The Lower House has made a regrettable decision on the study of the Land Bridge project. Instead of allowing the House to launch a study and promote public participation, a majority of lawmakers on May 29 voted 266:174 to let the cabinet handle the study. The decision undermines the parliamentary principle of checks and balances.
It has become common practice for both the Lower and Upper Houses to establish subcommittees to study controversial public projects. These parliamentary studies do not carry legal force; however, they serve as an important mechanism for scrutiny and public participation, as committees often invite stakeholders from all sides to take part. They are also part of the public record and inform parliamentary debates. Yet MPs in the 266-vote bloc argued that "multiple reviews" had already been conducted and that additional scrutiny would duplicate existing work. But is that the case? Since the project was first floated under the Prayut Chan-o-cha government in 2018, there have been at least three feasibility studies. The first two were conducted by the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP). The proposed project -- costing more than one trillion baht -- includes a land transport corridor across the southern peninsula, with deep-sea ports in Chumphon and Ranong connected by road and rail.
The OTP, a think-tank agency under the Transport Ministry, commissioned local consulting firms to conduct the initial feasibility study in 2021, followed by an updated version in 2023. These firms have experience in infrastructure projects such as reservoirs, irrigation systems, and transport developments. However, governments have often treated these reports as a "bible" for guiding decisions, even though the feasibility studies provide only basic conceptual designs, preliminary environmental assessments, and broad business models.
Another study was commissioned by the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), the national think tank. NESDC engaged UniSearch, a research unit at Chulalongkorn University, to assess the accuracy of the OTP's findings and compare the project with competing logistics corridors and ports in Myanmar. The NESDC study presented a different picture, suggesting significantly lower economic returns and calling the project's viability into question.
Last month, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul established another committee, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Ekniti Nitithanprapas, along with three subcommittees, to continue examining implementation plans and public consultation. However, this government-led review will reassess existing OTP and NESDC studies rather than commission new research. With a centralised and less inclusive approach, the latest review risks producing an overly optimistic assessment once again.
The proposed Land Bridge project continues to raise valid questions. Beyond economic feasibility, it lacks a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. Economists have also pointed to a lack of data and input from logistics companies. Critics question why shipping firms would choose to spend more time and money moving containers across land only to reload them again. Alongside concerns about state feasibility studies, reports of land speculation involving local politicians are also growing louder. Without a strong parliamentary counterbalance, these questions are unlikely to be fully addressed.
