Wednesday 27 March 2024

Heat wave in Malaysia: Be wary of stroke

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

For image info, go to https://bernama.com/es/infographics/index.php?v=3034 

Heat wave in Malaysia: Be wary of stroke

KUALA LUMPUR, March 28, 2024: Drinking cold water during the current heatwave can cause stroke.

Malaysians are advised to dink only warm water to avoid stroke.

The following is a “Doctor’s Advice” shared on social media:

*DOCTOR'S ADVICE on Current Heat Wave*

* Prepare for the next heat wave *between 40 to 50°C*.  Always drink room temperature water slowly.  Avoid drinking cold water or ice!

Currently, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and other countries are experiencing a "heat wave."

Here are the dos and don'ts:

    1. Doctors advise to *not drink very cold water when the temperature reaches 40°C, because our small blood vessels may burst.*


    2. When the heat outside reaches 38°C and when you get home, don't drink cold water - just drink warm water slowly.
Do not wash your hands or feet immediately, if exposed to hot sun.  Wait at least half an hour before washing or showering.

  *Please pay attention:*
During the hot months or if you are very tired, avoid drinking very cold water immediately, as it can cause veins or blood vessels to narrow, which can lead to a stroke.

  *Please spread the word to others!*

No News Is Bad News reproduce below a Singapore Straits Time report on the current heat wave in Malaysia and the Island Republic:

Malaysia braces itself for the worst as heatwave expected to run until mid-April

People cooling off in the Kalumpang river in Tanjung Malim, Malaysia, as the temperature hit 33 deg C in June 2023. PHOTO: EPA-EFE

UPDATED

 

MAR 26, 2024, 05:15 PM

KUALA LUMPUR – Malaysia is rolling out emergency measures to deal with a worsening heatwave, after temperatures edging close to 40 deg C claimed a life and threatened crop yields.

Almost half of peninsular Malaysia has been experiencing peaks of at least 35 deg C for three straight days, according to the latest data from the Meteorological Department, which expects the hot and dry spell to last until mid-April.

The extreme heat has led to the death of a 22-year-old from heat stroke, heightened the risk of water shortages and caused severe loss of yields on farms.

Malaysia is employing drones to survey peatlands susceptible to catching fire, and monitoring dwindling water levels in dams, Natural Resources and Environment Minister Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad said in an interview on March 26.

The government will also look into ways to protect construction workers who toil for hours under the hot sun.

“For the most foreseeable events, we have the guidelines, systems and policies in place, but we constantly need to adjust them as the magnitude always changes,” said Mr Nik Nazmi.

Climate change could further exacerbate the situation, he added.

“I think it’s crucial that people realise that climate change is not some abstract doomsday or, you know, a hippie nightmare”, said Mr Nik Nazmi.

In the worst-case scenario, the government is prepared to close down schools and even businesses.

Singapore is also reeling under the heat, with temperatures over 36 deg C recorded in some parts of the country on March 24.

Some schools in the island-state eased uniform requirements because of the persistently high heat, according to notices sent to parents.

As a long-term response to more frequent and severe heatwaves, the Malaysian authorities plan to invest in heat-resistant crops.

“The heat has led to problems with our imported rice, and that has put more pressure on us, so the agriculture ministry is looking into that seriously,” said Mr Nik Nazmi.

The country is working with the United Nations’ climate bank, the Green Climate Fund, to prepare a National Adaptation Plan to be rolled out from 2026, he added. That would go beyond emissions mitigation and address issues surrounding water security, agriculture, infrastructure and public health in the face of climate change. BLOOMBERG

Lawyer sues 3 hospitals, 8 doctors for RM45m over wrong cancer diagnosis

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

Lawyer sues 3 hospitals, 8 doctors for RM45m over wrong cancer diagnosis

KUALA LUMPUR, March 28, 2024: A lawyer is suing three hospitals and eight doctors over wrong cancer diagnosis.

Paul Raj Samy Raj, who filed the summons with the High Court in George Town, Penang, said the three hospitals had hurriedly concluded that his kidney was cancerous and had to be removed immediately when in reality, there was nothing wrong.

He is seeking RM15 million in compensation from each of the hospitals.

In a landmark 4-1 Federal Court ruling on Feb 23, Columbia Asia Hospital was held “liable personally” for the anaesthetist’s negligence.

