Thailand Debates Costly Move to Relocate Capital from Bangkok

[Negita43]

Just another payday for "consultants" surely it's better to solve the issue in Bangkok (that costs money with less political noise)  than deal with the politics and enormous infrastructure costs of a move to Nakhon Ratchasima.

And finally, will the goverment workers want to move?

 

[Negita43]

Two videos 1 Nakhon Ratchasima 2. Bangkok - Take your pick for a soaking

 

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Before the CCP took control of China, there were a bunch of warlords fighting each other.

Is that good for any country? Or is it better to have one party and stability and peace within a country? 

Very bizarre example, tangential to the discussion - you seem to be somewhat in favour of  an authoritarian government?

[kwilco]

58 minutes ago, Negita43 said:

Two videos 1 Nakhon Ratchasima 2. Bangkok - Take your pick for a soaking

 

 

 

It is established fact that Bangkok is sinking, this is being use by the military as an excuse to consolidate their power. THere are mant alternative to simply moving the admin capital into a bullet-proof "castle". The people of Bangkok need a holistic approach which they are a part of.

[kwilco]

11 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

who's capital cities are slowly sinking?

you think that's the yardstick for moving a capital? - BTW Amsterdam is sinking.

[Negita43]

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

you think that's the yardstick for moving a capital? - BTW Amsterdam is sinking.

And Venice

[kwilco]

14 minutes ago, Negita43 said:

And Venice

so no relocation there, then.

[kwilco]

I think we can learn from history…new capitals  are often tools of authoritarian  regimes to centralise and consolidate their power.

 

New capitals are frequently employed by authoritarian regimes as tools of control. By moving away from politically engaged, historically significant urban centres, these governments aim to weaken opposition, reinforce regime legitimacy, and construct carefully controlled environments that reinforce their ideological goals. Whether through monumental architecture, geographic repositioning, or rigid urban planning, these capitals serve as physical manifestations of authoritarian power, insulating rulers from democratic movements and consolidating their grip over national affairs.

 

Throughout history, authoritarian regimes have used architecture and urban planning to consolidate control, project power, and suppress democratic movements. One example of this phenomenon is the construction of new capital cities— strategically planned urban centres  - not organically grwn cities for people and commerce, they are designed by single entities or cabals to centralize authority, symbolize regime strength, and minimize dissent.

 

There is plent of historical Precedent for this….

e.g. - Stalin, Hitler, and Fascist Urbanism which has been taken uo subsequently by many authoritarian and militaristic regimes – Rome under Mussolini and Paris under Haussmann.

Totalitarian leaders like Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler envisioned grand architectural projects that symbolized their regimes' power and ideological dominance. Both sought to transform Moscow and Berlin into monumental capital cities, reinforcing their rule through urban landscapes meant to inspire awe and submission. Their plans included vast public squares, colossal structures, and rigidly controlled urban layouts that reflected the hierarchies of their regimes. While many of these designs remained unrealized, their impact on contemporary urban development remains evident.

Thai Prime Minister during the Second World War, Plaek Phibunsongkhram, was inspired by Benito Mussolini. - Phibun's resignation was brought about in part at least by his two grandiose plans: one was to relocate the capital from Bangkok to a remote site in the jungle near Phetchabun in north central Thailand, and another was to build a "Buddhist city" in Saraburi.

 

Similarly, in September 2019, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha proposed the idea of moving the capital to alleviate issues like overcrowding, pollution, and traffic congestion in Bangkok. He mentioned two potential approaches: relocating to a new city or moving administrative functions to the outskirts of Bangkok. This is a version of th old Thai fascist idea, thinly veiled in “environmental concerns. My guess the current proposal is to placate the military who still maintain a majority presence in Thai parliament.

The Military will love it!

 

Other examples of  Authoritarian governments relocating capitals… Nigeria:

Pakistan: Karachi to Islamabad (1959)

Brazil: Rio de Janeiro to Brasília (1960)

Lagos to Abuja (1991)

Kazakhstan: Almaty to Astana (1997)

Indonesia: Jakarta to Nusantara

Myanmar: Yangon to Naypyidaw (2005)

[GammaGlobulin]

Not in my back yard, please.

 

[kwilco]

16 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

This is not like in Myanmar as the problem is that Bangkok is sinking, while the sea level is rising... and if you are right, then look at the US that have had 9 cities serve as capitals...

I'm afraid it is - sinking is just an excuse - plenty of other solutions to a sinking city - at best it's rats leaving a sinking ship.

[Negita43]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

I'm afraid it is - sinking is just an excuse - plenty of other solutions to a sinking city - at best it's rats leaving a sinking ship.

Rather I suspect rats trying to make a killing