A meaningless Trump-inspired wall for Sungai Golok?

 

In my younger days, when I was working with the government, I spent six months supervising the construction of a fishing jetty in Geting —a Kelantanese fishing village situated near the Thai border.

Sungai Geting, a tributary of Sungai Golok (or Bang Kolok in Thai), flows into an estuary alongside another Thai river, Bang Nara.

On the Malaysian side, a ferry crossing at Pengkalan Kubor links to Thailand’s Takbai in the Narathiwat province across the river. Although both governments have for decades discussed building a bridge here, it has yet to materialise.

My time in Geting allowed me to explore this region and frequently cross into Narathiwat, travelling north to Yala, Pattani, and even as far as Songkhla and Surat Thani on Thailand’s eastern seaboard.

Even then, Thailand’s border regions were better developed, with superior infrastructure, services and a more entrepreneurial spirit than their Malaysian counterparts, attracting Malaysian businesses.

I made many friends there. One senior colleague, affectionately known as Pok Heng Gedebe*, the late Pak Ibrahim, moved freely between Thailand and Malaysia with two different identity cards, a common occurrence back then. (Gedebe, a word from the Kelantanese dialect, means an influential or well-connected person.)

Most locals I encountered also held two ICs, facilitating seamless movement across the border, as they spoke both Thai and Bahasa well.

Bang Kolok and the ‘border wall’ debate

Upriver, Sungai Golok separates Rantau Panjang from the Thai border town of Golok.

This area gained attention recently after Kelantan’s deputy menteri besar Fadzli Hassan proposed the construction of a wall along the border to curb smuggling —akin to Donald Trump’s justification for a wall on the Mexican border.

Kelantan’s menteri besar, Nassuruddin Daud’s subsequent claim that the RM445 million wall would bring economic growth sparked much debate, amid bewilderment.

My experience living in Geting tells me such a project is unlikely to materialise, much like the long-discussed Pengkalan Kubor-Takbai bridge.

Despite maps showing Sungai Golok as a clear border, life along the river reveals a different reality.

The 192-km river is not a rigid divide; it connects communities that interact fluidly, often ignoring official border protocols.

I saw families living on one side of the river whose children attended schools across the border. Locals crossed the river without passports, and authorities generally turned a blind eye.

As my friend Pok Heng explained, only Malaysians from distant states like Terengganu or Pahang carried passports —and even they avoided immigration checkpoints (by crossing the river) to prevent their travel document from being stamped with the words “Sungai Golok”.

Sungai Golok’s reputation as an “entertainment centre” attracted these visitors, but the stamp in the passport has a different connotation altogether.

While the Thai side remains bustling and lively, Kelantan is comparatively subdued, defined by its mosques and Buddhist wats, like Wat Pothivihan, home to Southeast Asia’s largest reclining Buddha statue, halfway between Geting and Pasir Mas.

A wasteful proposal

Spending RM445 million on a border wall along Sungai Golok would be an exercise in futility. It would be ineffective in addressing smuggling or border control and could disrupt local communities.

Such a significant sum could be far better utilised on projects that bring tangible benefits to the rakyat. Here are a few alternatives.

Upgrading the rail infrastructure

The existing single track rail line from Pasir Mas to Sungai Golok and onward to Haadyai remains operational, but neglected.

For RM445 million, the line could be double-tracked and extended to Wakaf Bharu (serving Kota Bharu) and Tumpat, creating a seamless commuter rail service with faster, more frequent journeys.

By collaborating with the State Railway of Thailand, a service similar to the electric train service, or ETS, could connect Kota Bharu and Haadyai, boosting tourism and trade.

Additionally, cross-border cargo trains would enhance logistical efficiency and reduce bureaucratic hurdles, fostering economic integration.

With the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) set to begin operations in 2026, linking Kelantan’s existing rail network to the ECRL hub at Tunjung (south of Kota Bharu) would maximise the region’s potential for trade and logistics businesses.

Multi-purpose dam

Building a dam in the upper reaches of Sungai Golok could serve multiple purposes:

• electricity generation would support the local population and industries;
• clean water supply would address Kelantan’s chronic water shortages;
• flood control works would mitigate seasonal flooding that frequently disrupts communities along the river.

Replace Kelantan’s ageing water infrastructure

Investing in new water pipes to replace the state’s old, corroded infrastructure would ensure clean, reliable, and uninterrupted water supply. This would directly improve the quality of life for Kelantan’s residents, addressing a longstanding issue.

A forward-thinking approach

Instead of a wall, Kelantan should embrace initiatives that encourage cross-border trade and the free movement of goods and people.

Improved rail connectivity, better infrastructure and collaborative projects with Thailand would yield far greater economic benefits.

By leveraging the ECRL and other logistical opportunities, Kelantan could transform itself into a gateway for regional trade, unlocking its potential as a dynamic economic hub.

Building a wall, however, would do the opposite. It would only isolate communities, squander resources, and do little to address the underlying challenges.

Let us hope the state government reconsiders this misguided proposal in favour of more visionary, inclusive development strategies for Kelantan. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

The author can be reached at: rosli@mdsconsultancy.com