Bangkok Doesn't Deserve Its Special Protection And Privilege

[webfact]

GUEST COLUMN

Bangkok doesn't deserve its special protection and privilege

Pavin Chachavalpongpun

"His socks are wet.

He visited every corner of Bangkok during this critical flood crisis. He is so devoted. I have to remind myself that he is the son of His Royal Highness Prince Paribatra Sukhumbhand, and the great grandson of His Majesty King Chulalongkorn, one of Thailand's greatest monarchs."

This is how a secretary proudly described her boss, MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, governor of Bangkok, in her Facebook post.

So, Bangkok residents have their own "royal" who is willing to defend their beloved capital. Sukhumbhand is certainly the right man for the right job. A member of the elite himself, Sukhumbhand enthusiastically wants to serve the interests of his Bangkok supporters, who also see themselves as the intelligent upper class. His father was once the Prince of Nakhon Sawan. Today, Sukhumbhand is undoubtedly the "Prince of Bangkok", judging from the way he has handled the flood situation.

The devastating floods have offered Sukhumbhand a chance to prove his authority as the governor of Bangkok. And so far he has done brilliantly by working independently from the government. The priority of Sukhumbhand is obviously different from that of the Yingluck Shinawatra administration. As a result, competition, not cooperation, is the name of the game in defining the relationship between the prime minister and the Bangkok governor.

Under Sukhumbhand, Bangkok is an island unto itself. The capital has been detached from the rest of the country. It seems acceptable for other provinces to remain submerged in water. But Bangkok must be kept dry. It needs to be saved at all costs, even at the expense of intensifying the flood crisis at the national level.

What does Sukhumbhand's Bangkok-centric approach tell us? It reveals that Bangkok is not Thailand, and vice versa. It is a state within a state. This mentality has obstructed the government from implementing an integral solution to the raging floods.

Moreover, Sukhumbhand's ideas of tackling the floods are principally elitist and imperial. With his royal title of Mom Rajawongse - something so anachronistic in other civilised societies - Sukhumbhand performs as an old warrior who is fighting to safeguard the metropolis. But this time, the enemy is not Burmese or Cambodian. It is water. Metaphorically speaking, Sukhumbhand's mission is to preserve Bangkok's "independence".

"We must not lose the capital again," he could have said. The last time Siam lost its so-called independence was in 1776 when Ayutthaya was sacked by foreign adversaries.

But what really are these elitist views? First, Bangkok is supposedly the kingdom's most important city; it is the pride of the nation, the seat of the much-revered monarchy, and the source of economic wealth. This is absolutely an authoritarian view that puts too much emphasis on Bangkok while neglecting other apparently not-so-vital provinces.

Bangkok might be contributing almost 41 per cent to the country's GDP, and analysts have already warned that any substantial damage to the capital may hurt growth even more, but one must not deny that the central region has been under water for months. This area is where major manufacturing plants are located, including car-makers Toyota and Honda, electronic producers Canon, Apple, Sony and Toshiba, as well as hard-disk makers Seagate Technology and Western Digital. The floods have caused great damage to the global supply chains in these industries, thus reaffirming the fact that cities outside Bangkok are equally economically significant.

Secondly, a few months ago, when Bangkok was dry while the rural areas were already heavily flooded, Bangkok residents never expressed their concern, or sympathy, regarding the situation in those affected provinces. So, it seemed that it was all right for those provinces and people to suffer, as long as Bangkok was preserved. Today, Bangkok residents are the ones who complain the loudest. They have become hyper-hysterical about the floods. They stock up food, creating an atmosphere of panic. Ironically, they act as if they no longer have trust and faith in Sukhumbhand, the figure whom they have supported throughout the crisis.

Should such behaviour by the Bangkok residents be perceived as part of the relentless double standards that have prevailed in Thai society? If the answer is yes, then it is fair to say that Sukhumbhand has a role to play in the deepening of the gap between Bangkok and the rest of the country, at a time when Thai society remains frighteningly polarised.

The overwhelming concentration on saving and salvaging Bangkok is a reflection of the persistent concept of centralisation. As always, power and prosperity are the exclusive assets of Bangkok. It is perfectly acceptable to many Bangkok residents to keep other provinces vulnerable and powerless. It is also okay to keep them poor and underdeveloped. On this basis, they deserve to endure the floods.

But isn't this the same attitude that presents one of the root causes of the conflict in Thailand's deep South?

