Land Encroachers Blamed For Horrific Landslide In Thai South

[gbswales]

One only has to walk around the streets of Bangkok to see that very little goes on in the way of enforcement when it comes to land or buildings - if they cant keep it under control in the nations capital what chance for the provinces.

[whybother]

If the laws are there, isn't it a problem of the police not doing their jobs. What can a government do once they have made appropriate laws?

If it is because of the police not doing their job, then it is the job of a government to sort this out. As we all know, in Thailand, this is easier said than done.

[geriatrickid]

If the laws are there, isn't it a problem of the police not doing their jobs. What can a government do once they have made appropriate laws?

If it is because of the police not doing their job, then it is the job of a government to sort this out. As we all know, in Thailand, this is easier said than done.

The police aren't the ones responsible. Legal action is launched through the national Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment. If the Minister does not give the approval to lay charges, then no charges will be laid. That's why I say the minister and his boss the PM have to take responsibility for the non enforcement.

[Deeral]

Development all over Thailand has gone unchecked - the only restrictions are in the realms of corruption and graft.

It is only a matter of time before a tourist resort is swallowed up by a landslide resulting from this kind of unregulated development.the islands are particularly at risk.

[Deeral]

ALL Thai governments in recent political history can be held responsible for 'loose law enforcement" particularly relating to the poor (non) regulation enforcement of plantation developments in the affected areas. It should be noted that many of these such plantations lie (illegaly) on forestry land and it should be a high priority of the next government to deal with these illicit plantations and to punish the owners in the appropriate way.

Your absurd implication that "PM Abhisit's government has allowed 40 people to die" is preposterous and totally out of order!!! A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. They hit, without first announcing themselves to an unsuspecting world.

It could be argued that unlike earthquakes (and associated tsunami's) the weather can at least be predicted fairly accurately several days in advance - but even so, please can you enlighten me just as to what the government is supposed to do to prevent or limit the resultant devastation of a week's continuous, torrential rain???? I expect that you're answer to this question will be a big fat categorical No!!!

Let's look at your statement(s);

ALL Thai governments in recent political history can be held responsible for 'loose law enforcement" particularly relating to the poor (non) regulation enforcement of plantation developments in the affected areas.

Not really. The national policy was set in 1962 and Thailand did a decent job in the first decade of enforcing the policy compared to its regional neighbours. Don't assume that it has always been like this. However, does dereliction of duty in the past excuse the current government's failure to have acted? There were reports after reports made. Are you now saying that the minister responsible for the forests was oblivious to these reports? Is your explanation for allowing the illegal land development that it was an acceptable activity because it happened before? In previous years, it was acceptable to beat one's wife. Today, we do not allow such activity.

It should be noted that many of these such plantations lie (illegaly) on forestry land and it should be a high priority of the next government to deal with these illicit plantations and to punish the owners in the appropriate way.

Ok, but why couldn't the current government have acted?

Your absurd implication that "PM Abhisit's government has allowed 40 people to die" is preposterous and totally out of order!!! A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. They hit, without first announcing themselves to an unsuspecting world.

It could be argued that unlike earthquakes (and associated tsunami's) the weather can at least be predicted fairly accurately several days in advance - but even so, please can you enlighten me just as to what the government is supposed to do to prevent or limit the resultant devastation of a week's continuous, torrential rain???? I expect that you're answer to this question will be a big fat categorical No!!!

Fact: The natural vegetation was removed in an illegal manner.

Fact: The natural vegetation would have acted to retain the soil. The replacement vegetation did not have the same root structure or root density and weaving to hold the soil.

Fact: No enforcement activities were made to remove the illegal vegetation and to restore the natural habitat that would have mitigated the loss of life when the saturated land slid away.

You are dismissing the landslide as exclusively a natural disaster. It was not. The land gave way because of deforestation. The people that illegally removed the natural vegetation bear responsibility. The local government officials that did not enforce the law protecting national lands bear responsibility. The national government baers responsibility for not overseeing its officials and for not responding to the documented evidence of the activities. I direct your attention to the reports prsented by diverse groups such as;

- Plant Conservation and Protection Division; Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

- The WWF (I like the part in the report on the encroachment in Koh Nheuk that stated; "Government officials are accused of themselves encroaching on protected land. The signs along the road depicting the skull and crossbones do not warn of the presence of landmines as they are intended to, but have been posted by unscrupulous soldiers to deter settlers from taking land these officers have staked out for themselves" This section has been excerpted on its project website.

- The Thai based group promoting a restoration of mangroves.

There are many other reputable groups that warned of the possible catastrophes from forest encroachment, whether it be dangerous flooding in coastal areas or in landslides in the hills.What is absurd here is that the majority of responsible experts all warned of the dangers of encroachment. Yet, the government which had a mandate and a duty to enforce the law did not act on these reports. The baht stops somewhere, and ultimately it is at the desk of the man in charge. The minister for this portfolio is primarily responsible and his boss, the PM is responsible for the minister. Just because this is Thailand does not mean that officials cannot be held responsible for their failure to act. This is a tragedy that could have been mitigated had the minister(s) listened to the Thai ministry officials and experts. I don't care if past governments didn't do anything. The fact of the matter is that it is the Abhisit led government that was in charge for the past two years and should have enforced the laws in respect to national lands which come under the control of the national government.

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Deeral

[MaiChai]

Can I say: Thailand can learn from its mistakes? Personally I don't think so.

Thailand is a country where capitalism and money overrides everything else. I didn't say this; it was stated on TAN TV today. It was a very interesting observation by one of the Thais stating it. They were making a comparison between controlled and well planned development of the beachside in Vietnam against what has happened in Thailand. The speaker (forget his name) stated that capitalism was the main motivation for everything in Thailand (but in this instance giving the environment as an example), and that the only way to change this mindset was to educate the children at school so that when they grow up they think differently from their parents (taking environment and other issues into consideration). Its very much in the Thai mindset that capitalism and making money must override all other considerations, and you see this in daily life. Notice: development/tourism is always about local economic enhancement not developing areas for recreation and enjoyment.

