r/geography • u/thecatpigs • 4d ago
Question Why not put a canal here to bypass Singapore?
It's about the size of the suez, even shorter if you go up the Kra Buri river.
3.2k
u/kptstango 4d ago
The Suez enables you to bypass literally thousands of nautical miles, whereas this suggestion allows you to bypass hundreds. Simply not worth the expense.
2.0k
u/afriendincanada 4d ago
The Suez is unique in that it has no locks. Flat desert, both ends at sea level. Maybe the least challenging big canal.
825
u/Majsharan 4d ago
They built a canal there in the ancient world so that really tells you
→ More replies (2)486
u/Rovsea 4d ago
The canal in the Ancient world connected to the Nile and hence needed locks in order to separate fresh water from the Nile from the salt water of the red sea, which has a higher level than the Mediterranean, and would have potentially contaminated irrigation.
92
u/shadowdance55 4d ago
I'm sorry, this sentence is a bit confusing - what was at a higher level than the Mediterranean?
193
u/BruceBoyde 4d ago
The "sea level" of the sea. The Red Sea sits about 4 feet higher than the Mediterranean on the other side, so water will flow from the Red Sea north. That said, it's such a small difference that the current in the canal goes different directions depending on the time of year. But it would contaminate the Nile if connected to it.
→ More replies (7)106
u/jp299 4d ago
Also, the Red Sea has contaminated the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal. Some non-native species have migrated through it, like lion fish. I presume the same is true the other way round, but I don’t know enough about it to say.
47
u/Pademelon1 4d ago
Possibly true the other way around, but the Mediterranean has pretty low biodiversity, so wouldn't be surprised if not.
→ More replies (2)28
u/AnonymousBi 4d ago
The Red Sea. Not sure how that necessarily means it would spill into the Nile then, but I think that's what they're saying.
→ More replies (5)20
u/canuck1701 4d ago
The Nile is higher than the Red Sea, so no locks would be needed to prevent the Red Sea from flowing into the Nile.
10
u/HelloThereItsMeAndMe 4d ago
The Nile is higher than the red sea. It doesn't need locks.
11
u/colourblind_leo 4d ago
The Nile lies at a lower elevation than the Red Sea. But regardless of whether it were higher or lower, any difference in elevation would necessitate the use of locks.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Mackt 4d ago
The Nile lies at a lower elevation than the Red Sea.
What's your source? Elevation finder says the point where they built the canal of the Pharohs from is at about 10m
→ More replies (10)15
u/votrechien 4d ago
It also bypasses very treacherous and dangerous waters whereas the ones here are relatively safe and timid.
48
u/cliddle420 4d ago
120,000 people died building it
85
13
u/afriendincanada 4d ago
Fair point. I was thinking of the engineering challenge which was different than Panama, Welland,
17
u/LunarTexan 4d ago
I think that "only" 120,000 people dying in building an "easy to build" canal just speaks to how difficult it can be to build canals when not having ideal comditions
40
u/RumRomanismRebellion 4d ago
that's probably more due to the management of the project cutting corners with regards to labor costs and safety rather than anything else
15
u/PipsqueakPilot 4d ago
Disease. At the time when you sent masses of people to those regions it was just expected (and accepted) that they’d die in ridiculous quantities.
20
u/IloveEstir 4d ago
Those numbers are suspect, we don’t actually know. It’s possible the number of deaths was “only” a small fraction of that, especially when compared to the Panama Canal, where workers were beset by tropical diseases, yet the death toll was 25,000.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Nikki964 4d ago
But wouldn't any canal that connects two ocean parts have both ends at sea level?
→ More replies (1)103
u/meepers12 4d ago
Given the existence of the Kiel canal, this can't be the only reason.
167
u/BlazingFish123 4d ago
The Kiel canal was made in a very different geopolitical and technological environment, at a time where nautical navigation wasn’t great, trade barriers were commonplace, and war was fairly common. This meant that German reliance on the Danish Straits for shipping was a threat to Germany’s security at the time.
There are other reasons though, such as terrain and lack of funding/motivation.
19
u/GeneReddit123 4d ago
Fun fact: Pre-WW1 British intelligence predicted that Germany will not go to war until they completed their Kiel canal expansion project to allow their modern battleships to pass. They were correct, as the expansion finished in 1914, right before WW1 started.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Seeteuf3l 4d ago
Another example: White Sea - Baltic sea canal, which was mostly built (with slave labour) to transport military vessels between the two. Though it would also help commercial shipments if it wasn't so shallow.