The court also did not let the hospital get away with liability when it rejected its defence of doctors being “independent contractors”.

For decades, doctors and hospitals in Malaysia, and many other countries, have been immune to negligence suits.

That has now ended with the Federal Court landmark decision - doctors and hospitals now cannot bully patients and “get away with murder”, so to speak.

No News Is Bad News reproduces below two news reports related to doctors and hospitals:

3 hospitals, 8 doctors face RM45mil suit over wrong cancer diagnosis

Predeep Nambiar

-07 Apr 2021, 10:38 AM

Lawyer who counts himself fortunate not to have lost a kidney seeks compensation of RM15 million from each of the three hospitals in suit.

Lawyer Paul Raj Samy Raj at his law firm in Seberang Jaya, Perai.

GEORGE TOWN: A lawyer here is suing three private hospitals over an alleged wrong cancer diagnosis of his left kidney, which was later discovered to be problem-free.

He is demanding over RM45 million in damages from the hospitals in three separate negligence suits against them and eight doctors who treated him.

Paul Raj Samy Raj who filed the summons at the High Court here recently, said the three hospitals had hurriedly concluded that his kidney was cancerous and had to be removed immediately when in reality, there was nothing wrong.

He said he was fortunate that he did not follow their advice to remove his kidney because a nephrologist at another private hospital said he did not have cancer.

Paul, who turns 54 next month, told FMT that he had gone to the first hospital for a check-up after a hospital in India had detected a possible cyst on his left kidney during a regular health check.

In his statement of claim, he said he was first diagnosed with left kidney cancer or left renal cell carcinoma on Nov 11, 2014, by the first hospital.

Paul was given the same diagnosis when he sought second and third opinions at two other private hospitals.

He said all three hospitals had pushed him to have his left kidney removed so as to prevent the cancerous portion from spreading to other organs.

However, when he sought a fourth opinion by a doctor at another hospital on Aug 22, 2019, the nephrologist there found no sign of cancer on his left kidney.

He said as a result of the three earlier wrong diagnoses, he underwent “tremendous untold mental and emotional sufferings, psychological distress, hypertension and restlessness”.

The hospitals, he said, had acted in haste with “commercial intentions” so as to fleece money from him and leave him without a kidney. He also claimed that these hospitals did not advise him about the side effects of having just one working kidney.

Paul said as a result of the wrong diagnoses, he had to spend a lot of money to pay for CT scans, biopsies, ultrasounds and other treatments, all of which also took up a lot of his time.

“The defendants had also scared the plaintiff by advising him to remove his left kidney immediately as they presented threats that the cancer may spread to his other organs.

“They have breached the standard of care that has to be followed by a specialist and have been negligent in their job.

“Such an act is irresponsible and unethical. Cases of medical negligence in Malaysia have been rampant but most patients are unable to sue the hospital and doctors in court as it costs a lot of money.

“They have acted in haste for the sake of making a fast profit from the removal of the left kidney right away, without any conscience,” he said in his statement of claim filed by his law firm AG Roseli and Paul.

Paul is suing the first hospital and doctors for RM10 million in exemplary and punitive damages, including another RM5 million in general damages, as he could have lost his kidney due to the wrongful diagnosis given by the said hospital and doctors.

He has also sought for a special damage of RM67,831 for the cost of treatment incurred during the period where he was considered a cancer patient, which brings the total damages sought from the first hospital to RM15,067,831.

Paul sought RM15 million in damages from each of the other two hospitals.

In a statement of defence filed by the three hospitals and eight doctors named as co-defendants, all parties denied claims made by Paul.

In the defence filed by the first hospital, it said the doctors who diagnosed Paul were “independent contractors” and hence not under the hospital’s control.

It denied claims of negligence as alleged and sought the claim to be dismissed since it was filed some six years later.

The other two hospitals also made similar denials, saying they had acted professionally and followed the standard of care afforded by a private hospital.

The eight doctors who were named as defendants in the case also denied the claims.

FMT has contacted the hospitals in question for further comment.


Thursday 14 March 2024

Docs, hospitals now cannot get away with murder

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

Image for illustration only. For image info, go to https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image-film?phrase=medical+mistake 

Docs, hospitals now cannot get away with murder

KUALA LUMPUR, March 14, 2024: Doctors/specialists and hospitals are no more immune to negligence suits following a landmark Federal Court ruling that Columbia Asia Hospital is “liable personally” for the anaesthetist’s negligence.

