| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| "Catch 22" In Malacca Straits Over War Risk Rating |
| 2005-08-25 |
| SINGAPORE, Aug 25 (Bernama) -- When a London-based advisory body for insurers designated the Straits of Melaka as a high-risk area for war and terrorism, it was met with strong reactions from the shipping industry who said it plain and simple -- was a misconception and at best, a result of incomplete intelligence. Regional governments say they regret the categorisation and want it corrected... Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia had been steadfast in their stand that the security problem in the busy waterways was not as bad as it was made out to be. The war-risk zone listing of the area would result in the increase of transportation costs as shippers would need to pay more for insurance cover. But the advisory body who started it all -- the Lloyds' Joint War Committee (JWC) -- was equally adamant in its decision to include the Straits of Melaka as among the war risk zones equivalent to the rating given to Iraq... The JCW, which based its conclusion on a report prepared by Aegis Defence Services for global insurers, claimed that pirates in the Melaka Straits were using tactics and weapons similar to that of militants, making them indistinguishable from terrorists. But authorities in the three littoral states as well as the shipping industry, maintained that that there had been no connection between piracy and terrorism so far in the Straits of Melaka and Singapore... The Kuala Lumpur-based International Maritime Bureau Piracy Reporting Centre was reported recently as saying that piracy and armed robbery incidents in the Straits of Melaka were down to 37 cases last year from 75 cases in 2000. However the figure is about 40 so far this year... The three littoral governments had been getting their acts together. Coordinated patrol was launched a year ago and more measures are in the pipeline including having an information sharing centre in Singapore. Their armed forces are also working on a Malaysian proposal to have maritime air surveillance in the straits or what is better known as the "eye in the sky" air patrol. But for now an impasse seems to be developing between the shippers and the insurance underwriters. The onus now lies with the JCW to break the Catch 22 situation. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #4 See, its about money. Then if it is not dangerous, just travel without the rider for loss due to hostile acts. You make 'money' sound like it's a bad thing in international trade. The key word is 'shipper'. Not necessarily same as a 'shipping company'. Most shipments are financed or paid for by a letter of credit issued through a bank. The financier wants a guarantee of recovery of its funds if the cargo is lost or stolen. Hence insurance. If the cost of transport through the Straits becomes too high, the mode of transport may be changed (say, to air cargo), a new source found, or cargo is re-routed. More importantly, the nations in and around the Straits have a great desire and need to develop their economies. If the cost of shipping materials gets too high, their economies suffer. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-08-25 19:05 |
| #3 That's a hellavua Catch, the best of all. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-25 17:46 |
| #2 Lots of claims means rates go up. That's not the whole story. Insurance rates went up generally after 9-11, not because claims went up, but because there was a re-assessment of risk in most cases. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-25 16:20 |
| #1 When a London-based advisory body for insurers designated the Straits of Melaka as a high-risk area for war and terrorism, it was met with strong reactions from the shipping industry who said it plain and simple -- was a misconception and at best, a result of incomplete intelligence. NO, its based upon claims. That's how insurance companies operate. Lots of claims means rates go up. The war-risk zone listing of the area would result in the increase of transportation costs as shippers would need to pay more for insurance cover. See, its about money. Then if it is not dangerous, just travel without the rider for loss due to hostile acts. |
| Posted by: Elmemble Ulaitch5567 2005-08-25 10:43 |