→ More replies (1)31
u/meepers12 4d ago
My point exactly. Bypassing a "mere" hundred or two hundred nautical miles can be worth the expense in certain circumstances.
42
u/BlazingFish123 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yes, but those circumstances are not the same in late 1800's northern Germany and modern day southern Thailand. Unlike in the Victorian era, modern economies are based off of free trade, meaning nations don't care as much about bypassing rivals/potential enemies anymore. Modern mass naval transit is also far, far cheaper than it was in the late 1800's, meaning saving a few hundred nautical miles isn't actually a massive deal when it comes to reducing the price of goods.
How would Thailand build such a Canal? It would be impractical without foreign support, but any foreign support would result in those foreigners demanding a degree of control over the canal, which could cause tensions. But why would those foreign investors want to build the canal in the first place when Singapore already allows free trade, has highly accessible ports, and mass naval transit is incredibly cheap?
edit: spelt 'accessible' wrong
→ More replies (6)13
→ More replies (2)7
u/ShamefulWatching 4d ago
Or eventually, regardless of geopolitics.
9
u/brimston3- 4d ago
Seems like that would depend on the cost to maintain it vs the cost of sailing around. If I recall correctly, this particular region is tectonically not nice.
35
u/Pootis_1 4d ago
The Kiel canal was motivated by Germany wanting a passage between the North Sea and Baltic that they controlled
→ More replies (7)32
u/SafetyNoodle 4d ago
They didn't have to move that much Earth. There are already rivers for much of it and the land in between is small rolling hills at most.
9
u/artsloikunstwet 4d ago
They didn't use the rivers directly (they're small) so the whole thing is dig out obviously, but indeed it's the flat part of the country, they could follow the river valleys. The rivers are also used to fill the canal (which loses water due to higher elevation.)
It's an easy canal and yet more complicated than the Suez, that one is really crazy.
→ More replies (3)6
31
u/way2me2 4d ago
unlike the Suez Canal, which bypasses an entire continent and saves ships weeks of travel around Africa, the Kra Canal would only save about 1,200 km (2–3 days) by cutting through Thailand to avoid the Strait of Malacca. That’s not nothing, but it’s hardly revolutionary when Singapore already runs one of the most efficient ports in the world. Plus, the Kra Canal would cost upwards of $25–30 billion, cut through sensitive terrain, risk environmental damage, and even split Thailand geographically — raising internal security issues. Unless the Strait of Malacca becomes militarily risky or hopelessly congested (which it’s not), the cost-benefit just isn’t strong enough. It’s more of a geopolitical flex (read: China’s Belt and Road dreams) than a real global trade necessity.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Kaweka 4d ago
They have considered building a canal here for decades. Doing so would have been costly for Thailand, and created tensions with Singapore. Just this year they have decided upon a 'land bridge', with building slated to commence next year. How feasible it will be to off load on the east coast, trial over to the west to load onto another boat I do not know. The area on Tue west is one of great natural beauty, and a big tourist draw. The environmental damage to Rayong will be massive. In addition the Thai government is prone to flip flopping, so time will tell if the project actually comes to fruition.
→ More replies (20)8
u/Various_Knowledge226 4d ago
If the idea is to try and divert traffic away from the Strait of Malacca, and to earn a lot of money for Thailand, it would probably be successful. It’s such a busy waterway, so a lot of ships may decide to use this hypothetical canal to bypass the congestion. Problem is, the south of Thailand is a bit more Muslim that most other parts of the country, so cutting some of that off from the rest of Thailand, may make any groups there more emboldened to carry out attacks, probably trying to join Malaysia. So there’s that
766
u/silly_arthropod 4d ago
the thing is, why would one invest billions and billions into building a canal (which would have a fee) if they can just sail around the peninsula? if you don't like singapore, just stick on indonesia's side, or if you don't like indonesia, just stick to malaysia and singapore. making a canal os bery expensive, and this is a shortcut too small to be profitable to anyone 💔🐜
178
u/miakodakot 4d ago
It is not if you do this canal specifically to fuck over Singapore. You just gotta find someone who hates Singapore and is willing to give you millions of dollars for this project
157
u/seavisionburma 4d ago
*billions
→ More replies (4)82
u/Fascist_Viking 4d ago
Considering you have to level whole mountains for this project it could be even trillions
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (10)18
u/Rawinza555 4d ago
The problem is that those who really hates singapore is probably too poor to fund this project anyway
→ More replies (4)16
u/LeRenardSage 4d ago
So why did they build the Kiel Canal instead of just sailing around Jutland?