Thirdly, as Sukhumbhand continues to clash with the government, this attests to the fact that the elitist class possesses its own mind and the right to define the notion of interest - be it its own interest or that of the nation. This explains why Sukhumbhand has chosen not to listen to the government's instructions.

The floodwater is now creeping into Bangkok. Perhaps this is a symbol of the growing resentment of other provinces, which are ready to attack Bangkok after long years of being mistreated. Bangkok has been far too selfish for far too long. Sukhumbhand has done nothing but consolidate this sense of selfishness among Bangkok's inhabitants.

Whether Sukhumbhand loves Thailand more than those outside Bangkok is difficult to measure. His sole focus on Bangkok unfortunately prevents him from looking at the problem from a wider angle - an angle that is free from political games and cares more about the anguish of fellow Thais, no matter what region they come from.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a fellow at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Follow him at www.facebook.com/pavinchachavalpongpun.

-- The Nation 2011-11-09

[rogerdee123]

Khun Pavin needs to take a course in disaster management while he is there studying at Singapore.

The only valid reason for protecting Bangkok is because of the population density and the large number of people who would suffer (and die) compared to the surrounding areas.

GNP and economic factors etc are all secondary to the people.

If they had evacuated Bangkok .... sure I would agree ... flood the dam_n place and who cares.

But managing a disaster is about people and saving lives first.

Edited November 9, 2011 by rogerdee123

[FOODLOVER]

The world through red colored glasses i suppose. Is the author here helping the Thai people or just wanted to bash about. Let me guess, his elitist socks are dry.

[jybkk]

Khun Pavin needs to take a course in disaster management while he is there studying at Singapore.

The only valid reason for protecting Bangkok is because of the population density and the large number of people who would suffer (and die) compared to the surrounding areas.

GNP and economic factors etc are all secondary to the people.

If they had evacuated Bangkok .... sure I would agree ... flood the dam_n place and who cares.

But managing a disaster is about people and saving lives first.

Absolutely.

That's what many people seem to forget.

Also, many seem to think everyone in Bangkok lives in a condo and that just the roads will be wet. I suggest they get out of Sukhumvit and Sathorn road in the smaller sois, and they'll see an amazing density of population living in low lying houses.

They had a choice to make, and they chose to limit the number of people flooded, rather than resolve the crisis faster.

It feels unfair for those not affected, but the total amount of damage to persons and to property is probably much lower thanks to that.

And the water is not blocked. See upstream where finally roads and factories are reopening.

I don't like the way Sukhumband worked in the back of the government. But this columnist is trying to make this an illustration of elitism and social divide while it was simple common sense.

And I love the irony of the guy commenting about Bangkok's state of mind from his safe haven of Singapore.

[whybother]

I was going to pick out the points where he is talking crap and comment on them, but I don't want to repost the entire article.

[dru2]

Do we really have to see a portrait of this person every time he decides to preach to us? There must be something more interesting, relevant and appealing for us to look at.

[thaicbr]

I was going to pick out the points where he is talking crap and comment on them, but I don't want to repost the entire article.

+1

He mentions Nakhon Sawan in the story. Now that's a province that also bucked the Yingluck administration and did things themselves. To protect themselves they saw it coming and the Nakswan admin had plans in place (including using the army )

Edited November 9, 2011 by thaicbr

[nurofiend]

do they always post pictures of guest columnists here?

Anyway, without even reading the article, just basing on the title

Obviously there will be the politicial aspect of more dem/yellow support in Bangkok which raised the "they care about them more than us" cries

But if they didn't pay special attention to it, you'd have the "this would do incredible damage to the economy if it hit really hard" cries

I think depending on where you're standing, literally, both mindsets are understandable.

if i'm deemed sitting on the fence, fair enough but i believe it's true...

now to read the article, as i thought this guy made a few valid points last time.

Edited November 9, 2011 by nurofiend

[senti]

Wow.

I don't remember when was the last time I read something this stupid.

[gleeglee]

He looks like Forest Gump

[Amras]

What an idiot. That's all that is worth saying.

[Ponbkk]

I'm relieved to know that the decisions that affect a nation are still, since 700 years, in more capable hands (I was unaware of certain of the governor's credentials until reading this!), than in the hands of the author, at least, that maybe has just a resentment borne since a childhood never conquered over something (the word "deserve" is a clue here). But his reasonings only increases my fears that decisions made during this crisis, which is by far not yet over, have been and continue to be detrimentally influenced by persons more influenced by personal interests and perceptions within their own minds as opposed to the rather obvious best interests of this wonderful nation (I am a foreigner) for the now and it's future.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Ponbkk

[nurofiend]

Khun Pavin needs to take a course in disaster management while he is there studying at Singapore.

