I read with interest the recent debate between your readers on the desirability of having US forces patrol the Straits of Malacca.

The fears of a terrorist attack in this vital sea lane raised as a concern by the Americans cannot be dismissed as entirely imaginary and speculative.

We already live in very troubled times. In the wake of Sept 11 attacks, troubles soon came to this region for examples, the Bali bombings, the Marriot hotel bomb blasts in Jakarta and recently, clashes between Thai security forces and alleged terrorists/separatists in Thailand's southern area.

We also hear of alleged Malaysian connections to the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and al-Qaeda.

Consider this. Wouldn't an attack on the Straits of Malacca be ideal in meeting a terrorist's objectives of drama publicity besides a maximum infliction of devastation?

Each year, more than 50,000 ships ply the narrow sea lane connecting East and West carrying with them a quarter of the world's trade and more than half of its oil and liquefied gas. If terrorists were determined to wreck the world economy, it would be difficult to find a more ideal target than at its shallowest point that would stop all maritime traffic.

There are certainly precedents of maritime terrorism from which would-be terrorists might draw inspiration. Militants in Yemen blew a hole in an American warship, USS Cole, in 2000, and another in a French oil tanker, the Limburg, in 2002.

That the straits is relatively poorly monitored - especially north of Port Klang, where the sea lanes widen - is anecdotal judging from the traffic of illegal immigrants coming into this country undetected and the piracy said to be rife.

The admiral of Indonesian navy might inspire by exhorting his men to take the battle to the pirates and terrorists and to take no prisoners, but would this rhetoric work as a deterrent when the other side knows its navy is cash-strapped and has not more than a couple of patrol boats to monitor an archipelago of 17,000 islands?

Whilst the joint operations of the better-funded and equipped navies of the surrounding countries would help, they are however hampered by the vexed questions of territorial sovereignty pride and jurisdictional questions.

There have been three recent incidents that heighten concerns of security in the straits.

Firstly, an Indonesian registered chemical tanker in Indonesian waters was briefly hijacked last year. The hijackers took away the captain and first officer and practiced maneuvering the vessel for an hour (as if it were a rehearsal for a maritime attack) before abandoning it.

Then there was a theft of at least 10 tug boats in Indonesian waters over the past two years which could accumulate to a not insignificant armada against an oil tanker or even a holiday cruise ship.

The third, I understand, was an attempt by a group of men who would want to learn underwater diving techniques in a Malaysian diving school last year without wanting to learn how to decompress.

Which conjured suspicions in the minds of those who recollected the tactics of Sept 11 suicide bombers who would want to learn how to fly only - without knowing how to land the plane.

The Economist in its June 10th issue commented that: 'In 2001, American forces in Afghanistan found a video tracking the movements of naval vessels in the Straits of Malacca and showing plans to attack US Navy warships heading through the straits to the Middle East.

Foreboding or otherwise, these developments have raised considerable concerns. The issue of US warships patrolling the straits has been for the moment been shelved not only for reasons of territorial integrity and sovereign pride of the littoral states but for the unspoken truism that American intervention everywhere tends to inflame sentiments and may well aggravate the self- fulfilling of these prophecies of an apocalyptic attack.

It may be better for the Americans to cooperate with local authorities to work quietly behind the scenes by tracking, providing and exchanging intelligence.