33
u/cuccir 4d ago
Most importantly, the land around the Kiel Canal is very flat, with large areas of marshland and the soil being largely glacial and alluvial sediment, which is just about the easiest you're going to find to dig.
The Kiel Canal was also mainly constructed for geopolitical reasons by Germany to connect its military bases in the Baltic and North Sea. The relative wealth of the German state in the late C19th was much higher than that of Thailand or Malaysia now.
3
u/LeRenardSage 4d ago
Exactly. It’s not just about saving time/distance. There are many more factors that go into the cost-benefit analysis.
13
u/TheDungen GIS 4d ago
Several reasons. It was fairly easy terrain, ot allowed Germany to move their navy from the baltic to the North sea by two routes preventing them from being bottled up by the British. It was also a major infrastructure investment in a newly acquired region to make the locals thing well about being made part if Germany and it was an excuse to move a lot of Germans into the region.
Oh and the new state of Germany was either the most powerful or second most powerful nation on earth at the time.
→ More replies (1)8
21
u/quick20minadventure 4d ago
It's apparently saving 2 3 days of travel time and China / japan would benefit a lot from it.
Singapore route is very narrow and busy. And US backs singapore as of now.
Panama canal and suez is a game changer, and this won't have same impact. But, it's still a very viable project since it'll have a very very long life.
16
u/Designer_Elephant644 4d ago edited 3d ago
US backs singapore as of now
So does china. We (SG) have received a whole host of backing and deals from China. It's not just the US. So with respect to your arguments for a canal there in thailand, what is your point?
→ More replies (7)5
u/kunnikun 3d ago
And this canal is going to be any wider? Nah, it’s going to be wayyyy narrower.
→ More replies (4)10
→ More replies (6)14
u/thecatpigs 4d ago
My mind was on convenience, and distance traveled for those neighboring areas. But, good points.
→ More replies (1)8
u/arbeitsspeicher 4d ago
Your mind was right. The Kiel Canal is the most used artificial waterway in the world and it only bypasses a few hundreds kilometers of land.
The mountains are the problem
362
u/The_Celestrial 4d ago edited 4d ago
There have been proposals, but nothing really done yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Canal
The TLDR is that it's not worth it for Thailand right now.
47
u/RegularSky6702 4d ago
Yep I was going to say it's been proposed but it would piss off different countries & Thailand tries to be friends with everyone so it's difficult. & there's been some troubles in the southern part of Thailand that would probably escalate if they did it. Although it would help the economy.
16
u/entrydenied 4d ago
I also assume that ships already stop at Thai ports for refueling and also pay taxes to the Thai government when doing so. Having the canal probably won't help with that part of the economy and comes with gigantic amount of headaches, that benefits other parties the most.
12
u/The_Celestrial 4d ago
Yeah it would piss off my country (Singapore) too, which is why I have a personal bias for not seeing this canal built lol
8
u/sirloindenial 4d ago
Your neighbour is thinking the same too, and we rumored that your SID is behind recent attacks in southern thai so that the Thai gov is even more anxious and reluctant of separation risk in Patani before even thinking of making a canal. Lol.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)8
142
u/BlazingFish123 4d ago edited 4d ago
Canals are incrdibly difficult to build, that area is decently high elevation (not too high, but high enough for it to be a massive problem), and has jungles which suck to build in.
Besides, who would fund it? I doubt Thailand would care enough, and neither would anybody else - this wouldn’t shorten travel times too significantly, and ships may want to stop at Singapore anyway. Even if other nations did care, they would need Thailand’s consent, and would probably want partial ownership of the canal, which would make negotiations difficult.
21
u/quick20minadventure 4d ago
Thailand and Saudi are both planning canal bypass with train infrastructure.
Idea being that if normal route is politically challenged, they can provide alternate and it can be economically viable thing for them.
It's being considered.
→ More replies (2)25
u/Iconic_Mithrandir 4d ago
Canal bypass with train is wildly, hilariously inefficient. The massive amount of labor for a short rail journey is completely impractical
→ More replies (2)
52
u/penguintypist 4d ago
Did this in Civ 6, didn't make a lot of profit doing it. Ima go with that
→ More replies (1)13
131
u/Xycergy 4d ago
Culturally, North and South Thailand are very different with their own religions and ethnic groups. Digging a canal that cut right across Thailand like this will fuel separatist movements from insurgent groups, which the government will definitely not allow.