The only valid reason for protecting Bangkok is because of the population density and the large number of people who would suffer (and die) compared to the surrounding areas.

GNP and economic factors etc are all secondary to the people.

If they had evacuated Bangkok .... sure I would agree ... flood the dam_n place and who cares.

But managing a disaster is about people and saving lives first.

Absolutely.

That's what many people seem to forget.

Also, many seem to think everyone in Bangkok lives in a condo and that just the roads will be wet. I suggest they get out of Sukhumvit and Sathorn road in the smaller sois, and they'll see an amazing density of population living in low lying houses.

They had a choice to make, and they chose to limit the number of people flooded, rather than resolve the crisis faster.

It feels unfair for those not affected, but the total amount of damage to persons and to property is probably much lower thanks to that.

And the water is not blocked. See upstream where finally roads and factories are reopening.

I don't like the way Sukhumband worked in the back of the government. But this columnist is trying to make this an illustration of elitism and social divide while it was simple common sense.

And I love the irony of the guy commenting about Bangkok's state of mind from his safe haven of Singapore.

I think to suggest that the particular importance placed on saving Bangkok from a political stance, was leaning towards property protection and 'livelihood's' more than the fear of people's 'actual lives' being at risk, is a pretty fair opinion.

that's obviously not to say people's lives didn't come into the equation, obviously...

[BlueTerrace]

Bangkok contains millions of people, nearly half of Thailand’s economy and miles of hard won infrastructure - everything from temples, schools, universities and shopping malls to factories, shops, office blocks and transportation hubs.

Does the author really believe that all these people and all these economic & cultural assets should be consigned to the ravages of the flood without a fight? Given their respective population densities and wealth generating capabilities, surely the author can see that an acre of Bangkok isn't the same as an acre of farm land?

I always suspected this simpering rich boy was a nouveu-riche redshirt: now given his urban-phobic views, I'm wondering if he isn’t Khmer Rouge.

Oh, and by the way, I think that the people of Bangkok have shown commendable calm and fortitude in this flood. None of my staff show the “hyper-hysterical panic” the author writes about. Instead, they wade to work, wash off, put in a day’s work, then buy what supplies they can and wade home again. Many spend the night in the upper floor of a house or apartment block without power, toilets or drinkable water. Singpore-boy and The Nation should hang their heads in shame for these disgusting and ill-founded remarks.

[BlueTerrace]

...and when they stock up on supplies, maybe it’s because they have no faith the government will supply food and water. Frankly, given the governmental incompetence on daily display, I’d say it’s a well justified fear, and putting some water and rice in the cupboard is a prudent move.

[Scott]

One post containing profanity has been deleted.

[MunterHunter]

Didn't you all know that only the rich elite live in Bangkok, everyone drives a gold plated Mercedes and wears platinum and ruby encrusted Rolex watches... h*ll, even the motorbike taxi guys all ride ducati's and drink the finest single malt whiskey from their fine crystal M150 bottles!

Then of course, just outside of the glorious capital everyone is a serf and lives in mud huts, eats dirt poisoned with the feces of the Bangkok elite and drink the urine of 1000 lepers. They are made to work 36 hours a day for 3 baht a week and have to walk uphill to get to work and back again.

Any serf caught within 5km of the city limit is shot by one of the Royal Police enforcers and their heads are put on spikes on top of the 100ft obsidian walls that surround the city.

/That's about as accurate as this 'opinion' piece/

[Scott]

I, too, have objections to the elitist attitude toward Bangkok, but this guy is the governor. If he did any less, I would be disappointed in him.

Unfortunately, they haven't really saved Bangkok--they have just decided which portions would be sacrificed--so far.

[phetaroi]

The at least short-sighted, if not downright ignorant opinion expressed by Pavin Chachavalpongpun is not uncommon in places outside of Thailand. I grew up in western New York State, and many of the locals there just couldn't quite grasp an understanding that what made New York the Empire State was not Buffalo (now essentially a failed rusting shell of a city), Rochester (fading as Kodak fades), Syracuse, Albany, or any other city in the state. What made New York State the empire state was the colossus of New York City. Shipping wheat and other agricultural products to New York City was the reason the Erie Canal and, after that, the railroad along the Mohawk and Hudson River.

