Opposition warns Land Bridge could risk security and fail the South

Opposition MPs warned that Thailand’s Land Bridge project could pose national security risks and fail to meet the needs of people in southern Thailand during a House of Representatives meeting at Parliament in Bangkok on Friday (May 29).

The meeting continued for a second day to consider an urgent motion asking the House to set up a special committee to study problems surrounding the implementation of the transport infrastructure project. The project aims to develop the Southern Economic Corridor and link freight transport between the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea. Five related motions had been submitted by MPs.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, a party-list MP and leader of the Democrat Party, argued during his summary debate that the Land Bridge project was based on a “myth” that Thailand would gain major benefits, including from cargo shipping, when in reality it might gain little.

He described as misleading the claim that people in the South would be unable to improve their livelihoods without the project, noting that local communities would receive almost no benefit. Instead, the region would merely be used as a transit route for freight transport, while the real beneficiaries would be contractors and those who had bought up land for speculation.

Abhisit suggested that if the government genuinely wanted to improve living standards across southern provinces, it could pursue other forms of development, such as improving ports and creating a logistics network under the “Southern Connect” model, which would require a smaller budget.

“The South must be developed and made more prosperous by using its own resources, not by turning it into a transit route for foreigners,” Abhisit said.

“If the government insists on pushing ahead with a project that no one uses, what will be left behind will be a monument to a wrong decision — or a decision made for the benefit of only a small group of people.”

Abhisit warns of geopolitical risks

Abhisit warned that if the government moved ahead with a project that lacked economic value, the more worrying issue would be national security.

He argued that if Thailand tried to turn the project area into a strategic point, it should learn from global examples such as the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, which had all become areas of military and geopolitical tension.

He added that if the Land Bridge was intended to replace the earlier idea of digging a canal through southern Thailand, today’s circumstances were far more dangerous. The United States and China were major powers locked in rivalry, while the South China Sea remained a high-risk flashpoint.

If the Land Bridge goes ahead, Abhisit warned, any conflict in the South China Sea could prompt the two powers to seek control over the area. He suggested this could begin as early as the public-private partnership stage, citing international reports of tensions between the US and China over the Panama Canal, where Chinese companies were accused of controlling key shipping routes, eventually leading to pressure on Panama.

“I am confused by those who say they want Thailand to become another Hormuz. Look at the resources involved, such as in Iran. If Iran insists on charging fees, the fighting, conflict and war that could follow would be enormous,” he said.

“Does Thailand really want to be like that? I believe we should reset our approach and create real opportunities for people in the South.”

Abhisit argued that refusing to establish a special House committee would only reinforce suspicions of irregularities, a lack of transparency and attempts to rush the project through by allowing only the executive branch to cite a single study to justify it.

“How can people be expected to believe there are no hidden interests, or that this will not benefit those involved and those preparing to profit from it? This is profiteering through the destruction of capital, resources and opportunities for people in the South, while also risking Thailand’s exposure to geopolitical conflict,” he said.

“I want all representatives of the people to have the opportunity to study and monitor this matter through a special committee.”

Natthaphong proposes Southern Bioeconomic Corridor instead

Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, a party-list MP and leader of the People’s Party, argued in his closing debate that the Land Bridge project did not answer the development needs of the South.

He proposed that southern development should instead be based on a Southern Bioeconomic Corridor, using it as the foundation and framework for regional development.

The approach, he explained, would strengthen farmers’ economic security while investing in infrastructure that directly improves quality of life, such as safe drinking water from the tap, quality education and better healthcare services.

Natthaphong noted that preliminary calculations showed an investment of 500 billion baht could help generate annual GDP growth of 4%, reduce debt burdens by 30% and raise incomes.

He urged the House to establish a special committee to study the proposal in detail.

House votes 266-174 against special committee, sends issue to Cabinet

After MPs had debated and closed the urgent motion on whether to set up a special House committee to study problems related to the Land Bridge project, the House proceeded to a vote because MPs were divided between establishing the committee and forwarding their views to the Cabinet for consideration.

The vote showed that a majority of 266 MPs supported sending the matter to the Cabinet for further consideration, while 174 MPs backed the proposal to set up a special committee. Three MPs abstained.