I

refer to the article “Sumatra link may be a bridge too far”, (The Jakarta Post, July 26).

I think everyone should sit up and take notice of Finance Minister Agus Martowardojo’s cautious approach to the plan to build a super bridge linking Java and Sumatra.

Of course this bridge idea sounds great and seems full of long-term economic benefits for Indonesia, but as history shows, super-sized construction projects also come with outsized potential for extremely expensive cost overruns. Once such a project begins, it has to be finished, no matter what and private construction companies are well aware of this.  

This sort of thing happens in Japan and Alaska, US where “roads to nowhere” are built because companies have extraordinarily close contacts with governments. It also happened in Canada decades ago with the construction of a huge sports stadium in Toronto.

The final cost was far, far greater than the proposed cost and there was outrage when it was revealed that the government (taxpayers) was liable for the additional costs because that was the way the contract was written.

So the question is this. Would earmarked funds for the proposed bridge be better spent and provide more economic and social benefits if they were spent on other, smaller infrastructure projects? I think a dispassionate (non-political) analysis of current infrastructure deficiencies in Indonesia would indicate yes.

I think Indonesia’s finance minister recognizes this, and people should understand why he is taking a cautious approach in this case. He seems eager to take steps to protect the Indonesian taxpayer from any surprises down the road.

Who knows what kind of natural or manmade events could lead to massive cost overruns for such a project? How about an earthquake? Or tsunami or volcanic eruption?  

Peter Andrew
Denpasar, Bali