• 
• 

After years of tossing and turning with the idea, a step in the right direction has finally been taken. A memorandum of understanding was signed last week in which the United Arab Emirates-based Dubai World agreed to carry out a feasibility study for a land-bridge project that would link the Andaman Sea to the Gulf of Thailand. Dubai World has offered to conduct this feasibility study for free. Moreover, the company is not asking for special privileges in future projects stemming from the study, which will be made public upon completion.

From a bird's eye view, the land-bridge project would help link communication and transport networks in the Middle East and West Asia with those in East Asia, where key economies including China, Japan, and South Korea are located.

Indeed, a great deal of time and money could be saved by eliminating the need to travel a greater distance through the Malacca Straits. But while the feasibility study and the benefits to follow should be welcomed, it doesn't help anybody to call this anything other than what it is - sound investment planning and nothing more.

Dubai World chairman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem told reporters that his project and future investments could help reduce the ongoing violence in the Malay-speaking South where more than 3,000 people have been killed since January 2004.

Sulayem said the violence-plagued three southernmost provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat would benefit directly from rising employment and economic development.

"In the past, our company had experience in developing projects in many conflict-impacted areas. We found that local residents are not easily lured to violence if they have jobs and enjoy higher incomes.

"In our view, building economic stability is a key to creating political stability," he said.

No one knows who brewed Sulayem's tea but he should have known better than to think that there is such a thing as a cure-all for such a complex problem.

A quick glance over the past four years should be enough to tell Sulayem that the violence in the deep South is much more than just an expression of dissatisfaction over poverty and unemployment.

The vast majority of those in the deep South want nothing more than to go on with their lives, secure a good job and raise a family. But then again, most of these people share the same grievances towards the Thai state as the armed militants in the region.

In the 1980s, following the surrender of armed separatists who put down their arms in return for amnesty, the government started to pour a great deal of money into the region, thinking that this would help erase the historical mistrust and resentment that Malays have towards the Thai state.

Obviously, it didn't work. Just a decade later, a new generation of separatists surfaced, employing brutal methods such as beheading, torching their victims, and burning down public schools.

The fact that very few have come out against the insurgents says something about the attitude of the local community towards the state. They might not like the violence, but they don't seem to hate it enough to come forward and assist Thai authorities with their investigations.

Thai people can go on and on blaming locals in the deep South for their lack of cooperation. But in the final analysis, this is a problem of Thailand's legitimacy in the Muslim-majority region, and after more than 100 years of living under the direct rule of the Thai state, legitimacy remains an issue. We need to think outside the box and ask why this is so.

Sulayem may have goods intention towards the people of the South with his grand plan. But for a man who claims to have experience dealing with conflict areas, he should know that good intentions are not good policy.