Gulf of Thailand

last SG · 2002-11-08T05:37:56+00:00

Its a risk the gotta take, if they are succesful in building the Canal, they'll have cash returns from ships using the Canal, on the other hand, if they are...

silkmagic SG

The project to create a Gulf of Thailand which will enable ships to bypass Straits of Malacca has resurfaced again. This is going to affect Singapore as a regional hub. So what is Singapore going to do about it and how are we going to compete effectively.

sugardaddy SG

must be the malaysian suggested this???

SonOfGod SG

Don't worry. There have been much talking for the past 20 years and no one has actually managed to pull enough resourses together to make it come true.

Thailand has been having a lot of trouble in the south lately. The last thing they want is having their southern tip cut into two.

If somehow they managed to do it. SG will not be the only country in deep shit, MY will not be any better off either.

CX SG

check the map before u make blind assumptions Mr. Green

the entire malay peninsula, not to mention much of the malay archipelago would be hit very badly hit if the thais built their canal.

it would basically render every single port south of the proposed kra-isthmuth canal irrelevant and the thailand would run the most prosperous shipping route in SE Asia Twisted Evil

it would basically be another suez canal.

geographically, its possible. but politically, its a terrible no-no and enviornmentally, its a potential disaster. not to mention that economically, there's no one to pay for it Mr. Green

so no... thats not the most compelling threat we face.

sugardaddy SG

why not...the malaysian can build another port there together with the thai mah.... please lah...anything is possible....malaysian authority are just out to get Singapore...

CX SG

DuH... who has the best experience in operating a successful port? Sg of matland?

who is on better terms with the Thais? Sg or Matland?

even if the Thais are looking for partners to build the canal (which they are not and they are not building the canal), they wouldn't logically ask matland.

sure... matland would love to get us in any way possible but THIS is not one of them. who would destroy their own economy just tekan their neighbour's economy???

at least Sg and matland are agreed on this point: the Thais are not building their canal because it will kill them both.

Viper52 SG

IIRC the original proposal to cut through the Isthmus of Kra would benefit Malaysia and Thailand, with Penang and Songkhla be main entry points. A situation which sees Malaysia and Thailand benefiting and SG losing out.

Only problem was, a survey found the site found the site unsuitable for such a project, to which the Thais started hunting for a new location further north, effectively kicking Malaysia, together with SG out of the loop, which of course, left our northern neighbours sweating over the problem of irrelavance facing Port Klang, Penang and SG.

Which reminds me of the proverb, "ren suan bu ru tian suan". They wanted to marginalise us with the pea-brained scheme, only to find their ports facing marginalisation as well, which is why you never hear any more enthusiasm for the Kra projet.

CenturionMBT SG

But the last time I heard, PSA actually approved of the cannal.They signed a pact with Thailand which stated that some of the shares would be owned by Singapore.In addition, Singapore is allowed to Tax ships going into the cannal.That is, if it is ever going to be built.In fact one Thai MP proposed to give all Singaporeans Thai citizenship as an incentive.Read this in the papers some years ago.

CenturionMBT SG

[G]oggles SG

I think if they really does tt, it will hurt Malaysian damn hard

silkmagic SG

Personally, I feel that the canal will be built as the technology advancement will reduce the cost drastically and thus making the project feasible.

I think the Sg govenment should play an active role if the project does take off like managing the port in the canal or investing in the project in order to have a voice in the outcome. Our port can play a secondary role like have high value added services while the port in the canal will just have basic facilities

Viper52 SG

Centurion and Silkmagic,

yes we can offer them all sorts of expertise in return for fringe benefits. But in the end, thats what it all is: Fringe benefits. It would be little more than a damage-limitation exercise.

I would dare say if the project is to go ahead, the effect on Singapore will be extremely heavy, no matter how we align ourselves to take advantage of the Kra project.

Sure, we'll still have ships passing through our ports, but think about the numbers as opposed to minus the Kra canal. If th canal were to be built who will pass through Singapore, traffic from Australasia, S Pacific and Indonesia thats who. I'm no shipping magnate, but I would say the numbers will be a pittance compared to that traffic to and from HK, Japan, Taiwan, S Korea and China, who will almost cretainly use the Kra Canal if it is built

To those who arrogantly harp on the fact that SG is still the number one port, I say this: This is the very attitude that cost us MSC and Evergreen to PTP. Unfortunately PSA adopted this same stuck-up, arrogant and take it or leave it attitude with the shipping lines. Small wonder they took their business elsewhere. Hell, I know I would

When will these bloody idiots learn that the world is not as meek and docile as your average Singaporean, and will never buy their stupid take-it-or-leave-it arogance.

CX SG

well... they did wise up to that fact after they lost some business Mr. Green

true... the isthmuth canal woud really spell the end of Sg as the no. one port in the world and no amount of participation on our part would cushion the impact.

and it is a very real possibility in the future... just think: the Suez and the Panama canal both underwent their periods of up and down before someone took the initiative and pushed the mammoth projects along.

someone might suddenly think that the kra-isthmus canal is a great idea and throw in the money and the leadership to being this project about.

problem is, who??? everybody residing south of the location of the proposed canal (i.e. all of island SE Asia see it more as a threat than an opportunity). the thais are not promoting it very energetically.

and to be honest, if it was so easy to accomplish and so desirable to have, i think it would've been achieved 100-200 years ago already.

it might happen in future, but i seriously would not lose sleep over it cos i frankly don't see it happenning in my lifetime.