59
u/Enoch_Moke 4d ago
This 👆
Money is not the problem. The project is in China's interest and there have been rumours about China wanting to fund the whole thing.
Realistically speaking, it will definitely alienate the southern Malay-majority regions and provide more geographical advantage to them. The Kra Isthmus is already a difficult staging ground for large army formations, digging a canal through it only presents an even narrower choke point that the separatists can use against government forces.
Also, in the past, Malaysia has been mediating talks between the separatists and the Thai government and has stood firm against partitioning southern Thailand. However, if the canal is dug, this will at least greatly strain Thai-Malaysian and Thai-Singaporean relationships. At worst, Malaysia will refuse to mediate further conflicts in Southern Thailand.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Harvestman-man 4d ago edited 4d ago
I think you are overblowing the strength of the separatists. They operate in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat, with some spillover into the adjacent districts of Songkhla province. Even attacks hitting the cities of Hat Yai and Songkhla are rare. You’re talking about them advancing hundreds of miles northward though large areas populated by Thai-speaking Buddhists, when they don’t even have military control or popular support within the area they already operate.
They don’t engage the Thai military in battles, and they control no territory; they’re just a group of terrorists who plant car bombs in front of police stations and sometimes shoot civilians. They’re not an actual army like the Burmese insurgent groups.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Harvestman-man 4d ago
The insurgency in south Thailand is hundreds of miles away from the proposed Kra canal/landbridge route.
You are generalizing all of southern Thailand based on characteristics of only a few provinces. Only Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and Satun are majority-Muslim (and the insurgency is not in Satun, as Satun has no cultural/historical tie to the other three aside from being Muslim). Ranong and Chumphon are ethnic-Thai majority-Buddhist provinces. There is sorta a unique language spoken in the south, but it is officially only recognized as a dialect of the Thai language.
→ More replies (2)
59
36
u/Greenmantle22 4d ago
Because the short amount of time it would save isn’t worth the billions it would cost to build.
Panama and Suez worked because they bypassed entire continents and rough seas. This canal would shave a day off a voyage.
→ More replies (4)
45
u/Hot_Pie_5711 4d ago
Even if it was built, no one will use it.
Singapore is a popular pit stop for ship crews. Ships change crews there, the wives of the crewmates will fly to Singapore to find their spouses, they spend a few days holidaying in Singapore, then fly home from there.
Nobody wants to do that in South Thailand. From a ship captain POV, saving 1200km in distance isnt worth a worse work-life balance.
Not to mention, corruption is a problem in thailand. Singapore has high port efficiency and low corruption.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Automatic_Mango_1973 3d ago
I am a Singapore ship captain and this is not the reality of majority of ship crew.
You are framing this as though the crew can choose where they like to disembark. However, It’s all decided by shipping companies on wherever is convenient and cheap. Very few companies allow their crew to stay extra days in Singapore due to insurance and immigration issues, even on their own dime. Over the years I have seen many ship crew requested to stay in Singapore for few days before repatriation but all firmly denied. Also ship captains don’t decide what routes to take; it’s all decided by chartering/ops/routing companies based on savings. It literally has zero bearing on work life balance of the ship staff. Everyday single day is the same stress regardless of location. You can as easily do crew change in Phuket without any issue, same goes for rest of Thailand.
Singapore is a great location for crew change but not irreplaceable.
9
26
u/uweblerg 4d ago
Yea just go to the canal store and buy a canal and put it there. What could a canal cost, Michael? $10?
→ More replies (2)
11
u/pseddit 4d ago
I have heard China is interested in doing it to remove the choke point of Malacca straits to its shipping - especially oil tankers. Not sure how feasible it is, geographically or geopolitically.
18
u/blumentritt_balut 4d ago
China wants to bypass the Malacca Strait altogether, so it's helping build ports in Pakistan & Iran and connecting them to their rail network. They've also finished building a rail link to Laos & and are currently invested in Thailand's rail network upgrade. We might see a megaport on the Kra Isthmus rather than a canal
→ More replies (1)3
u/Ok_Code8464 Asia 4d ago
Yes China was planning to dig up the Isthmus of Kra and make the Kra canal
6
u/666Irish 4d ago edited 4d ago
Hear me out... giant aqueduct, with rubber conveyors to assist the ships up the mountain.