Maybe Thailand is waiting for a socialist revolution that will pull back the far right swing from capitalism?

Edited April 4, 2011 by MaiChai

[SICHONSTEVE]

Indeed, those lowland farmers should know to move their villages once the plantation guys illegally strip the forest. Whats wrong with them, eh?

Whats wrong with YOU more pertinently??? Yeh, simple, just like that!! just uproot the whole village and move to ...........well, somewhere - where exactly do you suggest they go and who is going to provide them with the money to do this??? Wouldn't it just be fairer and easier to thwart the illegal acts of the greedy, unlicensed plantation owners (fine them heavily in the process) and stop them from carrying out this irresponsible trade that is making the land unstable by tearing up their trees (like they do in the illegal opium poppy fields in Afghanistan and Lebanon for example) where they spray the plants with defoliants or pull them from the ground.

If they HAVE obtained permission to grow palm or rubber tree's in areas that are not now deemed safe or suitable then compensate them and uproot their trees so as to return the land back to what it was before (how mother nature intended).

People like you really irk me when they adopt stupidly simplistic ideas that are unfeasible and blame those that have been wronged and not those that have wronged (both the illegal tree planters and those government officials that so misguidedly gave them permission to grow their trees where they shouldn't have been allowed to) for a nice little back hander, no doubt!!!

Another thing, who would you imagine out of the villagers and 'plantation guys' as you put it, were THERE FIRST!!! Do you think that the villagers encroached on the 'plantation guys' land and plantations????

I think if you read sbk's post again you will see that it was cynical - he was not actually suggesting that as a solution!!

YES I know, if you had read the other posts then you would realise that this has been pointed out to me by several posters and I realise this now being the case!!!

[SICHONSTEVE]

ALL Thai governments in recent political history can be held responsible for 'loose law enforcement" particularly relating to the poor (non) regulation enforcement of plantation developments in the affected areas. It should be noted that many of these such plantations lie (illegaly) on forestry land and it should be a high priority of the next government to deal with these illicit plantations and to punish the owners in the appropriate way.

Your absurd implication that "PM Abhisit's government has allowed 40 people to die" is preposterous and totally out of order!!! A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. They hit, without first announcing themselves to an unsuspecting world.

It could be argued that unlike earthquakes (and associated tsunami's) the weather can at least be predicted fairly accurately several days in advance - but even so, please can you enlighten me just as to what the government is supposed to do to prevent or limit the resultant devastation of a week's continuous, torrential rain???? I expect that you're answer to this question will be a big fat categorical No!!!

Let's look at your statement(s);

ALL Thai governments in recent political history can be held responsible for 'loose law enforcement" particularly relating to the poor (non) regulation enforcement of plantation developments in the affected areas.

Not really. The national policy was set in 1962 and Thailand did a decent job in the first decade of enforcing the policy compared to its regional neighbours. Don't assume that it has always been like this. However, does dereliction of duty in the past excuse the current government's failure to have acted? There were reports after reports made. Are you now saying that the minister responsible for the forests was oblivious to these reports? Is your explanation for allowing the illegal land development that it was an acceptable activity because it happened before? In previous years, it was acceptable to beat one's wife. Today, we do not allow such activity.

It should be noted that many of these such plantations lie (illegaly) on forestry land and it should be a high priority of the next government to deal with these illicit plantations and to punish the owners in the appropriate way.

Ok, but why couldn't the current government have acted?

Your absurd implication that "PM Abhisit's government has allowed 40 people to die" is preposterous and totally out of order!!! A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. They hit, without first announcing themselves to an unsuspecting world.

It could be argued that unlike earthquakes (and associated tsunami's) the weather can at least be predicted fairly accurately several days in advance - but even so, please can you enlighten me just as to what the government is supposed to do to prevent or limit the resultant devastation of a week's continuous, torrential rain???? I expect that you're answer to this question will be a big fat categorical No!!!

Fact: The natural vegetation was removed in an illegal manner.

Fact: The natural vegetation would have acted to retain the soil. The replacement vegetation did not have the same root structure or root density and weaving to hold the soil.

Fact: No enforcement activities were made to remove the illegal vegetation and to restore the natural habitat that would have mitigated the loss of life when the saturated land slid away.

You are dismissing the landslide as exclusively a natural disaster. It was not. The land gave way because of deforestation. The people that illegally removed the natural vegetation bear responsibility. The local government officials that did not enforce the law protecting national lands bear responsibility. The national government baers responsibility for not overseeing its officials and for not responding to the documented evidence of the activities. I direct your attention to the reports prsented by diverse groups such as;

- Plant Conservation and Protection Division; Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

- The WWF (I like the part in the report on the encroachment in Koh Nheuk that stated; "Government officials are accused of themselves encroaching on protected land. The signs along the road depicting the skull and crossbones do not warn of the presence of landmines as they are intended to, but have been posted by unscrupulous soldiers to deter settlers from taking land these officers have staked out for themselves" This section has been excerpted on its project website.

- The Thai based group promoting a restoration of mangroves.

There are many other reputable groups that warned of the possible catastrophes from forest encroachment, whether it be dangerous flooding in coastal areas or in landslides in the hills.What is absurd here is that the majority of responsible experts all warned of the dangers of encroachment. Yet, the government which had a mandate and a duty to enforce the law did not act on these reports. The baht stops somewhere, and ultimately it is at the desk of the man in charge. The minister for this portfolio is primarily responsible and his boss, the PM is responsible for the minister. Just because this is Thailand does not mean that officials cannot be held responsible for their failure to act. This is a tragedy that could have been mitigated had the minister(s) listened to the Thai ministry officials and experts. I don't care if past governments didn't do anything. The fact of the matter is that it is the Abhisit led government that was in charge for the past two years and should have enforced the laws in respect to national lands which come under the control of the national government.