The apex court made a 4-1 majority decision on Feb 23 to hold the hospital in Puchong, the owner and manager of Columbia liable for negligence of Siow Ching Yee, a patient who suffered permanent mental and physical disabilities from severe brain damage after treatment as an emergency case in 2010 when he was then aged 35.

The court also did not let the hospital get away with liability when it rejected its defence of doctors being “independent contractors”.

For decades, doctors and hospitals in Malaysia, and many other countries, have been immune to negligence suit.

That has now ended with the Federal Court landmark decision - doctors and hospitals now cannot bully patients and “get away with murder”, so to speak.

No News Is Bad News reproduces below a news report on the court proceedings:

In Landmark Ruling, Federal Court Holds Private Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence, Rejects Defence Of Doctors Being ‘Independent Contractors’

By Boo Su-Lyn | 7 March 2024

In a landmark verdict on the case of a patient who sued Columbia Asia after suffering permanent mental and physical disability from brain damage, the Federal Court ruled that the private hospital is “liable personally” for the anaesthetist’s negligence.

The apex court made a 4-1 majority decision onFeb 23 to hold the hospital in Puchong Columbia Asia Sdn Bhd, the owner and manager of Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong, liable for negligence of Siow Ching Yee, a patient who suffered permanent mental and physical disabilities from severe brain damage after treatment as an emergency case in 2010 when he was then aged 35 years.

Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong, a private hospital in Selangor. Picture from Columbia Asia Hospital - Puchong (Puchong)'s Facebook page.

KUALA LUMPUR, March 7 — In a landmark verdict that is set to change the practice of medicine in Malaysia, the Federal Court ruled that a private hospital is liable for medical negligence – beyond individual doctors. 

The apex court made a 4-1 majority decision last February 23 to hold Columbia Asia Sdn Bhd, the owner and manager of Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong, liable for negligence of Siow Ching Yee, a patient who suffered permanent mental and physical disabilities from severe brain damage after treatment as an emergency case in 2010 when he was then aged 35 years.

Crucially, the Federal Court rejected Columbia Asia’s defence that the doctors who treated Siow – a consultant ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgeon and a consultant anaesthetist – were “independent contractors” under contracts for services in its hospital in Selangor.

Columbia Asia had previously asserted at the High Court that in the event that either or both ENT surgeon Dr Megat Shiraz Megat Abd Rahman and anaesthetist Dr Noor Asilah Abdul Rahman were to be found liable for negligence, the private hospital itself was not vicariously liable, describing both doctors as operating as “independent contractors”, and not as Columbia Asia “employees or agents”.

However, the Federal Court’s majority ruling stated it is clear that Columbia Asia “has assumed a non-delegable duty of care that it owes personally to the appellant, a patient that is admitted to its emergency services”.

“The defence of independent contractor thus is not sustainable in law and on the facts and ought to have been rejected by the Courts below,” said the Federal Court’s full majority decision, written by Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan. 

Citing the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act (PHFSA) 1998, the Federal Court ruled that the intent of Act 586 and its regulations is that Columbia Asia assumes a “non-delegable duty of care” to Siow and remains “liable personally” for the negligence of the anaesthetist, regardless of the presence of other defendants as long as negligence is proven first.

According to the written judgement by the High Court in Shah Alam on November 30, 2020, Columbia Asia stressed that its responsibility as the owner and manager of Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong was “merely to ensure the provision of facilities and medical equipment, including nursing staff”.

Columbia Asia – a Southeast Asian health care company that now operates 18 hospitals in Malaysia, including the recent launch of its Bukit Jalil hospital – had further said that “all diagnosis, medical advice including material risks and known complications, medical treatments, operations and referrals (if and when necessary) are the responsibility of the medical specialists”, including the ENT surgeon and anaesthetist “who practise as independent contractors” in Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong.

However, the Federal Court interpreted the PHFSA 1998 (Act 586) as meaning that a private hospital is responsible “for not just the efficacy of premises or facilities, but also for the treatment and care of the patients; regardless how and who the responsibility may have been delegated to”.

