I

refer to the article “Sumatra link may be a bridge too far”, in the July 26 edition of The Jakarta Post. 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 sounds like a great idea 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 a super project begins, it has to be finished, no matter what, and the private construction companies are well aware of this.  

This sort of thing has happened in Japan and Alaska, where “roads to nowhere” have been built because of companies enjoying extraordinarily close contact 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 (i.e. taxpayers) was liable for all the extra costs because of the way the contract was written and the government had signed it.

So, the question is: Would the earmarked money for the proposed bridge be better spent and provide more economic and social benefits if it were directed toward other, smaller (less grandiose) 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 “go-slow” approach in this case. He seems eager to take steps to protect the Indonesian tax payer from any surprises further down the road.

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

Peter Andrew
Denpasar, Bali