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Sorry!!! Completely confused by your statement -don't know what you are trying to say!! As it means nothing to me you might as well not bothered posting this gobbledygook!!!

[Deeral]

ALL Thai governments in recent political history can be held responsible for 'loose law enforcement" particularly relating to the poor (non) regulation enforcement of plantation developments in the affected areas. It should be noted that many of these such plantations lie (illegaly) on forestry land and it should be a high priority of the next government to deal with these illicit plantations and to punish the owners in the appropriate way.

Your absurd implication that "PM Abhisit's government has allowed 40 people to die" is preposterous and totally out of order!!! A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. They hit, without first announcing themselves to an unsuspecting world.

It could be argued that unlike earthquakes (and associated tsunami's) the weather can at least be predicted fairly accurately several days in advance - but even so, please can you enlighten me just as to what the government is supposed to do to prevent or limit the resultant devastation of a week's continuous, torrential rain???? I expect that you're answer to this question will be a big fat categorical No!!!

Let's look at your statement(s);

ALL Thai governments in recent political history can be held responsible for 'loose law enforcement" particularly relating to the poor (non) regulation enforcement of plantation developments in the affected areas.

Not really. The national policy was set in 1962 and Thailand did a decent job in the first decade of enforcing the policy compared to its regional neighbours. Don't assume that it has always been like this. However, does dereliction of duty in the past excuse the current government's failure to have acted? There were reports after reports made. Are you now saying that the minister responsible for the forests was oblivious to these reports? Is your explanation for allowing the illegal land development that it was an acceptable activity because it happened before? In previous years, it was acceptable to beat one's wife. Today, we do not allow such activity.

It should be noted that many of these such plantations lie (illegaly) on forestry land and it should be a high priority of the next government to deal with these illicit plantations and to punish the owners in the appropriate way.

Ok, but why couldn't the current government have acted?

Your absurd implication that "PM Abhisit's government has allowed 40 people to die" is preposterous and totally out of order!!! A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. They hit, without first announcing themselves to an unsuspecting world.

It could be argued that unlike earthquakes (and associated tsunami's) the weather can at least be predicted fairly accurately several days in advance - but even so, please can you enlighten me just as to what the government is supposed to do to prevent or limit the resultant devastation of a week's continuous, torrential rain???? I expect that you're answer to this question will be a big fat categorical No!!!

Fact: The natural vegetation was removed in an illegal manner.

Fact: The natural vegetation would have acted to retain the soil. The replacement vegetation did not have the same root structure or root density and weaving to hold the soil.

Fact: No enforcement activities were made to remove the illegal vegetation and to restore the natural habitat that would have mitigated the loss of life when the saturated land slid away.

You are dismissing the landslide as exclusively a natural disaster. It was not. The land gave way because of deforestation. The people that illegally removed the natural vegetation bear responsibility. The local government officials that did not enforce the law protecting national lands bear responsibility. The national government baers responsibility for not overseeing its officials and for not responding to the documented evidence of the activities. I direct your attention to the reports prsented by diverse groups such as;

- Plant Conservation and Protection Division; Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

- The WWF (I like the part in the report on the encroachment in Koh Nheuk that stated; "Government officials are accused of themselves encroaching on protected land. The signs along the road depicting the skull and crossbones do not warn of the presence of landmines as they are intended to, but have been posted by unscrupulous soldiers to deter settlers from taking land these officers have staked out for themselves" This section has been excerpted on its project website.

- The Thai based group promoting a restoration of mangroves.

There are many other reputable groups that warned of the possible catastrophes from forest encroachment, whether it be dangerous flooding in coastal areas or in landslides in the hills.What is absurd here is that the majority of responsible experts all warned of the dangers of encroachment. Yet, the government which had a mandate and a duty to enforce the law did not act on these reports. The baht stops somewhere, and ultimately it is at the desk of the man in charge. The minister for this portfolio is primarily responsible and his boss, the PM is responsible for the minister. Just because this is Thailand does not mean that officials cannot be held responsible for their failure to act. This is a tragedy that could have been mitigated had the minister(s) listened to the Thai ministry officials and experts. I don't care if past governments didn't do anything. The fact of the matter is that it is the Abhisit led government that was in charge for the past two years and should have enforced the laws in respect to national lands which come under the control of the national government.

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Sorry!!! Completely confused by your statement -don't know what you are trying to say!! As it means nothing to me you might as well not bothered posting this gobbledygook!!!

that doesn't surprise me at all!

[geriatrickid]

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Sorry!!! Completely confused by your statement -don't know what you are trying to say!! As it means nothing to me you might as well not bothered posting this gobbledygook!!!

Sichonsteve, the entire premise of your position was that the landslide was a "natural disaster". The landslide occurred in large part if not entirely because of deforestation. The deforestation was due to illegal plantations and removal of natural plant species.. The failure to remove the illegal plantations and to rehabilitate the area was a government dereliction of duty. This therefore makes the tragedy MANMADE, and not not a natural catastrophe. There was nothing natural about it. It is your original post that is gobbledygook because you have ignored the circumstances of the landslide and taken the easy way out that avoids anyone being held responsible. In this case, the protection of national lands comes under the national government of PM Abhisit.

There, do you get it now, or do you need little diagrams showing you the difference between root density and weaving of various plant forms and their impact upon soil erosion and retention?

[dumball]

Why do long posts get put into skinny columns in the centre of the page ? It takes forever to scroll down through all of the regurgitation to get to a two line comment , what a waste of posters time and effort .

I know , I know , go somewhere else is the normal retort on TV these days , sad lot .

[scotbeve]

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Sorry!!! Completely confused by your statement -don't know what you are trying to say!! As it means nothing to me you might as well not bothered posting this gobbledygook!!!