“The elaborate, extensive and detailed provisions in both the parent Act and the Regulations are enacted for the purpose of ensuring patient safety and care whilst being treated in our private hospitals, private health care facilities and services, always remains paramount and to be observed by the private hospital or private health care facility or service itself,” said the Federal Court.

“Not only does common law no longer see hospitals as mere providers of premises, utilities, facilities or backup services for such treatment and care of the patient, the law provides that private hospitals are themselves providers of such care and treatment of the patient in which case, the private hospitals or health care facilities or services owe a non-delegable and personal duty of care to persons who knock on their door and seek treatment and care.”

The Federal Court pointed out that Columbia Asia’s own website lists the hospital group’s facilities, treatment, care, and procedures, besides stating what patients of Columbia Asia Hospital can expect.

“From the reading of all these provisions, it is clear as daylight that the legislative scheme intends private hospitals, such as the respondent, to remain responsible for the treatment and care of the patients, regardless to whom they may have employed, engaged or delegated that task or responsibility. 

“This remains so even if the hospital is rendering emergency care services. In the case of the respondent, it renders such services on a routine basis.”

The Federal Court also said people relying on treatment and care in private health care facilities and services “should never have to concern themselves with issues of responsibility and separate accountability, as negligence and mishaps would be furthest from their minds”.

Specifically on emergency cases – as in Siow’s case – the Federal Court cited Section 38(1) of the PHFSA 1998 that requires every licensed and registered private health care facility or service to be capable of instituting and making available essential life-saving measures and implementing emergency procedures on any person requiring such treatment or services.

The apex court also cited Regulation 230 under Act 586 that states that a private health care facility or service shall have a well-defined care system for providing basic outpatient emergency care services to any occasional emergency patient who comes or is brought to the private health care facilities or services by chance.

Where emergency care services are provided on a regular basis, as was in the case of Siow, Regulation 231 applies, the Federal Court found. “In such a situation, regulation 231(12) requires ‘additional health care professional and other ancillary staff if the circumstances demands’ shall be made.”

Doctor Had Insufficient Professional Indemnity For Malpractice

In the case that appeared before the Federal Court, Columbia Asia was the only defendant in the lawsuit filed by Siow’s wife, Chau Wai Kin, on behalf of her husband. 

After a full trial, the High Court, in 2020, dismissed Siow’s claims against the hospital and the ENT surgeon, allowing only the claim against the anaesthetist and ordering Dr Noor Asilah to pay damages of RM1.9 million.

While the Court of Appeal, in 2022, raised the quantum of damages awarded against the anaesthetist to RM3.3 million, the appellate court dismissed Siow’s appeal for liability to be imposed on Columbia Asia; he withdrew his appeal against the ENT surgeon. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the anaesthetist’s appeal.

Hence, the appeal at the Federal Court concerned Columbia Asia alone. One of the questions of law before the apex court, when granting leave on February 14 last year, was: “whether the owner and manager of a private hospital is liable to patients under a non-delegable duty of care when a doctor practising in the hospital as an independent contractor has insufficient professional indemnity for malpractice?”.

News portal Free Malaysia Today reported that the Federal Court increased the award of damages to about RM4 million.

Columbia Asia had asked the Federal Court to order that the anaesthetist indemnify the private hospital company in the event that it is found liable, but the court denied the request.

“I do not find this to be right or available in law,” Justice Lim wrote, pointing out that the anaesthetist was not a party to this appeal before the Federal Court.

“More importantly, it flies in the face of the earlier findings that the respondent owes a non-delegable duty of care and it remains liable regardless to whom it may have employed or engaged to carry out that duty of care. The principle imposes a personal liability on the respondent, over and above that against the tortfeasor.”

The Federal Court decided to increase the quantum of damages awarded because it disagreed with the lower courts’ decisions to disregard Siow’s earnings derived from allowances, fees, and monthly salaries received as a director of two family-owned companies. The High Court had only recognised his basic salary.

Hence, the apex court fixed the award at a constant sum of RM8,750 per month with the multipliers as suggested by Siow, an increase from the RM2,600 monthly amount fixed by the High Court. The Federal Court also agreed with the multiplier of 10 for loss of earnings, based on Siow’s age of 35 years at the time of the incident. Special damages were calculated for 90 months, whereas pre-trial damages were calculated for 30 months.

