General Saiyud Kerdphol, the military engineer of Thailand’s winning Cold War-era anticommunism campaign, believes now is the time to build the Kra canal – a long-envisioned channel through the country’s southern isthmus that would connect the Indian and Pacific Oceans and dramatically shorten East-West shipping routes.
And for the massive infrastructure undertaking to finally break ground after centuries of pondering, the nonagenarian former supreme commander believes the monumental decision cannot be taken by any government and thus must be conceived and graced as “the king’s canal.”
“This cannot be done if it’s not the king’s project,” says Saiyud, who in an interview with Asia Times recalls meeting with the previous monarch in the 1980s when British motor company Rolls-Royce briefly had interest in the canal. “The government will never be firm enough to make a decision because they know they can’t control corruption.”
To be sure, Thailand is no closer to digging the Kra canal today than when it was first considered by King Narai in 1677. The scheme has been resurrected in various forms several times since, only to founder on political rocks and security concerns, including existential trepidation of physically dividing the nation in two.
The incumbent ruling junta, while grasping for new economic transformation strategies, has shown no interest in the canal. That’s due to perceived security risks in sight of a raging separatist Muslim insurgency in the kingdom’s southern reaches and the likely criticism that would arise from taking such a big decision as an unelected government.

But with the recent transition from deceased King Bhumibol Adulyadej to King Maha Vajiralongkorn, now known as Rama X, the canal’s ex-top brass backers hope the new monarch with a military background will give the scheme royal consideration, in the name of national peace and development.
Saiyud suggests the canal could herald “a new era of civilization” during Vajiralongkorn’s reign and bring peace through hearts-and-minds development to the conflict-ridden Deep South. The new king has taken special interest in the Muslim majority region, leading some to wonder if he may prioritize achieving peace in the region as part of his legacy.
It’s not altogether clear if the previous king shared concerns about physically dividing the kingdom, though staunch royalists note the canal would necessarily be wider than the Chao Phraya River, the nation’s main north-south waterway that travels through Bangkok and by the royal Grand Palace, viewed by many as the spiritual heart of the nation.
The Thai Canal Association (TCA), a group of influential former top brass soldiers advocating for the project, recently rechristened the canal from “Kra” to “Thai” to indicate it would be built for all Thais, in line with Bhumibol’s view that the decision should be made by the people.
TCA points to a recent local Songkhla University poll that apparently showed 74% of residents in 14 southern provinces agreed with building the canal.

The project’s skeptics, on the other hand, believe the latest drive-to-build aims ultimately to win rich feasibility study contracts “for the boys”, with scant prospects of actually implementing any proposed grand plan. The canal would cost anywhere between US$20-US$30 billion depending on the chosen route, and likely take a decade to dig.
While it’s unclear if any formal representations have been made to the monarch, the canal does have one rich and powerful new backer: China.
Beijing’s newly appointed ambassador to Bangkok, Lyu Jian, has said in recent high-level meetings that China envisions the Thai canal as part of its US$1 trillion ‘One Belt One Road’ (Obor) global infrastructure initiative, according to Thai government officials and advisors briefed on the discussions.
While China aims to link the initiative with the junta’s Eastern Economic Corridor industrial, logistical and real estate development plan, including via a long-stalled high-speed rail line connecting the two nations via Laos that broke symbolic ground in December, it is apparently the first-time Beijing has actively promoted the canal as part of the Obor program.
Until now, Beijing has publicly distanced itself from private Chinese companies which have engaged Thai trade groups to probe the project’s potential. That includes a memorandum of understanding entered by the China-Thailand Kra Infrastructure and Development Company and Asia Union Group to study the canal signed in Guangzhou in May 2015.
China’s Embassy in Bangkok did not respond to Asia Times’ written request for its current official position on the canal.

If China is involved, past financial and engineering obstacles – a previous consortium toyed with the notion of using nuclear explosions to excavate the channel – are likely no longer stumbling blocks, according to Pakdee Tanapura, a long-time advocate for building the canal and ranking TCA member.
Pakdee said Longhao Co Ltd, a Chinese construction company involved in recent land reclamation and island-building in the South China Sea, has expressed interest in the canal. Its plan would entail the construction of two man-made islands for facilities on either side of the canal’s entry points at the Gulf of Thailand and Andaman Sea, according to Pakdee.
Other Hong Kong and Macau-based construction firms have also expressed interest in meetings with known palace emissaries, according to a diplomat monitoring the security dimensions of the canal. Beijing has put Hong Kong and Macau companies forward due to their global experience and comparatively polished executives, the envoy says.
The canal would save approximately 1,200 kilometers from current East-West shipping routes that currently must travel through the congested Malacca Strait, the world’s busiest maritime area where an estimated 84,000 ships and around 30% of global trade currently passes each year.
The World Bank has projected that volume could increase to over 140,000 per year in the next decade, while the narrow strait currently has the capacity to handle 122,000 ships. Much of that transport passes by or stops over for supplies and fuel in Singapore, the wealthy city-state that would seemingly have the most to lose from an alternative East-West shipping route.