Sichonsteve, the entire premise of your position was that the landslide was a "natural disaster". The landslide occurred in large part if not entirely because of deforestation. The deforestation was due to illegal plantations and removal of natural plant species.. The failure to remove the illegal plantations and to rehabilitate the area was a government dereliction of duty. This therefore makes the tragedy MANMADE, and not not a natural catastrophe. There was nothing natural about it. It is your original post that is gobbledygook because you have ignored the circumstances of the landslide and taken the easy way out that avoids anyone being held responsible. In this case, the protection of national lands comes under the national government of PM Abhisit.

There, do you get it now, or do you need little diagrams showing you the difference between root density and weaving of various plant forms and their impact upon soil erosion and retention?

[featography]

"landslide that killed ... causing the horrific landslide that killed ... prevent landslides ... slow down flashfloods ... counted over 60 landslides ... had caused landslides and flashfloods ... areas that were damaged by flashfloods and landslides after the floodwaters recede ... Most landslides had occurred ... factors behind the landslides ... damaged during flashfloods ... high risk for landslides ... the main causes of landslides ... the flashfloods and landslides in the southern provinces ... Most of the mudslides had occurred ... the ground to prevent landslides and flashfloods ... said the landslides ... said severe landslides... recorded over 30 landslides and eight flashfloods"

it's possible to write a long article with just a few words, just by repeating them in different combinations. Good journalism.

It is due to the Nation's shortage of copy editors. Some online stuff even goes up untouched. As a former Nation editor, I can assure you that this is how many pieces look when the foreign copy-eds first get hold of them, before cutting them down to half their original length (which can really upset the writers). The Thai writing style works in spirals, ideally ever decreasing ones, but usually not. It is a tricky thing to manage. In the right hands, this diplomatic style can say a lot without seeming to say anything in particular - there have been some annual speeches in Thailand that are excellent examples - though it still doesn't work in English where we just bluntly get to the point. Among other things, this orbital approach enables (though not in the above example) criticising a person without falling afoul of the libel laws. Just say the same thing with slight variations over and over until the reader sees where the finger is pointing.

Apparently the online Thai/English dictionary/translation programs follow this spiraly style work too. Its absolutely amazing to see the end results of students English reports done in the Wife's internet cafe. Occasionally they will ask me to check their reports. Pure unadulterated jiberish.

[scotbeve]

And now for the news in specsion Engerish....

[Deeral]

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Sorry!!! Completely confused by your statement -don't know what you are trying to say!! As it means nothing to me you might as well not bothered posting this gobbledygook!!!

Sichonsteve, the entire premise of your position was that the landslide was a "natural disaster". The landslide occurred in large part if not entirely because of deforestation. The deforestation was due to illegal plantations and removal of natural plant species.. The failure to remove the illegal plantations and to rehabilitate the area was a government dereliction of duty. This therefore makes the tragedy MANMADE, and not not a natural catastrophe. There was nothing natural about it. It is your original post that is gobbledygook because you have ignored the circumstances of the landslide and taken the easy way out that avoids anyone being held responsible. In this case, the protection of national lands comes under the national government of PM Abhisit.

There, do you get it now, or do you need little diagrams showing you the difference between root density and weaving of various plant forms and their impact upon soil erosion and retention?

Hear! Hear! but I think you're wasting you time on that one.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Sorry!!! Completely confused by your statement -don't know what you are trying to say!! As it means nothing to me you might as well not bothered posting this gobbledygook!!!

Sichonsteve, the entire premise of your position was that the landslide was a "natural disaster". The landslide occurred in large part if not entirely because of deforestation. The deforestation was due to illegal plantations and removal of natural plant species.. The failure to remove the illegal plantations and to rehabilitate the area was a government dereliction of duty. This therefore makes the tragedy MANMADE, and not not a natural catastrophe. There was nothing natural about it. It is your original post that is gobbledygook because you have ignored the circumstances of the landslide and taken the easy way out that avoids anyone being held responsible. In this case, the protection of national lands comes under the national government of PM Abhisit.

There, do you get it now, or do you need little diagrams showing you the difference between root density and weaving of various plant forms and their impact upon soil erosion and retention?

No!! I don't need diagrams to show me as I was a scientist until I retired after 31 years and can probably explain it to you, better than you can to me.

Of course I understand and realise that in areas that have had deforestation (legal or illegal) are more vulnerable to landslides after heavy rainfall due to the absence of binding taproots to cement the soil together and hold it on place. I'm not stupid.

What I'm disputing mainly is the accountability question whereby some people are wrongly apportioning blame to Abhisit and his government with the outrageous claims in some postings going as far as actually blaming him for ALL deaths from the flooding and landslides.

How many of the plantations have replaced natural vegetation in the affected areas in the past 2 years that Abhisit has been prime minister????? This was not done "on his guard" was it!!! so why all of a sudden is he to blame when this occurred decades ago. Please answer me that!!

On this aspect, would you agree that all of the landslides originated from the top of, or at a point a partial way down the mountain???? I asume that youconcur with this as it is fairly obvious really if you think about it for a milli-second. A second question - how many plantation owners have planted their palm and rubber trees at the top or on the side of steep mountains rather than on flat plains and at the foot of mountains!!! None I suspect. If so, I cannot see why there is a problem created by the plantation owners. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to how it can be the case that trees planted so far away (several hundred metres) from where the landslides emanated from can be responsible!!!! I am waiting with interest for your answers!!!

The more I think about it the more it doesn't make sense at all. Have the plantation owners climbed mountains to remove the vegetation from the tops and on the sides of the mountains and then come down and physically taken their trees to the top to plant them???? I'm beginning to think this is one big red herring that has duped a lot of people and its up to others to dissuade me otherwise!! Over to YOU!!!!!

[Deeral]

Sichon - "A natural disaster is just that, with the devasting consequences it brings with it. " - well if that is your premise you might as well have not bothered posting.

