By Xavier Kong
Tiger previously mentioned the “pros” of putting up a border wall on the Malaysia-Thailand border. However, since the plan seems to be proceeding, Tiger feels a need to again express wonder and amazement at how this project is still alive.
Really, there is almost no way to describe Tiger’s amazement and wonder. Apparently all that talk about a wall, all so long ago, is still ongoing, with the wall slated to start going up next year, according to the recent report that Tiger chanced upon.
With a total of 15 (yes, 15!) proposals, the National Security Council has been tasked to peruse and deliberate over them, and pick the best one and implement it.
Still, Tiger would like to bring the entire idea back to the ground, by asking about the price that is willing to be paid. Sure, a wall is a wall, but a wall that is meant to be used for border security and/or to stop smugglers is not merely a wall.
One example is one of the systems set up by the US in 2007 for its southern border with Mexico. It involves two walls, one on the US side, the other on the Mexico side. In between the walls is a no-man’s land; dotted with infrared cameras and sensors and lampposts, with a high speed access road to enable their Border Patrol units to respond quickly to any intrusions.
This system, which also saw delays and glitches which turned into cost overruns, cost the US almost US$1 billion then to “fence” up 53 miles (85.3km).
Rounding it up to US$1 billion, divided by 85.3km, shows a cost of US$11.7 million per km. Taking the current day conversion rate of RM4.27 to the US dollar, brings the rate to RM49.9 million per km.
With the land border between Malaysia and Thailand measuring 646.5km, simple multiplication dictates that a wall spanning the entire length would have a basic cost of RM32.2 billion.
Well, after coming up with the estimated cost which comes to RM32.2 billion, Tiger is now no longer surprised that there are so many proposals for the project. But wait, was there not an agreement between the two countries that there would only be one wall, funded and maintained by both parties
According to Malaysian Armed Forces chief General Zulkifeli Mohd Zin, the agreement was reached at the General Border Committee Meeting. The good general also mentioned that several sections of the border had been identified for the construction of a wall.
Wait, only several sections? Now Tiger is again confused. Is the plan not to wall up the entire border, with checkpoints to allow entry? Now it is only sections that get a wall?
Now, Tiger may not know much about what rationales have been offered, but, in Tiger’s eyes, the gaps between the sections are “windows”, as in “windows of opportunity for smugglers to slip through”.
In any case, Tiger would just like to say yet again, that the idea of a border wall is not as good as it sounds. For one, there is not even much evidence that border walls work. The most pertinent example remains the Great Wall of China, designed to keep out the Huns, who still breached the wall anyway.
And now, Malaysia and Thailand are setting up a wall, with holes mind you, smack in the middle of the border. Maybe there is some inspiration from US presidential candidate Donald Trump about building a wall spanning the US-Mexico border that this got revived. It should also be noted that the US Border Patrol has found over 150 tunnels passing from Mexico to the US since 1990.
The wall may be a wall, but the most important aspects of a secure border, in Tiger’s opinion, are detection and response. Tiger believes any money “invested” in this wall is better off spent on setting up a joint response team, along with researching or purchasing a detection system to cover the border.
Reece Jones
A wall is only as good as its defenders. Reece Jones, a professor of geography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, noted that “at best, walls and fences only slow people down, making them a poor investment from a security standpoint”.
Jones also noted that, despite their high cost and low efficacy, walls remain popular among policymakers and politicians, as the walls provide imposingly tangible evidence that something is being done.
“High-tech surveillance and boots on the ground may be more effective at preventing people from crossing a border, but a wall can be used as a political prop,” said Jones.
As it is, Tiger can only hope that the wall is only part of the solution to a more secure border, otherwise, it could really end up a big waste of taxpayer money. But hey, Tiger is but a tiger. What does Tiger know about border security, right?
GRRRRR!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.