Residents near Suvarnabhumi should be compensated

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has ordered that people living near Suvarnabhumi Airport be helped on humanitarian grounds despite a court previously ruling in favour of the Airports of Thailand.

The Transport Ministry told the Cabinet Tuesday about the Samut Prakan Court earlier ruling that the airport had been constructed according to the Air Navigation Act 1954 and that the residents knew about this and still took the risk. The court said the airport operation was not violating residents' rights, and therefore the AOT did not have to compensate them, the ministry said. Therefore AOT suspended the plan to compensate the residents for fear of going against the court ruling, the ministry said.

But Abhisit told the Cabinet that the AOT should help the affected residents on humanitarian grounds regardless of the court ruling.

-- The Nation 2009-11-11

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Sounds decent of him.

(Too bad it is tax money we are talking about. It is not for distribution as they see fit.)

Sounds decent of him.

(Too bad it is tax money we are talking about. It is not for distribution as they see fit.)

This is plain and stupid for a PM to make such a suggestion. Ever heard of dominos! The mind boggles how he ever received a bachelor degree.

Sounds decent of him.

(Too bad it is tax money we are talking about. It is not for distribution as they see fit.)

better to use for compensation than for the 100,000b palms in the airport (which cost everyone else 1,000-5,000b each) scam; the fertilizer scam, rubber tree scam, cheap housing scam, thailand elite scam, TAT unseen in Thailand scam, FTAs and cost to fly around the world to set them up scam, NPL bailouts via TAMC scam, trying to buy Liverpool scam, etc.

Bit of a blow to AOT, but then again that organisation was always being scammed to do stuff for the last mob, so to do something actually constructive is a nice change, even if not required by law.

to request that they take action is arguably reasonable given the excessive noise that people in the area who weren't familiar with legislation from 1954 might reasonably have expected would be controlled in a better manner.

Edited November 11, 200916 yr by steveromagnino

I'm not disputing that the money wouldn't be scammed/skimmed/wasted anyway, I know where I live.

But far to often governments think the state budget is their candy-bag to distribute from as they see fit when events occur.

If anyone is into politics, there is a small anecdote around one of those events in the mid 20th-century in the US... but I digress.