Sorry!!! Completely confused by your statement -don't know what you are trying to say!! As it means nothing to me you might as well not bothered posting this gobbledygook!!!

Sichonsteve, the entire premise of your position was that the landslide was a "natural disaster". The landslide occurred in large part if not entirely because of deforestation. The deforestation was due to illegal plantations and removal of natural plant species.. The failure to remove the illegal plantations and to rehabilitate the area was a government dereliction of duty. This therefore makes the tragedy MANMADE, and not not a natural catastrophe. There was nothing natural about it. It is your original post that is gobbledygook because you have ignored the circumstances of the landslide and taken the easy way out that avoids anyone being held responsible. In this case, the protection of national lands comes under the national government of PM Abhisit.

There, do you get it now, or do you need little diagrams showing you the difference between root density and weaving of various plant forms and their impact upon soil erosion and retention?

No!! I don't need diagrams to show me as I was a scientist until I retired after 31 years and can probably explain it to you, better than you can to me.

Of course I understand and realise that in areas that have had deforestation (legal or illegal) are more vulnerable to landslides after heavy rainfall due to the absence of binding taproots to cement the soil together and hold it on place. I'm not stupid.

What I'm disputing mainly is the accountability question whereby some people are wrongly apportioning blame to Abhisit and his government with the outrageous claims in some postings going as far as actually blaming him for ALL deaths from the flooding and landslides.

How many of the plantations have replaced natural vegetation in the affected areas in the past 2 years that Abhisit has been prime minister????? This was not done "on his guard" was it!!! so why all of a sudden is he to blame when this occurred decades ago. Please answer me that!!

On this aspect, would you agree that all of the landslides originated from the top of, or at a point a partial way down the mountain???? I asume that youconcur with this as it is fairly obvious really if you think about it for a milli-second. A second question - how many plantation owners have planted their palm and rubber trees at the top or on the side of steep mountains rather than on flat plains and at the foot of mountains!!! None I suspect. If so, I cannot see why there is a problem created by the plantation owners. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to how it can be the case that trees planted so far away (several hundred metres) from where the landslides emanated from can be responsible!!!! I am waiting with interest for your answers!!!

The more I think about it the more it doesn't make sense at all. Have the plantation owners climbed mountains to remove the vegetation from the tops and on the sides of the mountains and then come down and physically taken their trees to the top to plant them???? I'm beginning to think this is one big red herring that has duped a lot of people and its up to others to dissuade me otherwise!! Over to YOU!!!!!

"as I was a scientist" - I wonder what kind of scientist says "I am a scientist"?

Clearly not a land scientist, agricultural scientist, ecologist or Earth scientist though.

[SICHONSTEVE]

I do not lay claim to be any of these - do you??? I think that you will find that the scientific field encompassing this subject lies primarily in geomorphology.

I want you to consider the following facts NB: Most have been sourced from Scientific Research Papers with a couple of them my own personal deliberations as to what I consider to be self evident and plausible points.

1). The Khao Luang mountain range contains manyl high mountain peaks with the highest being 1835 m high.

2). Typical topological studies show that the soil in this range is granite upon loose soil which predominates at (or near) the mountain peaks, when this soil becomes saturated it can result in a major landslide.

3). Areas with appreciable slopes on the mountain are most at risk of this form of landslide scenario.

4). high mountains tend to have the steepest slopes.

5). Soil stability is compromised when plantations are growing in the vicinity of a mountain peak - but importantly, this is accepted as being limited only to those peaks under 1.000 metres in height with the probability of soil instability caused landslides diminishing appreciably as the height approaches this level.

6). A majority of the affected peaks in this range exceed this height comfortably.

7). The weather leading to the recent floods mirrors (almost exactly) the disaster in 1988 which killed 373 people ie: 6 days of continuous and torrential rainfall.

8). If you study the pictures of where landslides occurred or actually visited some of the sites to see for yourself (of which I HAVE DONE) then it is apparent that nearly all land slips emanated from at (or near) the top of the mountain where the saturated granite/loose soil combination provides the point of structural weakness that sets off the landslide.

9). The surface of the resultant debris in some of the 1988 landslides were littered with palm trees and pre-cut timber. These trees must have been planted on the lower reaches, or at the foot of the mountain for them to remain visible, as such. Footnote - I read in some article that someone was citing the fact that the cause of the landslides was from the planting of palm trees on the steep slopes of the mountain - have you ever seen palm trees sticking out of the side of a mountain???? Pictures please, if you have them. It just shows you how inventive people can become in situations such as natural disasters. Yes, that's right - a natural disaster (stemming from an 'act of god').

This is an extract from a scientific research paper (published by several geomorphologists, no doubt) and I quote:

"Extremely intense rainfall of November 1988 in Southern Thailand triggered the worst natural disaster of the country. Widespread slope failures took place in the mountainous and hilly areas in the region that was previously considered to have low risk of landslides. Most slope failures occurred in the vicinity of the steep granitic Khao Luang Mountains where several villages along their rims were almost wiped out by catastrophic debris flows."

As a fellow scientist - who do you believe knows and understands more about the situation

A). A politician who has been told - OK, you can be in charge of the Land and Forestry office (or whatever they call it) - starting tomorrow.

B ). Several scientists with the remit to carry out a detailed study on the geomorphology (there's that word again) of the mountain topology and the causural affect of landslides after sudden and severe rainfall.

Feel free to counter my submissions and derived conclusions from these scientific paper sources (Deeral et al).

On to my second point of contention. Namely, that it is outrageous and wrong to blame Abhisit and his government for the resultant deaths from the recent 'natural disaster'.

Consider this:

Just how many plantations do you think have been planted in the 2 years since Abhisit took the helm of government??

Lets analyse what he could have done 'in the perfect world'.