Jinsong Zhao, a maritime expert at state-led Shanghai Jiao Tong University, suggests the canal could put Thailand at the center of a “third revolution” of fast-transport global trade, where e-commerce driven sales require ever quicker door-to-door delivery of goods that is limited in the region due to the long shipping route through the Malacca Strait.
“To my Thai friends: Don’t waste your time, don’t delay this project,” Jinsong implored at a conference on the canal held last September in Bangkok. “We have technology, we have capacity, we have money, we are happy to help. It’s good for Thailand, Asia and the whole world.” He said if Thailand waited another 20 years, it would be “fatal” to winning China’s support.
That may or may not be true. As much as 80% of China’s fuel imports currently pass through the Malacca Strait, a maritime bottleneck running between Malaysia and Indonesia that strategic analysts say the US Navy could readily block in any conflict scenario by leveraging its strategic access to nearby Singapore.
Beijing’s interest in a Thai canal comes amid uncertainty at Obor-invested ports envisioned – at least in part – as strategic hedges to its Malacca vulnerability, including facilities in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Myanmar’s now violence-wracked western Rakhine state, through which China has built oil and gas pipelines to fuel its landlocked southern hinterlands.
If built, the Thai canal would necessarily shift Asia’s maritime strategic dynamics by bypassing Malacca, one of the US’ chief strategic advantages vis-à-vis China at sea. One US official who communicated with Asia Times was skeptical the canal would be built any time soon, even with China’s apparent interest and potential financial support.
Another independent analyst with a US military background in the region and aware of the Pentagon’s recent strategic thinking said that even if the Thai canal was built, it would merely mean that the US Navy would have two strategic chokepoints, rather than just one, to block in a potential conflict with China.

