File photo for reference only

 

In a move that could redefine the future of Thailand's contentious Land Bridge megaproject, the House Committee on Land, Natural Resources and Environment is demanding a fresh review of its Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA). Concerns have been raised about incomplete and potentially inaccurate data in the current report, which may jeopardise not only the project but also the government's standing.

 

At the forefront of this push is People's Party MP Poonsak Chanchampee, who chairs the committee. He highlighted significant gaps in the EHIA, particularly around the project's environmental and social impacts. Alarmingly, critical areas such as the effect on local fishing territories, the risks from proximity to the Ranong fault line, and ambiguous compensation measures have been insufficiently addressed.

 

The committee's scrutiny has spotlighted admissions by the consulting firm responsible for the report that certain data were indeed incomplete or inaccurate. This revelation has prompted calls for the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP) to commission a revised study that genuinely reflects community concerns.

 

Poonsak stressed the importance of not rushing the process, with a final public hearing slated for Monday. He emphasised, "If the government wants to attract investors' interest, it must demonstrate transparency and responsibility rather than accelerate a flawed process."

 

Further complicating matters, the committee identified over ten areas requiring reassessment. These include the project's site, potential damage to mangroves, risks to world heritage sites, and insufficient community involvement. These concerns have not only drawn attention from local communities but also fired up civil society groups, leading to a Senate petition for further examination of the consultation's transparency.

 

In contrast, OTP Director Punya Chupanit defended the agency's due diligence, asserting that all legal and environmental mandates were met. Since 2021, comprehensive feasibility and environmental studies have taken place, claims Chupanit, alongside ongoing local collaborations.

 

Despite these assurances, the project continues to face public scepticism. Many fear that without substantial amendments to the EHIA, deeper local opposition could arise. Observers caution that unresolved issues might erode any potential trust, thus imperilling the initiative's success.

 

The Land Bridge project, heralded as a government flagship, seeks to construct deep-sea ports in Ranong on the Andaman coast and Chumphon on the Gulf of Thailand. These ports would be linked via a 90km dual-track railway and motorway designed for efficient container transfer.

 

With such strategic ambition, the project aims to enhance regional connectivity but the spotlight remains on how the government addresses the growing local and environmental concerns. As MP Poonsak’s committee prepares to forward its findings and recommendations to relevant agencies, all eyes will be on how the powers that be navigate this complex and contentious pathway.

 

In sum, the Land Bridge project stands at a crossroads, its future hinging on how effectively the government can engage with affected communities and address the flaws identified in current assessments. Only then might it transform from a contested plan into a celebrated milestone in Thailand's infrastructure landscape.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from Bangkok Post 2025-08-22

 

Environmental issues aside, this project never made sense to me. Where is the business case for shippers to agree to two ships (instead of one), an additional train, 2x loading and unloading vessels, docking at one for offloading. loading at the other side then getting underway (again)? Yes, they save some time by not navigating the (at times) dangerous waters between Singapore and Indonesia, but it just doesn't make much economic sense (to me). Meantime, China is betting on its superport via Burma into the Andaman. Is it just another one of these projects where they propose something to overbuild (suspiciously unnecessarily) - like they did with a brand new 40+ story Audit Office and a new 40+ story Budget Bureau? Do these two offices really need a combined 80 stories of office space to do their jobs??

The project is totally unviable.  It is pure nonsense dreamed up by Thaksin to make it look as if he had big infrastructure projects planned.  Perhaps he really believed someone would be stupid enough to invest in it.  Hard to tell.

So all the money spent on reports and consultants and the end result is dodgy. What a surprise. Pockets got fatter though I'm sure.