Right, Abhisit becomes prime minister. On the day he took control of the government he already harboured thoughts of what he could do should to potentially minimise the impacts of an unseasonable deluge of rain in March 2011 (reputedly the hottest month in the DRY season) should there be one - how ludicrous is that!!! OK. it is so unlikely that I haven't a clue why I'm thinking about it - but still, you never know, do you?? Lets be proactive about this. I'll tell the newly appointed minister (haven't had the opportunity to tell him yet) responsible for such matters to get straight down there with a massive team of 'tree pullers' with specialist equipment to pull up those darned para-rubber trees and replant vegetation akin to that, that adorned the mountain sides previously.

Zoom forward 2 years........ My prophecy of doom, however unlikely it seemed at the time has proved true. I realise that those small trees and bushes haven't had much time to develop but why, oh why, have the severe rains proved to be so disastrous when I tried my damned hardest to return the mountainside back to how 'mother nature' intended them. Perhaps I should have had a chat with those science fellers as to the REAL reasons for landslides in this area as they might have given me an insight as to why the mountains came a tumbling down.

A much higher proportion of people died from the flood-related aspects than from succumbing to landslides - I suppose all that rain that fell with nowhere to go is also Abhisit (and his government's) fault as well!!!

Hold your head's in shame and THINK before you write such slanderous accusations accusing wrongly and unfairly (so) someone who is completely innocent of causing these people's deaths in this NATURAL DISASTER.

What's wrong!!! has you're train been Deeraled!!!

Come on Deeral - you can do better than your last cheap posting - it took you 4 attempts and you still got it wrong!!! I will tell you one last

time - geomorphologist - got it???!!!!

Edited April 6, 2011 by sbk

[sbk]

"as I was a scientist" - I wonder what kind of scientist says "I am a scientist"?

Clearly not a land scientist, agricultural scientist, ecologist or Earth scientist though.

Let me make a very strong recommendation that that baiting and antagonistic posts cease immediately, If you have no retort except to get personal then I highly recommend that you do not post at all.

[SICHONSTEVE]

"as I was a scientist" - I wonder what kind of scientist says "I am a scientist"?

Clearly not a land scientist, agricultural scientist, ecologist or Earth scientist though.

Let me make a very strong recommendation that that baiting and antagonistic posts cease immediately, If you have no retort except to get personal then I highly recommend that you do not post at all.

It's OK. SBK - I can take and handle it!!!!

Thanks for your concern but it's "water off a ducks back" to me.

[geriatrickid]

The argument that the landslides occurred because of the natural soil structure combined with the heavy rainfall is false and is not substantiated by the studies done on past catastrophic events in the same area. These studies which I reference below show that heavier rains have fallen in the past, but the presence of natural vegetation controlled the impact of the landslides and the damage.

It is wonderful to cite academic studies in a forum post, but in the absence of an actual citation, i.e. date of publication and authors etc., such a citation is unacceptable. I note that the source(s) are not given in one post. I cannot believe that anyone with a background in science would cite without giving the source. I am sorry, but it is wrong and it is not unreasonable to express concern and to discard the claim(s)

In respect to the post alleging that the landslide in Khao Luang was a "natural disaster" attributable to the steep slopes and the granite regolith structure (note how I use the correct geological reference) a quick review of the history of the region shows that there were multiple severe rainfalls recorded from the early 1950's to the 1980's. The last major storm that resulted in historical catastrophic consequences was in November 1988. Several studies were undertaken to determine how the storm of 1988 could cause damage so severe when the water received in previous storms was much greater, and there were no catastrophic events. All of the studies identified the determining factor to have been manmade changes to the vegetation.

There is the pivotal study by Jerome De Graff in 1989 . (DeGraff is one of the world's foremost experts in this type of event and was a renowned scientist with the USDA. (This is the man that wrote the book on soil geology and landslides as they say.) A quick review of the literature on the subject shows almost all of the Thai soil engineers citing DeGraff in their studies.

The information is again cited and reviewed in the BULLETIN OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, Volume 48, Number 1, 93-100.As referenced in the above bulletin, the decision to ban logging and other deforestation activities was made by the government in 1988 following the investigations that showed the removal of natural vegetation was one of the principal factors in the landslides. The DeGraff review which was corroborated by the studies that followed showed that the removal of natural forest growth and its replacement by rubber, and fruit trees was the deciding factor as to why a heavy downpour of less severity than in previous years could have resulted in hundreds of deaths.

In scientific terms, the root morphology of rubber trees is not the same as natural forest tree root morphology. This is why the soil does not hold in a severe deluge. Rainforest vegetation has a significant impact upon landslide flows and will mitigate the resulting damage if and when there is a landslide. In plain language, because the natural trees are deeply rooted in the soil, they can stand and hold the debris. Palm and fruit tree cannot hold back debris and quickly topple over and are washed away.

This then brings us back to the issue of enforcement. The Thai national government had a policy in 1988 to protect the lands where the landslide occurred. The government officials from at least 2005 onwards do not show evidence of enforcement activities as these fruit and rubber plantations along with illegal logging activities flourished. The protection of national parks and protected lands is the responsibility of the national government. Whatever national government is in charge at the time of a catastrophic event arising because of manmade actions is responsible. The minister of natural resources is the person in charge and if he fails to do his job, then the person that put him there and did not supervise him, the PM is ultimately responsible.

I retain my position that responsibility for the disaster must be accepted by the senior minister(s) in charge. I take responsibility for the failures of my staff and I am held accountable for those failures since it happened on my watch. I expect no less than the same from current public officials.

Edited April 6, 2011 by geriatrickid

[SICHONSTEVE]

The argument that the landslides occurred because of the natural soil structure combined with the heavy rainfall is false and is not substantiated by the studies done on past catastrophic events in the same area. These studies which I reference below show that heavier rains have fallen in the past, but the presence of natural vegetation controlled the impact of the landslides and the damage.

