new bridge to carry a future high-speed rail line or rail line for a Maglev train service between the two countries and a future extension of Singapore's MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) line into the first MRT station at Johor Bahru but no official mention has been made on these possibilities, which remain on the wish lists of many citizens on both sides of the causeway. Since there does not appear to be any agreement between the two governments on these two potential rail links and on other bilateral issues, there is no likelihood of the causeway being replaced by any type of bridge - straight or scenic - in the near future.

Please do not re-insert the paragraph unless credible sources of the information can be identified. --202.169.31.178 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Causeway? Or a (low) bridge?

Is it a causeway like a dyke, or a bridge near the sea surface? Can water flow from one side of the causeway to the other? 14.0.208.87 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV

I have just read through the article and at first glance there is a significant lack of sources for its size, especially in the 'History' section where the older events have no citation whatsoever. Reading the unsourced statements there seems to be a lot of original research on the page, especially the bottom half of the article. Also there was a POV concern on one of the sections that I've tagged because it seems to contain negative statements that are biased towards one country, depending on which way you look at it. The section has a lot more Malaysian content and point of views while the Singaporean content are barely there. The first half of that section is also unsourced and may be original research. - Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johor–Singapore Causeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008011155/http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=1247 to http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=1247
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031006145506/http://app.ica.gov.sg/about_ica/heritage/history_sir/immigration.asp to http://app.ica.gov.sg/about_ica/heritage/history_sir/immigration.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Johor–Singapore Causeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217090047/http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/2005/02/post_10.php to http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/2005/02/post_10.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,101290,00.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Friday/National/20060310081715/Article/index_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825205552/http://www.pmo.gov.my/website/webdb.nsf/vALLDOC/D29122AB337612FC4825714F00031D87 to http://www.pmo.gov.my/website/webdb.nsf/vALLDOC/D29122AB337612FC4825714F00031D87
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124218/http://nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.php?newsid=30018070 to http://nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.php?newsid=30018070

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)