The Federal Court majority decision was made by four judges: Lim, Chief Judge of Malaya Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli, and Justice Hasnah Mohammed Hashim. The dissenting judge was Justice Zabariah Mohd Yusof.

Case Background: Anaesthetist Took 25 Minutes To Intubate Patient After General Anaesthesia

According to the Federal Court’s written judgement, Siow underwent a tonsillectomy, palatal stiffening, and endoscopic sinus surgery on March 10, 2010 at Subang Jaya Medical Centre (SJMC), a private hospital that was then not under Columbia Asia.

Last November, Sime Darby Bhd confirmed that it and its Australian partner, Ramsay Health Care Ltd, were selling Ramsay Sime Darby Health Care Sdn Bhd, which owns SJMC, to Columbia Asia Healthcare Sdn Bhd for RM5.7 billion cash.

At about 3.30am on March 22, 2010 – twelve days after his surgery at SJMC – Siow suffered bleeding at the site of the operation. His family brought Siow to Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong’s accident and emergency department, as the hospital was nearer to their home than SJMC.

At Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong’s A&E department, Siow was examined by a medical officer who then called consultant ENT surgeon Dr Megat Shiraz. 

According to the background of Siow’s claim, as written in the High Court ruling, Dr Megat Shiraz recommended that Siow undergo an examination under anaesthesia and wound debridement under general anaesthesia, or surgery. Debridement is the process of removing dead skin and foreign material from a wound. Dr Noor Asilah was the consultant anaesthetist who attended to Siow.

Siow experienced complications even before surgery started. In the airlock area outside the operating theatre, he started vomiting copious amounts of blood and suffered profuse bleeding.

Despite efforts by the ENT surgeon and the anaesthetist to treat the complications, Siow collapsed and emergency resuscitation had to be done, after which Dr Megat Shiraz proceeded to perform the surgery, which was uneventful.

But Siow had suffered hypoxic brain damage, the Federal Court noted. Hypoxic brain injury occurs when the brain doesn’t get enough oxygen, causing brain cells to die. Siow was then admitted to the intensive care unit of Columbia Asia Hospital – Puchong for continued post-surgical care and management, until he was transferred to SJMC on March 28, 2010, at his family’s request.

“He is now permanently mentally and physically disabled by reason of the massive cerebral hypoxia,” said the Federal Court.

Siow had accused both ENT surgeon Dr Megat Shiraz and anaesthetist Dr Noor Asilah of failing to undertake appropriate anaesthetic management appropriately when treating his complications, before proceeding with the surgery, that allegedly resulted in severe hypoxic brain damage, leaving Siow with permanent mental and physical disabilities.

According to the High Court’s written judgement, the anaesthetist had put the patient under general anaesthesia at 4.50am, successfully intubating Siow 25 minutes later at 5.15am. Expert and medical witnesses told the High Court that once the patient was put under general anaesthesia, it was important to secure his airway immediately and not 25 minutes later.

“The expert and the medical witnesses had testified that any delay in securing the plaintiff’s airway will cause him to suffer brain damage,” wrote High Court judge Gunalan Muniandy in his judgement on November 30, 2020.

The High Court cited expert evidence that the anaesthetist failed to consider alternative options to urgently secure Siow’s airway — like awake intubation, fibro optic laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy with the patient breathing spontaneously, or a tracheostomy.

Cricothyroidotomy, said the High Court, is an alternative, quick, life-saving procedure to secure temporary access to the airway, while waiting to intubate the patient, that could be done in two minutes. While Dr Noor Asilah herself conceded that as an anaesthetist, she had the skill and expertise to undertake the life-saving procedure, with the equipment needed also being available at the hospital, she asserted that she did not know how to undertake this kind of surgery.

Further, the High Court cited expert evidence that the induction of general anaesthesia, without backup plans, had actually led to the patient losing control of his airway and eventually suffering brain damage.

“When [the] patient had more massive bleeding in the airlock and the operation theatre, ANAESTHESIA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INDUCED. Vomiting of blood, especially clots, showed it was blood from the stomach swallowed earlier and it did not constitute such a dire emergency that anaesthesia needed to be induced immediately without plans on how to safely proceed. He was still conscious at this juncture and he was able to protect his airway and his life,” the High Court quoted the expert witness as saying.

