TO dig or not to dig has long been a burning question surrounding the Kra Canal project. The debate surfaced again at a lively seminar focussing on the influence of the sea on the economy. The issue of whether or not the country should be cut in half by a canal appears to have as many supporters as opponents.

The first records of such a project appeared during the reign of King Narai of Ayudhya in 1677. At that time, the king studied the possibility of digging the canal with shovels. Due to concerns over security, the idea has gone nowhere since.

The project to create an international passageway across the Kra isthmus in southern Thailand became a controversial issue again when Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh planned to dust off the project when he was prime minister a couple of years ago. Chavalit reasoned that the Kra isthmus would help jump-start the economy by introducing a new dynamism along the waterway.

The idea immediately provoked a heated debate across the nation, led by those with the traditional view that the waterway -- in a similar way to the Suez and Panama canals -- will geographically divide the nation, raising concerns of secession later on. Some opponents raised concerns that the Thai government may not be able to cover the costs involved in creating the waterway. In addition, strong opposition to the plan is expected from non-government organisations (NGO) concerned about the environment.

Your Opinion " Kra canal has never been a commitment in any government. Just because of "Corrupted Government" and "Bad habits of Commitee" How sad! I heard about this project when I was young. Until now there is no sign to make it a reality. Just abstract. Maybe when all of dinosaur potilicians die, it becomes true, huh! " Sincerely, S.Kangsadan kangsada@ratree.psu.ac.th

At a seminar organised by the Southeast Asian Programme in Ocean Law, Policy and Management (Seapol), Vice Adm Somboon Sukapun, Deputy Chief of Staff, Royal Thai Army, said the project would help Thailand enhance its power over the sea.

He quoted Sir Walter Raleigh of the British Navy (1552-1618): ''Whosoever commands the sea, commands the trade. Whosoever commands the trade of the world, commands the riches of the world and consequently the world itself.'' Britain then followed up this statement to take over as the leading world power in the 1800s through its international maritime commercial activities.

What is so important about Kra isthmus, a small waterway calculated to run up to 12 kilometres, in Prachuap Khiri Khan? With its location at the centre of the world's air and marine transportation routes, only Kra isthmus could beat Singapore as a famous destination and short-cut through the Straits of Malacca.

''That's the reason why the Global Transpark Project will be set up at U-Tapao in Thailand. It is the world's most important strategic point. This is also the case for the Kra Canal,'' he said.

The House sub-committee on military affairs has expressed strong interest in this project. Earlier this month, Somboon said he testified to the committee that the project should generate at least Bt160 billion a year.

Some members of the committee asked if the project would threaten security in the southern part of Thailand. Somboon said he thought the project would be beneficial for the country's security since it would balance the economic power among the key economies which participated in the Kra waterway project. China, Japan, Malaysia, Germany and France are among the countries which expressed investment interest in the project, he claimed.

Vichai Punpocha, general manager, Bangkok branch and country manager, Dresdner Bank, said that the government may choose outside sources of finance for the project. Vichai cited the case of the British government's use of foreign loans to finance its North Sea oil exploration project.

Vichai said he thought that investors would be willing to participate in a viable project such as the Kra Canal.

The canal should also fit in with the government policy of investing in infrastructure to stimulate growth.

Sarin Skulratana, secretary-general of the Office of the Maritime Promotion Commission, Ministry of Communications, said he personally supported the Kra Canal project. He said that the real benefit of the project will arise from the development of industries along the waterway.

He admitted that he thought that it will be difficult for the project to get off the ground because of the tense debate it has generated.

Samak Sundaravej, an opposition MP, said if the government fails to produce a reliable preliminary study, the Kra Canal project is unlikely to materialise, given its sensitivity as a political issue.

He proposed a preliminary feasibility study which will require an aerial survey.

He also said that many Thais have a wrong perception that the Kra Canal project would create a 12-kilometre waterway cutting across the Kingdom's narrowest point. In fact, the project would end up creating an adjoining 90-kilometre waterway along the Thai-Burmese border.

Dr Kamonchanok Suthiwartnarueput, director, Merchant Marine Institute, Chulalongkorn University, questioned the project's viability.

She also questioned whether the project would cause serious environmental and resident resettlement problems.

Admiral Thanom Charoenlaph, senior adviser of the Thailand Institute of Marine Affairs Development, said the government may draw up terms of reference for the project to help those doing feasibility studies associated with the canal.

The terms of reference would be drafted according to the public hearing by setting, for example, the standard for environmental protection with which the investors will have to comply.

Dr Prapon Phasukyud, of Thailand's Engineering Institute, said the arguments over the years have led to public confusion.

''We wasted too much energy debating with each other rather than establishing certain provisions to prove whether the project is feasible or not,'' he said, while stressing the importance of public participation from the beginning.

The initial terms of reference includes the sovereignty over the canal, the utilisation of Thai labour and construction materials, environmental concerns and revenue-sharing schemes.

With regard to sovereignty over the canal, Vichai cited an example from the Kiel canal in Germany in which the British government once tried to assume ownership after World War II. The German government won the case by citing the international law which stipulates that the canal should belong to the country where it is situated.

The story is prepared by JEERAWAT NA THALANG and

VORAPUN SRIVORANART

Any comments?