It is wonderful to cite academic studies in a forum post, but in the absence of an actual citation, i.e. date of publication and authors etc., such a citation is unacceptable. I note that the source(s) are not given in one post. I cannot believe that anyone with a background in science would cite without giving the source. I am sorry, but it is wrong and it is not unreasonable to express concern and to discard the claim(s)

In respect to the post alleging that the landslide in Khao Luang was a "natural disaster" attributable to the steep slopes and the granite regolith structure (note how I use the correct geological reference) a quick review of the history of the region shows that there were multiple severe rainfalls recorded from the early 1950's to the 1980's. The last major storm that resulted in historical catastrophic consequences was in November 1988. Several studies were undertaken to determine how the storm of 1988 could cause damage so severe when the water received in previous storms was much greater, and there were no catastrophic events. All of the studies identified the determining factor to have been manmade changes to the vegetation.

There is the pivotal study by Jerome De Graff in 1989 . (DeGraff is one of the world's foremost experts in this type of event and was a renowned scientist with the USDA. (This is the man that wrote the book on soil geology and landslides as they say.) A quick review of the literature on the subject shows almost all of the Thai soil engineers citing DeGraff in their studies.

The information is again cited and reviewed in the BULLETIN OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, Volume 48, Number 1, 93-100.As referenced in the above bulletin, the decision to ban logging and other deforestation activities was made by the government in 1988 following the investigations that showed the removal of natural vegetation was one of the principal factors in the landslides. The DeGraff review which was corroborated by the studies that followed showed that the removal of natural forest growth and its replacement by rubber, and fruit trees was the deciding factor as to why a heavy downpour of less severity than in previous years could have resulted in hundreds of deaths.

In scientific terms, the root morphology of rubber trees is not the same as natural forest tree root morphology. This is why the soil does not hold in a severe deluge. Rainforest vegetation has a significant impact upon landslide flows and will mitigate the resulting damage if and when there is a landslide. In plain language, because the natural trees are deeply rooted in the soil, they can stand and hold the debris. Palm and fruit tree cannot hold back debris and quickly topple over and are washed away.

This then brings us back to the issue of enforcement. The Thai national government had a policy in 1988 to protect the lands where the landslide occurred. The government officials from at least 2005 onwards do not show evidence of enforcement activities as these fruit and rubber plantations along with illegal logging activities flourished. The protection of national parks and protected lands is the responsibility of the national government. Whatever national government is in charge at the time of a catastrophic event arising because of manmade actions is responsible. The minister of natural resources is the person in charge and if he fails to do his job, then the person that put him there and did not supervise him, the PM is ultimately responsible.

I retain my position that responsibility for the disaster must be accepted by the senior minister(s) in charge. I take responsibility for the failures of my staff and I am held accountable for those failures since it happened on my watch. I expect no less than the same from current public officials.

We will have to agree to disagree on the causaral reasons for the landslides as we are both entrenched in our own beliefs as to why they occurred. We are both simply going around in circles promoting our own theories and getting nowhere.

However, I cannot accept your position in respect of who is to blame for the deaths. Let me give an example:

A managing director embezzles his company out of a substantial amount of money nearly causing it to go bankrupt. They decide to replace him and bring in a new MD on account of the poor financial situation of the company. They soldier on for 1 year barely braking even and still in dire straits. They then decide to employ a well regarded accountant who discovers in no time that the previous Md had stolen a large amount of money which had created the liquidity problems that almost caused the bankruptcy. OK, thats set the scene - now tell me who is to blame for the companies failings. I would say the previous MD who embezzled the money. According to you the new MD who has strived to stave off bankruptcy is accountable as it was discovered on his watch and HE must face the consequences!!!!! Does this make sense???? Now justify your stance.

[SICHONSTEVE]

A bit stumped on this one are we Geriatrickid???? The silence is deafening.

[geriatrickid]

A bit stumped on this one are we Geriatrickid???? The silence is deafening.

Not in the least. I was not planning to waste my time. Anyone with some modicum of common sense will observe that I substantiated my position with actual citations, while you did not. My position on the soil movement was factual, while yours was not. It was not entrenched in my personal belief, but used accepted knowledge about landslides in the region and the results of the 1988 catastrophe. My position relied on peer reviewed facts, while yours was just your opinion.

I really don't think it is wise to goad me on this one, as you claim to be a "scientist", yet made errors in respect to citations that any university student once past 3rd year in the sciences would never make. Nor would a "scientist" toss aside accepted studies and reviews and their findings without offering one actual case specific rebuttal. I believe it is reasonable to go with the multitude of actual experts that did the reviews than your uncorroborated opinion.

Your attempt at an analogy of a Managing Director that embezzles also fails. If you want to apply your analogy, then the embezzlement would have been identified prior to the managing director's replacement. In the soil movement case here, the reasons were identified in 1988 and further confirmed in the 1990's. This is why the national government imposed the logging moratorium and enforced anti encroachment initiatives. The government at the time realized that the ren]moval of natural vegetation destabilized the land. The government had acted in a prudent and responsible manner.

In respect to your query as to whether or not the new managing director would face consequences for prior acts, the answer is quite evident to anyone that has served in such a capacity. Under directors and officers governance requirements, the current directors can be held liable. Who do you think is sued by a company's shareholders or outside investors or government? Why do you think directors resign from boards that are in trouble. The new managing director would not face criminal charges, but as a director and an officer (if so appointed under the company bylaws) he would be on the hook for things such as taxes owed, payroll due and other charges set out in the local jurisdiction.

I'll leave it up to people to form their own opinions. They can rely on common sense reinforced by expert conclusions, or they can rely on your personal biased opinion. My view is that senior management is held accountable for those that report to them. If they are not capable of accepting that basic management principle, then they should resign the position. This view is shared by the legal system, the investment community and by the business community at large. My experience has been that incompetent managers run from this concept are the first ones to point the finger at someone or something else, never taking responsibility when there is a cockup.

[SICHONSTEVE]

A bit stumped on this one are we Geriatrickid???? The silence is deafening.