The High Court agreed with the expert witness’ opinion on the anaesthetist’s failure to secure Siow’s airway before administering general anaesthesia.

At the Federal Court, Siow was represented by lawyers PS Ranjan, Manmohan Singh Dhillon, KB Karthi and Desmond Mun from PS Ranjan & Co. Ambiga Sreenevasan acted for Columbia Asia.

The Association of Private Hospitals Malaysia (APHM), which participated in the proceedings at the apex court as amicus curiae (friend of the court), was represented by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar. The Consumers’ Association of Penang, also appointed as amicus curiae, was represented by Gurdial Singh Nijar. - CodeBlue

Ports’ good days in Malaysia and Singapore are numbered

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

 

 

Ports’ good days in Malaysia and Singapore are numbered

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=948565400174916  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGRUmqKMx0k  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61NdmujpqFw 

KUALA LUMPUR, March 28, 2024: Thailand is moving forward with constructing a US$28 billion 90km-long land bridge.

If/When completed, the bridge can potentially redirect shipping trade away from ports in Malaysia and Singapore.

The bridge will reduce the time taken to transport goods through the Malacca Strait by six to nine days.

This means the good days for ports and the shipping industry in Malaysia and Singapore are, obviously, numbered.

According to Seasia.co, the land bridge project is designed to provide a new trade route between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

It will include two deep sea ports on Thailand’s eastern and western coasts as well as a rail and road system linking them together.

The eastern port will be located in Chumphon province on the Gulf of Thailand and the other in Ranong province on the Andaman Sea.

The first phase of the land bridge project is expected to finish in 2030, with the final completion targeted in 2039.

Deep sea ports would be built at either end of the “bridge”, where containers would be unloaded, transported across the peninsula, and continue on another ship in Thailand.

No News Is Bad News reproduces news reports and video clips (above) by Singapore’s Channel News Asia (CNA) on the land bridge project. But do take the negative views with a pinch of salt as the Island Republic’s shipping industry is at stake:

Commentary: Thailand’s Kra land bridge - a white elephant comes charging back

Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin has revitalised the idea of the land bridge across the Kra Isthmus with gusto. Poor economic viability, environmental problems and geopolitical complications account for the project’s tepid international reception, says an ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute senior fellow.

 

Thailand's Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin at the Belt and Road Forum in China, October 2023. (Photo: Reuters/Tingshu Wang/Pool)

Ian Storey

21 Jan 2024 06:00AM

SINGAPORE: Bad ideas can be surprisingly durable. In Thailand, this is certainly the case with the ruling elite’s centuries-old obsession with building a transport corridor across the Kra Isthmus.

Since the late 17th century, the Thais have endlessly debated the pros and cons of cutting a canal across the narrow neck of land in the south of the country. But a Kra canal has never been built due to eye-watering construction costs, engineering challenges and weak economic rationales.

But the latest iteration of this proposition is being enthusiastically promoted by the newish government of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin.

Since taking office in August 2023, Srettha’s policy focus has been laser-like: To revitalise the Thai economy after a decade of sluggish growth caused by military mismanagement and compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

To that end, the government has prioritised the signing of free trade agreements, while Srettha himself has crisscrossed the globe courting foreign investment. Bangkok, casting an envious eye on Singapore, also has ambitions to play a much bigger role in global supply chain networks.

In pursuit of this grand economic vision, Srettha has become proponent-in-chief of another old idea: The construction of a so-called land bridge across the Kra Isthmus.

REVITALISING THAKSIN SHINAWATRA’S IDEA

The plan calls for the construction of deep-water ports in Chumphon province on the Gulf of Thailand side of the isthmus and Ranong province on the Andaman Sea side. The two ports would be linked by 90km of highways, railways and pipelines.

Ships carrying goods made in Northeast Asia would unload their cargoes in Chumphon which would then be whisked to the other side by trucks and trains, while vessels laden with wares from western Asia and Europe would do the same at Ranong.

The land bridge was first proposed by then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2005, but was snuffed out a year later when he was ousted in a military coup. Ironically, following another coup in 2014, the military resurrected the idea in 2020, though it failed to gain traction because of the global economic dislocation caused by the pandemic.

Srettha has revitalised the idea with gusto, recycling arguments long trotted out by proponents of the Kra Canal.