And this is not at all unlike what is happening in Thailand. Bangkok is important as the center of Thailand's primary population, as the center of international trade for Thailand, and the hub (dare I use the word) of Thailand's educational system, health system, tourism, and on and on.

Gee Pavin, didn't they ever tell you at university to look at the numbers. Let's see, if Bangkok floods, 9-20 million people are directly affected (depending on how you want to count what makes up greater Bangkok. If...pick a city...Nakhon Sawan floods, 1 million people are directly affected. Let's see -- what makes more sense...saving the homes of, and providing food and water, for of 1 million people or 20 million people? It isn't that "a" person in Nakhon Sawan is more or less important than "a" person in Bangkok. But, a devastated Bangkok will affect the entire nation.

Oh, and by the way, Governor Sukhumbhand's job is as governor of Bangkok. Maybe that's why he focuses on it.

Edited November 9, 2011 by phetaroi

[StoneSoup]

The Bangkok Governor is SUPPOSED to be the main advocate for Bangkok - he is elected by the residents to protect their interests. Governor Sukhumbhand has fulfilled his responsibilities aggressively - and quite impressively. It is NOT his job to worry about people outside Bangkok - that is the responsibility of other advocates.

I'm not passing judgement on the relative merit of protecting Bangkok at the expense of other geographical areas - that is a separate argument. The issue here is whether the guy assigned to protect Bangkok, and to make the tough decisions within Bangkok - is somehow remiss if he fails to accept damage to Bangkok so that other areas can have a an easier flood experience. That is not his job - or his responsibility.

[Xonax]

Shame on you Pavin Chachavalpongpun! Stop your hatred against Bangkokians, of which many are poor or average people. Far from all Bangkokians are "Elite´s" as you claim. By the way - Have you ever heard about a country without an elite? It simply does not exist, and also elite´s are important for their country.

What would the true benefit be (other than political), by flooding a major city with 15-20 Million people, just to lead the water away from the flooded mainly rice fields and farming land up north?

This blog is clearly a Red Shirt attack to the country and should not be allowed to be published here on Thai-Visa.

Now that the government have already flooded (intentionally failed to protect) Bangkok, the poor people who support this government and sabotaged the efforts to protect Bangkok, will very soon be a lot poorer. If they think that they are already poor now, they will have to think again!

Edited November 9, 2011 by Xonax

[geriatrickid]

I, too, have objections to the elitist attitude toward Bangkok, but this guy is the governor. If he did any less, I would be disappointed in him.

Unfortunately, they haven't really saved Bangkok--they have just decided which portions would be sacrificed--so far.

The writer has also written a rather revealing article that was published in the WSJ.(Oct. 23, 2011) He zeroed in on the real issue about the Governor.The problem is that many officials are not obeying that law or Ms. Yingluck. The military, like the Bangkok governor, is functioning independently from the government. He's right in that observation. The Governor has not been cooperative and I believe he has sabotaged the government's flood response in Bangkok.

I do not agree with the writer in respect to the protection of Bangkok, because I accept the fact that for whatever decisions made in the past, Bangkok is the most important part of Thailand and it must be protected, no matter the cost to other areas. I get accused of being a red supporter, but here I am taking a position opposed to redshirt sentiments. I do it because I know that the nation's financial heart, its telecommunications, its nerve center is in Bangkok. If anything serious over the long term happens to Bangkok, the entire nation will suffer a loss that will set it back years.Bangkok holds millions of people. Thailand cannot afford to have these people made into refugees, let alone long term unemployed.Bangkok is the tax base for the nation.

Despite my disagreement with the gentleman,it is inappropriate to call him names or otherwise insult him. Whether or not he looks like Forrest Gump, the gentleman is no knuckle dragger. B.A. (Hons) (International Relations) Chulalongkorn University, MPhil/Ph.D. (Political Studies), School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Lead Researcher for Political and Strategic Affairs, ASEAN Studies Centre. The fellow carries some weight. Whether or not some agree, when he offers his views the people that run things pay attention.This guy is important and his views are considered. He can influence the perception of other ASEAN governments and the investment community.

Edited November 9, 2011 by geriatrickid

[CrustyJuggler66]

The only panic i've seen is from officials, ordinary folk have been brilliant throughout the city.. You can't hide behind something that isn't there toff.