Saiyud says he believes the US, which showed interest in the canal in an era when China was a minor maritime player, could ultimately support the canal for the logistical benefits to regional trade and as a long-time ally committed to Thailand’s economic development and prosperity. Thai-US bilateral relations have waned, however, under junta rule.
While fully engaged with Beijing, the canal’s Thai advocates are also keen to build a multinational coalition of backers and funders to prevent any one country, namely China, from having inordinate leverage over the channel and its related port facilities. “It must be a Thai company to lead and not look too Chinese,” says military statesman Saiyud.
Other advocates point to the recent multilateral funding for expansion of the Panama Canal, with support from Germany, Spain, South Korea, US, Argentina and Mexico, among others, as a financial model. They note the project would require new airports, communication networks and other modern infrastructure that would allow several nations to participate.
If built, the Thai canal would necessarily shift Asia’s maritime strategic dynamics by bypassing Malacca, one of the US’ chief strategic advantages vis-à-vis China at sea
That’s sparked certain multinational interest. Last September’s TCA-organized conference held in Bangkok was supported by the European Association for Business and Commerce and sponsored by Hong Kong construction company Grand Dragon. A follow-up event on February 1 in Phuket will be staged in collaboration with the Thailand chambers of commerce of Australia, France, Germany, Netherlands and US.
Finance Minister Somkid Jatusripitak was scheduled to make opening remarks at last September’s canal event, but was held back at the last minute by the Prime Minister. As the junta’s political troubles mount and with an uncertain democratic transition on the horizon, such a monumental undertaking isn’t likely to win government support any time soon.
“We’re no closer today [to building the canal] than we were 340 years ago,” said General Pongthep Thesprateep, TCA’s chairman and secretary general of top royal advisor Prem Tinsulanonda’s Statesman Foundation, in an interview with Asia Times. “But for the people and the country, it’s a good time to start.”
It would create an alternative to the strait of Malacca. US would never allow it. Singapore strategic importance would also diminish considerably.
the more delay and worst is for Thailand. They should not waste time to build the canal to benefit themselves and the region. Why wait ? It just common sense to have economic benefits to themselves and the region.
For such a long delay, and that is why Thailand still remains a backward country and still cannot have much respect in the region. Your Own land and your own country and still don;t have the guts to go ahead…
India has a powerful naval base in the Andaman Islands and can block Chinese shipping in both thee Malacca Strait and any Kra canal.
" Myanmar’s now violence-wracked western Rakhine state "
Western Rakhine is violence-wracked by the West and its terrorist contractors, against China ( proof being that BBC, CNN, WSJ, NYT etc… are so worried about the Rohingyas… Who are again victims of the Anglos )
By the way, the isthmus of Kra is shared by Thailand and Burma/Myanmar, which is a very good geopolitic reason for China to think seriously about the canal
The Thai Canal sounds logical and reasonable. It follows the pattern to shorten the distance from the Gulf region to the far East. The US may have reservations but those reservations have to be based on commercial interests and not regional hegemony.
You gonna supply the money?
The part where the canal is going belongs to Thailand only.
Thanks Sci Baron, everything is possible, as I don’t think anything concrete has been drafted yet, will see. Now who has the means and money to plan a project like this is only China, and if I was in Chinese shoes I would certainly plan it crossing both countries. If we look on google maps, there are good chances this will be the case, but of course I can only guess. Some other reader maybe could give us some more comments, and have a good time Sci.
Would the canal divide the country in two? Not necessarily. Tunnels should be built under the waterway for road and rail traffic.
The only real use for such a canal would be to circumvent a US naval blockade of the alternative routes. The US could also blockade access to the canal, and by the time it is completed, the US will no longer be in a position to threaten trade.
Luca Taramelli There are some serious mountains to cross over most of Thailand/Myanmar, the proposed route is the only feasible one.
China was building a railway through Myanmar to the Bay of Bengal, but the US/UK created the Rohingya insurgents to thwart that.
I feel sorry for the people of this region cos once CIA starts to leave its marks in the region, and it will, if it is not already deeply involved there, but, life goes on as the saying goes.
Adaman Islands:
Talkin ’bout the Parcel and tge Spratleys, 🙂 🙂 🙂
Thailand and China we are the friends and we have full of respect some time if you want to do a big project you can’t just quick and quick..Thailand we never want to grow up too fast
This project it may make a huge internal stability issues under cause devide country. We don’t want to be like North and South Korea!
Interesting. I would add to the calculations the diversification of oil/gas sources to China from North America, e.g., Alaska, Canada, California, Mexico, etc., across the Pacific, reducing risks, avoiding the choke points of the Malacca Straits, and even that of Hormuz. Then, I would consider alternative uses of the proposed investments, e.g., nuclear power, education, health, consumer credit, etc. Any economic decision needs to compete with alternatives.
It save a transport time only less than one day. How much do you want to charge the canal fee
Most people forget that the technology at present and in future are different from the past
It is not necessary to dig the Thai canal and the figure of reference about the ships pass malacca strait are not correct
The estimation figure 122000 and 144000 are done since 2006 and 2009 are not up to date
The 1200 km or 650 Nm is the distance of malacca strait which the calculation should deduct 250 nm distance from head of Sumatra to pilot station and distance 75 Nm of canal
The save distance is 650-250-75 = 325 nm
While Panama Canal save 7000 nm and Suez. save 5000 nm . The thai canal cannot compare with them and it is not economic
The research of Kiel canal showed year 2011 appeared that the Kiel canal faced the loss due to ships used the Denmark chhanal instead of Kiel canal . The Kiel canal save 250 nm which is close similar to Thai canal .
It is bullish matter of some group of people try to want some benefit from digging of the canal only.
> 27 Jan 2017
Thailand will be sliced to become 2 countries
You want to be the Prime Minister of a new state
South of Kra
.
Yes Yashad, Italians never end up a war with the same allies, and if they do is because they switched twice…
Good show. Can the many nations that would use it lend money to finance it, recoverable by modest tolls?
If built, Kra canal will be geostrategically important, that will replace the importance of all the Sunderland countries.
We shall take it bsck
The total cost of construction of Kra Canal could reach USD100 billion dollars with government bureaucracy factored in. It is not economically feasible at the moment. It might be economically feasible in 20 years time with advancement of Artificial Intelligence. If Thailand government proceedes with this plan: they would be highly indebted and their economy would face the hefty toll like Sri Lanka.
Southern Thailand states of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat used to be part of the Sultanate of Pattani which is a Malay state in the 1800s. The Malay state was taken by previous Thai kings by brute force and intimidation. There have been alot of Islamic insurgency in the South as the muslim felt neglected and sidelined in a Buddhist country. These states are trying to secede from Thailand and declare themselves as an Islamic state and probably will join the northern states of Malaysia if given a chance to secede. The Kra Canal has been proposed since 1677 but the reason it never become a reality was because of geo-politic. By building the Kra Canal you are dividing Thailand into two. The Kra Canal will be the northern boundary of the Islamic State of Patani!
Thai politic is now divided between the Yellow and the Red which is essentially Urban Rich versus Rural Poor. If the current King or PM (who is not elected by the voters) allow the Kra Canal to be built it will exacerbate the divide in Thai society as now they have created a hard geological line where Buddhist North ends and Islamic South starts and cause the country to fracture. When humpty-dumpty falls and breaks – all the king’s horses and all the king’s men will not put humpty-dumpty together again. I think the old king will turn in his grave if this happen!
Moreover during the Second World War the Thai allowed the Japanese Army to march down Thailand towards Malaya and Singapore in order to avoid fighting the Japanese. Even if the Chinese were to build the Kra Canal what makes you think that the Thai will defend the Kra Canal in time of war when faced with a superior invading force? Moreover if you look at the geography of the Kra Isthmus it is very narrow and open – it will be easy to sink a few ships in the canal and mined the surrounding waters and to make it impassable to sea traffic. So the idea that the Straits of Malacca can easily be blockade during a time of war and the Kra Canal will not is just wishful thinking.
I think if building the Kra Canal is good for the Thailand- the previous Thai King would have built it a long time ago.
Why should you be so afraid for Singapore? Your lone voice here cannot affect the decision to build or not to build the canal.