First, by bypassing the increasingly congested Straits of Malacca, shipping companies will save three to four days sailing time, thereby reducing transportation costs by 15 per cent.

Second, construction of the land bridge will provide a 1.3 trillion baht (US$370 billion) boon to the economy, raising economic growth by 1.5 per cent and providing jobs for 280,000 workers. It would particularly benefit the economy in the south where the ruling coalition parties fared poorly in the May 2023 general election.

Third, the land bridge would place Thailand at the heart of Southeast Asia’s supply chains.

COST OF BYPASSING STRAITS OF MALACCA

As with the Kra canal, critics of the land bridge have called into question the project’s economic viability. Bypassing the Malacca Straits may well reduce sailing times, they argue, but off-loading goods at one end, transporting them to the other end, and then re-loading them onto other ships could take just as long as sailing through the straits and would actually increase transportation costs.

In addition, the land bridge would have a negative impact on the environment, hurting southern Thailand’s tourism and fishing industries. Moreover, geopolitically, ownership of the land bridge might suck Thailand into the vortex of US-China competition, especially if Beijing was to fund its construction.

Undeterred by these arguments, Srettha has said he is determined to see the project through and has even proposed a timeline. Construction companies would bid for contracts in mid-2025 with construction slated to begin later the same year and completed by 2030, at a total cost of around US$30 billion.

WOULD US OR CHINA PAY FOR THAILAND’S BRIDGE?

What Srettha has been coy on is who would pay for the land bridge. A project of this size requires massive foreign investment. The prime minister has pitched the idea in America, China and Japan. So far the response has been polite but non-committal.

Although Chinese construction companies would be well-placed to build the ports, roads and railways required, Beijing itself is unlikely to adopt the project as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

As China’s economic growth splutters, its leaders have become far more cautious about funding giant overseas infrastructure projects, especially ones of questionable economic value like the land bridge. Tokyo also appears uninterested.

Tellingly, none of the world’s major shipping companies have rushed to endorse Srettha’s proposal.

Singapore, the world’s second-busiest container port and a potential loser if the land bridge goes ahead, has responded in very measured tones. When questioned in parliament about the project last year, then Acting Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat (Mr Chee has since been appointed Transport Minister) highlighted the increased transport costs the land bridge’s double-handling of containers would incur, and pointed to Singapore’s efforts to improve connectivity, productivity and efficiency in the country’s ports, and the increased capacity the new Tuas megaport will provide.

Srettha has clearly nailed his flag to the land bridge mast, but his own political future remains uncertain, with many observers viewing him as simply a placeholder for Thaksin’s daughter and leader of the Pheu Thai Party, Paetongtarn Shinawatra.

If Srettha is replaced within the next couple of years, the land bridge idea may well sink with him.

Should this happen, advocates of Kra transportation links need not fret. Soon after he is gone, the proposal will almost certainly resurface again, in one form or another.

Ian Storey is Senior Fellow at ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute and editor of Contemporary Southeast Asia. This commentary first appeared on the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute's blog, Fulcrum.

Source: Others/ch

 

Analysis: Thailand’s proposed land bridge project easier than Kra Canal idea, but steep challenges await

The land bridge project is designed to provide a new trade route between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, potentially bypassing the Malacca Straits, by linking two deep sea ports on Thailand’s eastern and western coasts via a rail and road system.

 

 

The landscape of Thailand's Kra Isthmus. (Photo: iStock/boonsom)

 

Rhea Yasmine Alis Haizan

20 Oct 2023 09:20PM(Updated: 21 Oct 2023 09:43PM)

BANGKOK: Thailand's plan to build a 90km land bridge across its southern region, which could see shipping trade bypass Malaysia and Singapore, is on paper easier than the long-touted Kra Canal, although it still faces steep challenges, say analysts.

These include the multi-billion dollar construction cost, security concerns in Thailand’s conflict-ridden south and the mountainous terrain where the project would prospectively be located.

Given the long-established shipping facilities and operations in the Straits of Malacca, analysts also warned that the Thai land bridge initiative could end in failure if not carefully planned.

But for Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, the project is expected to attract international investors and turn Thailand into a thriving production hub.