Viper52 SG

Originally posted by CX:
[b]

well... they did wise up to that fact after they lost some business Mr. Green
b]

Too bad it had to take a swift kick in the face each from Evergreen, MSC and PTP to wake up ther effing idea.

They should have seen this coming long ago, the signs were all there, yet they were blatantly ignored.

dkhoo SG

The digging of the Kra canal would not be a problem for us at all.

The reason is simple -- the traffic through the Malacca Straits is much higher than the Kra canal can possibly handle. The canal would only take a small amount of business from us. The Suez and Panama canals are mostly economic failures because the capacity of a canal is not very high, unless you spend terabucks to dig a really wide one. Add to this the enormous cost of running a canal and it is not even clear that Thailand would even benefit from it.

This is the real reason why no one has actually dug this canal -- there is a significant danger that it will be a money loser. The only reason why they are making noises about it now is that the digging of the canal would instantly create a few hundred thousand jobs, which would be a real boost for the ruling coalition now that unemployment in Thailand is so high. They are also trying to justify the immediate and continuing expense of the canal by saying that they will set up an export processing free trade zone around the canal, which will hopefully turn into an industrial powerhouse. This is nice in theory, but Thailand is lacking in the other factors that would cause such a zone to grow (skilled cheap labor, political stability, infrastructure, etc)

As it is, Singapore does not handle ALL of the traffic through the Malacca Straits and we never did. For example, we are unable to handle the largest class of oil tankers, so they just all sail right past us and dock at ports that can (such as Klang if I am not wrong). This traffic is a big pie and there is more than enough for everyone to get a piece. As long as we are competitive, we will still attract business.

About the moves of a few companies to PTP -- it's bad but not as bad as most people think. As it is, we are pushed to beyond maximum capacity, so even after they left, we did not lose that much money. Truth be told, PSA is so popular that we can afford to turn some people away. And Evergreen is already shifting some of its traffic back because it is beginning to realize PTP is cheap -- in every sense of the word Laughing

Mech^O^GATor SG

We cant totally put all the blame on PSA or the government.Malaysia government has perhaps earn a reputation of speaking utterly plainly words rather then action.Who knows when they will be serious about their speechs and plans

CX SG

totally agree Very Happy there's enough business for everybody so we shouldn't let the rivalry get out of hand and get too emotional about all this.

true... klang and ptp are competitors. but does Sg seriously expect people its neighbours to stay undeveloped forever? one must be realistic...

and if the kra-isthmus canal is indeed a big cause for concern for Sg then Sg must diversify and reduce reliance on the ports as a source of revenue.

Silenthunter SG

So you are saying PTP is still inefficient? Maybe evergreen's too big for PTP to handle that's why some of them return....

Viper52 SG

Evergreen is keeping something like 10% of its original business in Singapore, the other 90 goes to PTP. That has got nothing to do with the fact that PTP cannot handle that 10%, as it is PTP is still operating way below capacity. The retention of its Singapore services by Evergreen is called hedging its bets both ways, and its nothing any smart business people won't do.

As for the idea that "we can afford to let Evergreen and MSC f--- off because we have enough business anyway"...when will some ever learn? Thank goodness PSA woke up before these individuals did.

dkhoo, for your assertion that Suez and Panama Canals are failure, I really would like to see figures to backup that claim. As far as I know these projects were monumental successes, and provide the lifeblood of the shipping companies successes as they provide the only viable means of crossing from Asia to and from Europe(Suez) and to and from the PAcific and Atlantic(Panama)

For example, please provide figures to show shipping traffic through Suez vis-a-vis that for traffic round the Cape of Good Hope, which are the only shipping routes from Asia through the Indian Ocean and through to the Atlantic/Europe, with the Cape being the much much longer route.

As for the Panama Canal, how pray tell do ships cross from the Atlantic to Pacific, make their way round the antarctic from the south of Argentina?

dkhoo SG

OK, it is probably unfair to say that the Suez and Panama Canals are failures (the Suez was a success and the Panama Canal eventually became a borderline success, though it bankrupted the original builders). However, a Kra canal is not comparable to these because the distance saved is so small. Most small canals are failures. Search Google for "canal economic failure" and read about the huge number of canal failures over the decades.

The key to understanding why many canals are economic failures is that it is often more efficient to simply build a port at each end of your planned canal and ship the goods across BY RAIL. There is usually no need for the ship itself to move between the two points, unless it is a naval vessel or specialized ship like an oil tanker. This has become less true with larger and larger merchant vessels though.

Even for the Suez and Panama Canals, the volume of shipping to ports at the two ends of each canal is much higher than the shipping through the canal itself. In particular, the US itself is an important destination for goods, which was less true when the Panama Canal was built. It is unknown how much of the goods traffic between the bodies of water the canals link these canals actually handle.

About PTP, yes it is a problem that Maersk and Evergreen left. Of course we need to fight to get them back. No, we should not panic. In the end, PSA is charging what she can afford to charge. Singapore's high price is not just for fun -- it is because we give faster service and better connectivity. While it is true that the premium product usually suffers most in a recession, that does not mean that our strategy is invalid. If anything, we should try for both ends of the market. For example, PSA should buy into PTP if given the chance (as it has done with ports all over the world). In addition, PSA should allow shipping lines a little more autonomy in SIngapore -- which was one of the reasons Evergreen left.