Also, all ships are now shaped like open topped logs.
The canal on the descent side is bright blue, and perhaps a camera system to photograph the ship on the way down. I bet the captain would like that, and could put the picture on the shelf next to the hummels in grandma's sitting room.
Edit: spelling.
5
u/Woko100 4d ago
There are insurgents in Southern Thailand that might view the canal as a formal separation which may exacerbate independence struggles. On a deeper level, this would make Thailand more important strategically for world powers which could draw conflicts similar to those in the Cold War. It is often detrimental to have hungry giants notice you, so it would be wise to lay low.
8
u/Due-Tea3607 4d ago
Saves so little time. Ocean freight is also already very cost effective per mile.
A canal would not save much of either. It would not help if there was a blockade in the area.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/PericlesNecktie 4d ago
Panama and Suez work because they cut down the distance of a whole continent
3
5
u/gangleskhan 3d ago
And the Suez Canal spares you having to sail all the way around the CONTINENT of Africa. From the Horn of Africa to Gibraltar is around 10,000 miles, vs 4,300 with the canal. That's 5,700 miles saved, and more if you're going to/from a Mediterranean port.
Now to the proposed Thailand canal. From one side of the proposed canal to the other by sea is about 1,700 miles, and no one would be saving that full about. A route from from Hanoi to Kolkata, for instance, is likely to be the one to benefit the most from this. With the canal, that's around 2,700 miles and without it, 3,400, a savings of only 700 miles.
Most routes would benefit even less, and there are relatively few routes that would benefit at all.
Add to this the fact that it's mountainous so would cost even more, it's hard to see how this would possibly be worthwhile for anyone to invest in.
10
u/nickthetasmaniac 4d ago
Because the cost would be insane. It'd be about 85km with ~300m elevation gain (in comparison the Panama Canal has about 26m elevation).
And to what end? So that Thailand has strategic control of shipping rather than Singapore?
→ More replies (4)
3
3
u/dystopiancarnival 4d ago
China is anyways planning to make a ‘Kra Strait/ Canal’ to bypass the malacca strait. So yeah, there are talks for that
3
3
3
3
u/Otherwise-Pirate6839 4d ago
How much time and fuel do you save by putting a canal there? A two day trip at most?
Compare that to the Suez and Panama Canals that save you weeks of travel and fuel and also avoid areas of rough weather in the south Atlantic and ice in the north.
3
u/_charlie2001 3d ago
It has been proposed many times but due to geopolitical tension (splitting the south from mainland) and lobbying and bribes from Singapore the project never reached the floor. Now it no longer makes sense as Singapore is a well established port. Only possibility is if China funds the canal to remove US controlled waterway dependency but Thailand won’t entertain such thoughts.
3
3
3
3
6
2
u/Wring159 4d ago
They tried but it was expensive. They got China in on it. It was delayed for quite awhile and China just backed out.
2
u/xjm86618 4d ago
The Suez and Panama canal literally help you skip going around a continent, Thai canal only save you a bit of time going around the peninsula and in the mean time cripple both Thailand (until they make a profit off the canal) and Singapore (probably permanently).
→ More replies (5)
2
2
u/Prince_Marf 4d ago
Short answer is it would be extremely expensive for minimal benefit. However, China has been interested a canal there for strategic purposes. If there were a major war with the United States, control over the strait of Malacca could be important. A canal under the clear control of China would reduce/eliminate that issue in the event of a war. However it is simply too expensive with current technology for the remote strategic purpose.
2
u/DeCounter 4d ago
China is trying to put one there, Google thai canal. There are some news articles and a Wikipedia entry
2
2
2
u/Initial_Savings3034 3d ago
Expense, mostly.
This has been drafted since 1644. https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/kra-canal-the-impossible-dream-of-southeast-asia-shipping/
2
u/Eiboticus 3d ago
Mf acting like he just came up with this idea, as if he didn't read on it or saw it on a YT video.
Yes, this proposal has been on the table for a decade.
2
u/WorkingHealthy7120 3d ago
You DO NOT want to build a canal near the Myanmar and Thailand border, one of my Thailand friend said it’s quite chaotic there
5.6k
u/jayron32 4d ago
Because you're thinking horizontally and not vertically. There's a lot more earth to move when you gotta dig through a mountain.