“This will be a global mega-project, which will shorten the duration of goods transport via the channel of the Malacca Strait by six to nine days,” he said during the Thailand-China Investment Forum in Beijing on Thursday (Oct 19).

Mr Srettha also added that Thailand is ready to welcome Chinese investors to help develop the country and promised to improve the ease of doing business in the kingdom in the future.

A NEW TRADE ROUTE LINKING THE INDIAN AND PACIFIC OCEANS

The land bridge project is designed to provide a new trade route between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It will include two deep sea ports on Thailand’s eastern and western coasts as well as a rail and road system linking them together.

The eastern port will be located in Chumphon province on the Gulf of Thailand and the other in Ranong province on the Andaman Sea. According to Mr Srettha, the cost is estimated at US$35.6 billion.

 

Assoc Prof Antonio L Rappa from the School of Business at the Singapore University of Social Sciences described the venture as “simply too costly” and cautioned that the separatist movement in Thailand’s restive south as well as the mountainous terrain of the project location could affect the construction.

However, if it is successfully developed, Dr Rappa told CNA “it will significantly affect Singapore at least 50 years from now”.

The land bridge project was also studied during the previous government of Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, who wished to expand Thailand's transport infrastructure and transform the country into a logistics hub of Asia.

THE LAND BRIDGE AND ITS PREDECESSOR KRA CANAL

The idea of creating a new maritime route by connecting the Gulf of Thailand with the Andaman Sea is nothing new. 

Historical evidence shows the concept dates back to the 17th century, when the excavation of the Kra Isthmus – the narrowest part of the Malay Peninsula in Ranong and Chumphon – was explored. 

For decades, various governments have attempted and failed to dig the so-called Kra Canal. 

According to Dr Yuttaporn Issarachai, a political scientist from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, the proposed excavation has been hindered by domestic politics and concerns about its impact on the environment as well as internal security.

Although the land bridge project does not involve a canal, he said it is a relatively similar idea and could face a lot of challenges, including geopolitical conflicts.

He pointed out how maritime territorial spats involve several countries such as China, Vietnam and the Philippines, and by building a new maritime passage way located near the disputed area, Thailand could be affected.

“It won’t be easy,” Dr Yuttaporn told CNA. “It could push Thailand into territorial disputes in the South China Sea. We can’t forget that maritime shipping routes involve tremendous economic profits and political stability in the region.”

However, Dr Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli from the Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia’s Faculty of Syariah and Law said the land bridge project could take off “if China as the main stakeholder is adamant to invest”.

A land bridge, he added, would be more feasible than a canal as it would not involve digging through the Kra Isthmus.

“The Panama or the Suez Canal… can shave off thousands of miles of voyage. However, the proposed Thai Canal (Kra Canal) could only shave off hundreds of miles,” he said.

UNLIKELY IMPACT ON SINGAPORE

The first phase of the land bridge project is expected to finish in 2030, with the final completion targeted in 2039.

Comparing it to the proposed Kra Canal excavation, Dr Yuttaporn said the land bridge should reduce the public concern about separatist activities in southern Thailand.

“When we talk about the canal, people fear it would split Thailand into two parts, which could fuel the separatist movement in the restive south,” he explained. 

“But this is a land bridge. They won’t dig a canal but build a superhighway across, that’s all.”

On Thursday, Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul expressed his support for the project, saying constructing it is easier than excavating the Kra Canal, according to local media reports.

He reportedly affirmed the project will not affect internal security because instead of splitting the land, the land bridge will link two coasts together.

However, analysts say whether shipping companies would opt to use the land bridge is another question. This is because ships would have to dock at either Ranong or Chumphon port and have their cargoes transported on land between them, which meant possibly more time and higher costs.

Dr Rusli believes Thailand will have to equip its ports on both coasts with adequate facilities in order to attract potential users, as most ships would prefer using the conventional Straits of Malacca and Singapore route. 

“The Straits of Malacca and Singapore route is equipped with adequate shipping facilities and mariners are used to using this route. 

“Without careful planning and preparation, this (land bridge project idea) would end up becoming the defunct Yan-Bachok Pipeline Project mooted not too long ago," said Dr Rusli, referring to a 310-km pipeline proposed by Malaysia since as early as 2007 to transport oil from the coastal city of Yan in Kedah to Bachok in Kelantan and out to the South China Sea.

Source: CNA/ya/pp