I REFER to the letter headlined “Kra Canal can boost Asean trade” (NST, Oct 26).
The proposed Kra Canal has been debated for ages. The benefits and advantages of the proposed canal, as explained by V. Thomas, are huge. However, these advantages are wishful thinking, at best.
The common advantages cited for constructing the canal include a new waterway to avoid the congested Straits of Malacca and a shorter route around the Malaysian peninsula.
Some view the proposal as a “threat” to Singapore’s strategic location at the mid-point of East-West trade at the tip of the peninsula. Others would pose a hypothetical scenario of an accident or catastrophe in the Straits of Malacca.
The Kra Canal is estimated to cost a staggering US$20 billion (RM84.9 billion) to US$28 billion. Its construction is not as simple as digging a canal in the narrowest point of the Kra Isthmus.
Firstly, the canal would have to be deep and wide enough for current ship sizes. The sea, at either end, would require the appropriate depth to be dredged and maintained year-round. Ships these days, especially those plying Asia-Europe routes, can be as wide as 60m, as long as 400m and require a depth of 19m. The natural depth of the sea on either side of the Kra Isthmus is nowhere near that, or else Thailand would have built a deep-sea transshipment port at the mouth of the Straits of Malacca, or somebody else would already have done so.
The cost of digging the canal and dredging the sea around it is prohibitive enough as it is and that’s only a one-time cost. Maintaining that depth will be a gargantuan challenge given the effects of siltation and monsoon seasons.
The canal’s ends would require constant dredging for its navigation channels, the cost of which will surely be reflected in the toll charged. Most ports conduct maintenance dredging to undo the effects of siltation, but ports are usually built at a deep enough location.
It does not make economic sense in that the opportunity cost is too small. What you save — avoiding a trip slightly longer by a few days — is not enough to justify creating a new route. Bear in mind a too-high toll as the alternative would be the free-to-sail Straits of Malacca.
The current route around the peninsula is well-served by mature ports, including Penang, Klang, Tanjung Pelepas and Singapore. Of course, Malaysians are biased against the canal as three of those four ports are ours. But these aren’t just ports to load and offload cargo: they also provide other maritime services, including ship repair, resupply, as well as finance and insurance.
This brings me to my second point, which is that the Kra Canal would need to be served by at least one port at either end to provide these services. Without them, it will not be any more
attractive than the Straits of Malacca.
It’s not clear what V. Thomas meant by his assertion that the Kra Canal will bring Asean “closer to one another as never before”. While this may be true if the canal was built, how much closer will we be? Having a slightly shorter new route would not necessarily translate to increased cargo throughput or increased traffic. It might change the dynamics of shipping, as some with deep enough pockets might choose the canal, hence cannibalising traffic from the Straits of Malacca. Would such a prospect be attractive to Malaysia and Singapore? Why should we support or fund it? Would Thailand even embark on such a costly undertaking when the returns are only a small slice of the East-West trade pie, yet, at the same time, rustling neighbours’ feathers (to say the least)?
An investment of US$20 billion shared among Asean countries as well as China and India would be much better served in other sectors, such as better rail connectivity in the region, or perhaps develop ailing infrastructure such as water treatment and electricity generation.
Why should we — Malaysia and even Asean — build our own potential white elephant just to save the white elephant in Colombo? Why should we invest so much in something we don’t need, just so India can deepen her Palk Strait?
We have more pressing needs in Malaysia that should be prioritised, and even if we didn’t, who in their right mind would go out of their way to help another person shoot himself in the foot? It makes no sense at all.
SAP
Petaling Jaya