Not in the least. I was not planning to waste my time. Anyone with some modicum of common sense will observe that I substantiated my position with actual citations, while you did not. My position on the soil movement was factual, while yours was not. It was not entrenched in my personal belief, but used accepted knowledge about landslides in the region and the results of the 1988 catastrophe. My position relied on peer reviewed facts, while yours was just your opinion.

I really don't think it is wise to goad me on this one, as you claim to be a "scientist", yet made errors in respect to citations that any university student once past 3rd year in the sciences would never make. Nor would a "scientist" toss aside accepted studies and reviews and their findings without offering one actual case specific rebuttal. I believe it is reasonable to go with the multitude of actual experts that did the reviews than your uncorroborated opinion.

Your attempt at an analogy of a Managing Director that embezzles also fails. If you want to apply your analogy, then the embezzlement would have been identified prior to the managing director's replacement. In the soil movement case here, the reasons were identified in 1988 and further confirmed in the 1990's. This is why the national government imposed the logging moratorium and enforced anti encroachment initiatives. The government at the time realized that the ren]moval of natural vegetation destabilized the land. The government had acted in a prudent and responsible manner.

In respect to your query as to whether or not the new managing director would face consequences for prior acts, the answer is quite evident to anyone that has served in such a capacity. Under directors and officers governance requirements, the current directors can be held liable. Who do you think is sued by a company's shareholders or outside investors or government? Why do you think directors resign from boards that are in trouble. The new managing director would not face criminal charges, but as a director and an officer (if so appointed under the company bylaws) he would be on the hook for things such as taxes owed, payroll due and other charges set out in the local jurisdiction.

I'll leave it up to people to form their own opinions. They can rely on common sense reinforced by expert conclusions, or they can rely on your personal biased opinion. My view is that senior management is held accountable for those that report to them. If they are not capable of accepting that basic management principle, then they should resign the position. This view is shared by the legal system, the investment community and by the business community at large. My experience has been that incompetent managers run from this concept are the first ones to point the finger at someone or something else, never taking responsibility when there is a cockup.

This is a forum and not a thesis or presentation at a scientific seminar. You say that you were'nt originally going to waste you're time, well I didn't want to waste my time in listing the citations. A majority of my points were lifted directly from reputable sources (if you don't believe me and think I just invented them then that's up to you, but I wouldn't do anything as disingenuous as that I can assure you - after all I was a 'charlatan' scientist for 31 years and 1 month) and MY observances are factually based as I went to see the mountains and could see (with my own eyes) that the fissures emanated from the top or near the top where according to the facts (without citation) a plantation has NO AFFECT on landslides whatsoever where their origins lie up to a 1,000 metres away - too far to influence the soil structure at this point and they cannot possibly be party to the reasons for the landslips!! It IS the granite on lose soil that provides the fissure points that lead to landslides high up in the mountain (think about it) it actually DOES make sense!!!

Lets analyse some of you're statements in a bit of detail - "the embezzlement would have been identified prior to the managing director's replacement (Geriatrickid visa forum post 4340369 on Apr-6-2011) - Bernie Madoff.....subprime mortgages !!!! try telling that to those people's lives who have been ruined by these unsavoury characters that went unnoticed for YEARS by the way. So it can and HAS happened!!

Do you seriously think that Abhisit and his government could have done ANYTHING , that's ANYTHING in the two years of his governance to have limited or prevented this disaster. Just answer me YES or NO - simple, and if there IS something he could have done to prevent this tragedy (in just 2 years remember) please let me know what that is. Maybe he could have encased the mountains in cement reinforced with metal, but that would be exorbitantly expensive and spoil the mountains natural beauty some what. What about building a 1 metre thick and 2-3 metre high wall around the whole mountain range - again this would be expensive (and ugly) and it is doubtful that Siam Cement could satisfy the demand allied to the fact that 2 years is not enough time to complete this task. There you go, i've made 2 suggestions that would have absolved Abhisit and his government from all blame had he had the foresight to have contemplated the possibility that Southern Thailand would receive a 6 day long deluge of rainfall in the hottest month of the year (how careless of him not to have envisaged this).

What do you suggest then???? Of course if there was nothing he could have done then that surely puts him in the clear, doesn't it?? It would be just as much YOUR fault as HIS!!! Do you accept this surmisal as being reasonable in basis????? Remember now - YES or NO as to what he could have done in those 2 years, and if yes, give your details. I will pass you're suggestions on to Mr Abhisit telling him where he went wrong and just why it is his fault that all of those poor unfortunates lost their lives in that natural disaster that was an "act of god" or should that be "non-act of Abhisit" in what ever you imply he should have done in those 2 solitary years, how irresponsible you have been MR Abhisit. Have you spent those 2 years sitting on your backside do nothing???? You clearly have much to answer for!!!

"My view is that senior management is held accountable for those that report to them" (Geritrickid - visa forum post 4340369 0n Apr-6-2011) - OK., I readily accept that - about the only thing that we agree on so far. Well just what did the government ministers do wrong in the 2 years that Abhisit has been their boss (prime ministerial manager). How does Abhisit warrant the blame for those people losing their lives. Did his ministers force those people to move to the bottom of the mountains at risk of landslides (from weak fissure points at the summit of the mountains) or................I cannot possibly imagine what they could have done for Abhisit to have deserved such unwarranted and unfair charges of wanton manslaughter when all he was trying to do (commendably so in my mind) is IMPROVE the lives of those people whose interests he is looking after.

Edited April 7, 2011 by SICHONSTEVE

[SICHONSTEVE]

I am really quite disappointed that you've conceded defeat Geriatrickid - just as Deeral did a few days ago!!

I was eagerly waiting to see what reasons you could give to apportion blame to Abhisit and his government.

I think that your absense of a reply in itself clearly absolves him altogether of any blame which is how it should be as it was out of order to besmirch his name in the first place and I hope you realise this now - but I'm not holding my breath on this!!!