[Microwave]

I've been living in Thailand on and off for 30 years and Thailand has always been a polarized country. Bangkok vs. upcountry and vice-versa, long before colour-coded shirts represented which side of the political/societal divide one was on. As a close Thai friend from Korat once pointed out to me, "if it weren't for (a certain someone), we'd be like Cambodia".

[shunima]

Seems the editor forgot to check the headline.

It's supposed to be "Pavin Chachavalpongpun deserves his special attention because he is privileged - Read this!"

[nurofiend]

Seems the editor forgot to check the headline.

It's supposed to be "Pavin Chachavalpongpun deserves his special attention because he is privileged - Read this!"

well the nation are certainly giving it to him by posting his picture...

i'm still not clear on whether they always post guest columnist's pictures for their article as a rule on here, or is it when it's a more opposing style article than the usual spin?

[jackdawson]

Funny. The dude puts down one big city (Bangkok) while living in an even bigger one (Singapore).

[avalonmick]

I, too, have objections to the elitist attitude toward Bangkok, but this guy is the governor. If he did any less, I would be disappointed in him.

Unfortunately, they haven't really saved Bangkok--they have just decided which portions would be sacrificed--so far.

The writer has also written a rather revealing article that was published in the WSJ.(Oct. 23, 2011) He zeroed in on the real issue about the Governor.The problem is that many officials are not obeying that law or Ms. Yingluck. The military, like the Bangkok governor, is functioning independently from the government. He's right in that observation. The Governor has not been cooperative and I believe he has sabotaged the government's flood response in Bangkok.

I do not agree with the writer in respect to the protection of Bangkok, because I accept the fact that for whatever decisions made in the past, Bangkok is the most important part of Thailand and it must be protected, no matter the cost to other areas. I get accused of being a red supporter, but here I am taking a position opposed to redshirt sentiments. I do it because I know that the nation's financial heart, its telecommunications, its nerve center is in Bangkok. If anything serious over the long term happens to Bangkok, the entire nation will suffer a loss that will set it back years.Bangkok holds millions of people. Thailand cannot afford to have these people made into refugees, let alone long term unemployed.Bangkok is the tax base for the nation.

Despite my disagreement with the gentleman,it is inappropriate to call him names or otherwise insult him. Whether or not he looks like Forrest Gump, the gentleman is no knuckle dragger. B.A. (Hons) (International Relations) Chulalongkorn University, MPhil/Ph.D. (Political Studies), School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Lead Researcher for Political and Strategic Affairs, ASEAN Studies Centre. The fellow carries some weight. Whether or not some agree, when he offers his views the people that run things pay attention.This guy is important and his views are considered. He can influence the perception of other ASEAN governments and the investment community.

Agree with all those assessments of the guy and the article. The Governor did his job as he saw it within his remit. It was not his job to direct actions outside Bangkok, nor to be the country's crisis manager ( if Yingluck had appointed him as that two months ago she would now be the heroine and he, potentially, the definitive crisis manager. Plus she would have solved her political issues as well and put her completely inept cabinet in its place).

The real problem is that, as anyone who studies crisis response will tell you, lack of preparation usually means that everyone who has a stake in the outcome or avoiding blame acts to protect themselves and their interests, often at the expense of others and causing a prolongation of the effects of the crisis.

To minimise impacts and shorten the duration there is no substitute for strong leadership. When we help entities plan for their - eventual - crisis response we psychologically profile the crisis management team members to try to ensure there are no conflicts and true leadership is possible.

This crisis is far from over - its looking like months, perhaps even years - yet no leader has emerged. Thus the problems will multiply and secondary and tertiary effects pile in. Thailand is facing some tough times for quite some while.

If this guy has the future of Thailand at heart, has influence with those who can make decisions, and wants to see Yingluck preserved, he'd better tell her fast to appoint Governor Sukhumbhand as the supreme commander of all flood management resources with everyone answerable to him, and he to the PM, while she and the Government gets on with the even harder task of economic recovery.

[nurofiend]

snip>

it is inappropriate to call him names or otherwise insult him. Whether or not he looks like Forrest Gump

<snip

yes indeed, this is exactly why i'm questioning the intention's behind placing a picture of his face as the pic for the article...

tho i'm still open to someone answering my question of whether they always post guest columnist's pictures for their article as a rule on here?

Edited November 9, 2011 by nurofiend

[whybother]

...

tho i'm still open to someone answering my question of whether they always post guest columnist's pictures for their article as a rule on here?

Looking on the Nation website under "Opinion" / "Guest Columnist" ... the answer would be, generally Yes.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/guest-columnist/