Thailand
Kra Canal will it happen ... ever?
Every few years, the idea of building a canal in southern Thailand is taken out of mothball, dusted and debated before being put away again. It is happening once more.
Mar 12, 2001

When the story first hit me in 1972, I was so excited that I spent almost a week researching on the project before writing on it.

That was 29 years ago when I was a correspondent in Bangkok writing for a regional newspaper.

The idea of cutting a canal across the narrowest part of the Kra of Isthmus that would reduce east-west shipping from 2,000 km to 100 km caught my imagination.

But among the Thai bureaucrats I approached for details, the mood was much less enthusiastic.

When I mentioned about the cabinet approval, I was met with the cynical smile of non-belief. I was the only excited guy.

The US$25 billion canal. which would take seven to 10 years to build, would save two or three shipping days in the journey by avoiding the Straits of Malacca.

That would deal a blow to Singapore’s strategic maritime role and threaten its prosperity.

When the "three tyrants", including Generals Prapas Charusathiera and Thanom Kittikachorn, whammed it through cabinet with promise of Japanese participation, I discovered that: -

1 The proposal was over 300 years old. It first appeared in 1677 when King Narai of Ayudhya suggested digging the canal with shovels. Due to concerns over security, the idea had been popping up and down since.

2. A report once explained why the Kra isthmus, calculated to run up to 12 kms, was so important: "With its location at the centre of the world’s air and marine transportation routes, only this waterway could beat Singapore as a famous destination and shortcut through the Straits of Malacca."

In 1972, American engineering consultants were tasked to carry out a feasibility study.

It proposed not only a king-sized canal capable of handling tankers of up to 500,000 dwt but also the construction of sea ports and industrial development and export processing zones at both ends.

The thing ended when students revolted against the military dictators in 1973. But the idea encountered two main security concerns.

Firstly, it would threaten security in southern Thailand, which is faced with two insurgencies, the Thai Communist Party and the Muslim separatists. The canal could be blown up by either group.

Secondly, a canal would cut Thailand into two. The southern portion, it was feared, which was Muslim and dominated by the Patani Liberation Movement would be lost.

When the Canal idea appeared doom, someone suggested: "Why not build an oil pipeline instead of a canal?"

Tankers from Middle East to Japan and other Asian countries could simply unload their oil from the Western side for other tankers to pick up from the other end. No need to sail around Singapore.

It was a crazy idea, critics said. Could you imagine the environmental disaster to Thailand if somebody bomb the pipeline? The waters on the east were too rough for loading oil.

Beside, it needed a lot of money and no one could be sure if it was profitable. The expected increase of trade in oil between northeast Asia (Japan, Korea) and the Middle East did not materialise.

Recently the Kra canal was suggested again. But criticism remained, not just from Singapore which feels its strategic position being undermined, but within the Thai government.

Thailand’s commerce minister and next World Trade Organisation (WTO) head Supachai Panitchpakdee said: "The Kra Canal would need a lot of money and could create debts. We should avoid projects which cause large debts."

Thailand is already saddled with over US $80 billion in foreign debt alone.

Post-1997 the proposal looks less appealing today than at anytime in the past. But it is unlikely to dampen the enthusiastic calls that arise once awhile for the Kra Canal.

Seah Chiang Nee