For years, the question surrounding Penang’s proposed undersea tunnel was whether the controversial project would ever be built.

That question has now taken another turn.

The tunnel, or a possible third bridge, remains in the Draft Penang State Structure Plan 2040 as an indicative proposal connecting Gurney Drive on the island to Bagan Ajam on the mainland.

Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow has said the proposal remains in the draft because the agreement with the appointed company is still valid. But he also stressed that its inclusion does not mean the project will necessarily be implemented, as development will depend on future government decisions and schedules.

A project appearing in a structure plan is not the same as a government announcing that construction will begin.

But its continued presence raises a more important question.

Why does Penang still need the third link?
That question now matters more than whether the tunnel can survive another political controversy.

Because Penang is no longer planning for the Penang of the early 2010s. It is planning for 2040.

And if the state wants its long-term plan to mean something, the projects within it need to be justified by the future they are meant to serve, not simply by decisions made in the past.

The tunnel has a history that cannot simply be ignored
The undersea tunnel did not emerge as an ordinary infrastructure proposal.

It was part of a larger RM6.3 billion transport package involving the proposed 7.2km tunnel and three road projects.

The project subsequently became embroiled in investigations and political controversy.

Former Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng is facing a corruption trial connected to the project. Issues raised in court have included the tender process, alleged payments and the transfer of state land.

In June this year, a MACC investigating officer testified that the company that eventually won the project had gained a “clear advantage” from technical and financial discussions with the state government before the open tender.

That remains evidence presented in an ongoing trial, not a final finding of guilt.

The court has also heard competing claims over state land transferred in connection with payments for work related to the project.

That history matters. But it should not become the entire argument.

The more important issue now is whether the transport problem the project was intended to address still exists in the same form.

A controversial project still has to be judged on its merits
It would be easy to argue that because the tunnel has been associated with controversy for so long, Penang should simply abandon it.

That would be too simplistic.

A project does not become unnecessary because its political history is complicated.

If Penang genuinely needs another connection between the island and mainland, that need should be assessed independently of the scandal.

The tunnel should neither survive because of past political commitments nor be rejected because of its political history.

It should be tested against what Penang needs now.

And that assessment should consider the entire transport network.

What traffic demand will the third link serve?

How will it fit alongside existing roads and future public transport?

What will Penang's transport network look like when the project is eventually completed?

And what does another crossing achieve that other investments cannot?

These are the issues that should determine whether the project remains part of Penang's long-term strategy.

Penang in 2040 will not be Penang in the early 2010s
This may be the biggest issue of all.

The original proposal was developed in a different economic and transport environment.

Since then, Penang has continued to change.

Seberang Perai has become increasingly important as an economic and residential centre. The island continues to face constraints involving land, congestion and development. At the same time, the state is pursuing major public transport investments, including the Penang LRT.

All of this changes the calculation.

The third link should therefore be considered as part of the wider transport system rather than as a standalone project.

If the LRT changes commuting patterns, that matters. If economic activity shifts further towards Seberang Perai, that matters. If traffic demand changes because of new development, that matters. If environmental or engineering considerations make a tunnel less attractive than a bridge, that matters.

A structure plan for 2040 should not simply ask whether a project conceived in the previous decade is still possible.

It should ask whether it is still necessary.

Perhaps Penang needs a third link, not necessarily the old tunnel
There is an interesting detail in the new plan.

The proposal is described as an undersea tunnel or third bridge.

That suggests the state may be preserving the idea of another strategic connection without necessarily committing itself to the exact engineering solution proposed years ago.

If that is the case, it may actually be the more sensible approach.

Penang can separate two questions.

First, does the state need another connection between the island and mainland? Second, if it does, what is the best way to provide it?

The strategic need for another crossing may remain even if the original tunnel design no longer makes sense.

Conversely, the existence of an old agreement should not automatically make the tunnel the preferred solution.

That is why the current public consultation process matters.

The government now has an opportunity to explain whether the third link is being preserved because of a genuine long-term transport requirement, contractual commitments, or simply because planners want to keep the option open.

Those are very different reasons. The public should understand which one applies.

Long-term planning cannot become a museum of old projects
There is an unavoidable difficulty with major infrastructure projects.

Once governments have spent years on feasibility studies, negotiations, contracts and political commitments, abandoning a project becomes difficult.

It can feel like admitting that previous governments made a mistake.

But good planning cannot work that way.

A structure plan should be capable of changing its mind.

A project that made sense in 2012 may not make sense in 2040.

That does not necessarily mean the original decision was foolish. It means circumstances have changed.

A plan that refuses to reconsider old assumptions is not necessarily consistent. It may simply be inflexible.

The tunnel has already survived the political test
For years, the tunnel was discussed mainly through politics.

It became associated with Lim Guan Eng's administration, the Pakatan Harapan years in Penang, MACC investigations and the subsequent court proceedings.

That political history will not disappear.

But it should not obscure the policy question facing the state now.

The people making decisions about Penang's transport network in 2040 may not be the same people who conceived the tunnel.

What will matter then is whether Penang still has a congestion, connectivity or economic-development problem that requires another crossing.

That is why the tunnel now faces a different kind of scrutiny.

Not just political scrutiny but planning scrutiny.

The burden is now on the government to make the case
The state government does not necessarily need to abandon the proposal. But it does need to demonstrate its continued value.

If the third link is essential, the case should be clear.

If it is an option for future governments, the plan should make clear what circumstances would justify moving forward.

If the original tunnel is no longer the preferred solution, the state should explain why a bridge might be better.

And if the project remains because of an existing agreement, the public should understand what obligations that creates and what it does not.

Most importantly, the third link should be integrated into Penang's wider transport strategy rather than treated as an isolated commitment.

That would move the conversation beyond whether the tunnel is alive or dead.

The more useful question is whether the third link still deserves a place in Penang's future.

The real test begins with 2040
There is nothing inherently wrong with keeping a long-term infrastructure option in a structure plan.

Cities need to preserve options.

But an option should not become an obligation simply because it has survived long enough.

The undersea tunnel has already survived more than a decade of delays, controversy and political change.

Now it faces a more important test.

Does it still make sense for the Penang of 2040?

If the answer is yes, the state should be able to demonstrate that with current traffic projections, current transport priorities, current costs and current alternatives.

If the answer is no, Penang should be willing to say that circumstances have changed.

That would not necessarily be an admission of failure.

It would be evidence that planning works.

The real danger is not that the tunnel remains on the map.

The real danger is if it remains there simply because nobody wants to reconsider a project from the past.

Penang is being asked to imagine its future.

It should be willing to leave some of its past behind.