SHAH ALAM - A short-lived proposal by Indonesia to impose a levy on ships passing through the Strait of Malacca has triggered wider debate over international law, sovereignty and the future of one of the world’s busiest maritime trade routes.
Although the idea was quickly withdrawn, analysts said it has exposed deeper tensions around how strategic waterways are governed, particularly when compared with similar discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.
Maritime Policy and Management expert Dr Izyan Munirah Mohd Zaideen explained that the legal framework governing the Strait of Malacca left little room for such a move.
“A transit toll is a charge for merely passing through, while maritime service charges are for optional services. This is the legal line that cannot be crossed.
“So, any forced levy carries high risk as it could trigger legal and diplomatic conflicts,” she said to Sinar.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, vessels were guaranteed the right of transit passage through international straits, meaning they could not be charged simply for passing through unless specific services were provided.
The sensitivity of the issue was quickly reflected in regional responses.
Singapore’s Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan stressed that shipping routes through the Strait of Malacca and the Singapore Strait must remain open and unobstructed, effectively rejecting any form of transit toll.
Malaysia has also maintained that any decision involving the strait must be made collectively with Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand, reinforcing that no single country can act unilaterally.
From a geopolitical standpoint, experts saw the proposal as an attempt to test boundaries, but one that ultimately ran into strict legal constraints.
Senior lecturer of the Strategic and International Relations Programme at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Dr Aizat Khairi said global sentiment was unlikely to support such measures.
“The International Maritime Organisation has described the toll idea in Hormuz as a dangerous precedent, signalling that global reaction to a similar proposal in the Strait of Malacca would likely be negative.
“Any attempt to impose levies would first raise trade costs before cascading into broader economic effects. The Strait of Malacca carries approximately 23.2 million barrels of oil per day and 9.2 bcf/day of LNG.
“The impact is not only on consumer goods containers, but also industrial inputs, imported food and energy supply chains. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to importers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers,” he said.
With more than a quarter of global trade passing through the strait, even minor cost disruptions could have far-reaching consequences, including higher import prices and inflationary pressure.
Rather than imposing unilateral charges, experts argued Malaysia should pursue a balanced approach that protects free passage while seeking shared contributions for safety, environmental protection and traffic management.
“As a comparison, transit charges in the Suez Canal and Panama Canal can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars per vessel.
“If the Strait of Malacca were to impose a levy of around RM50,000 per vessel with an estimated 90,000 ships annually, gross revenue could reach RM4.5 billion.
“However, the main issue is not the amount, but legal validity, industry opposition and precedent effects on global trade,” he explained.
The debate highlights a larger reality in global trade governance, where strategic routes are no longer just passages for goods, but contested spaces shaped by law, economics and geopolitics.