Thai Lawmakers Submit Motion On Moving The Thai Capital

[Lite Beer]

Thai lawmakers submit motion on moving capital

BANGKOK, November 15, 2011 (AFP) - Lawmakers from Thailand's ruling political party submitted a parliamentary motion on Tuesday to begin discussions over possibly shifting the capital city to prevent future flooding chaos.

Experts have said Bangkok, which is built on swampland, is slowly sinking and the floods currently besieging the city of 12 million people could be merely a foretaste of a grim future, as climate change makes its impact felt.

Sataporn Maneerat, a Puea Thai party MP, told AFP that Thailand should think about looking to another city for future developments and investments.

"Another 19 Puea Thai MPs and I have signed and submitted a motion to parliament to seek approval to set up a committee, to consider whether the capital should be moved or if Thailand should have a second capital," he said.

"Bangkok is sinking every year. The capital will face more and more problems from natural disasters and the environment," he said, adding that the current capital was "over its peak".

He said the main alternative options for relocating the kingdom's political and economic heartland were in eastern and northeastern provinces.

At least 562 people have been killed across the country in Thailand's worst floods in half a century, which have inundated parts of the capital, although the downtown area remains dry after authorities' efforts to divert the waters.

The low-lying metropolis lies just 30 kilometres (18 miles) north of the Gulf of Thailand, where various experts forecast sea level will rise by 19 to 29 centimetres (7 to 11 inches) by 2050 as a result of global warming.

Water levels would also increase in Bangkok's main Chao Phraya river, which already overflows regularly.

If no action is taken to protect the city, "in 50 years... most of Bangkok will be below sea level," said Anond Snidvongs, a climate change expert at the capital's Chulalongkorn University, told AFP earlier this month.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-11-15

[patongster]

Sure, that will happen.

[travelmann]

Boring, all said a week ago and 99% fiction

[Buchholz]

The other paper on this report explains more on the Pheu Thai Party MP's proposal.

It is to move the capital to Nakhon Nayok.

This is a revitalization of the original proposal to do so that Thaksin had made to spend One Trillion Baht to accomplish.

=====

The government announced at the end of 2003 that in the next 6 years it planned to spend over one trillion baht on infrastructure projects, including a new city project in Nakhon Nayok

http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/financingthaksinomics.pdf

Edited November 15, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Some background information on the Thaksin's 2003 project that seems destined for a 2011 upgrade:

http://2bangkok.com/2bangkok-masstransit-newcity.html

.

[anselpixel]

This will crush the dreams of many in Chiang Mai.

[phaethon]

Doi Inthanon is the highest point in Thailand - better safe than sorry.

Otherwise I vote it be moved to Naypyidaw.

[Bakseedaa]

Doi Inthanon is the highest point in Thailand - better safe than sorry.

Otherwise I vote it be moved to Naypyidaw.

Yes, at least the Burmese Generals had the sense to move their capital City .... Naypyidaw will never sink...!

[MaiChai]

I sometimes wonder about the motivation from some of these ideas in Thailand. Behind every great idea there is always an alteria motive for graft. Here is how it works: you come up with something that needs alot of money. In principle it sounds a great idea, but the idea is not the motivator; the motivator is to skim and profit from the expenditure. Money oils the wheels, a % is skimmed, someone profits from the tending, someone profits from scoping the projects, there is skim at every level.

So a very expensive plan of moving the capital would be a great way to make alot of money for someone.

[KhaoNiaw]

I sometimes wonder about the motivation from some of these ideas in Thailand. Behind every great idea there is always an alteria motive for graft. Here is how it works: you come up with something that needs alot of money. In principle it sounds a great idea, but the idea is not the motivator; the motivator is to skim and profit from the expenditure. Money oils the wheels, a % is skimmed, someone profits from the tending, someone profits from scoping the projects, there is skim at every level.

So a very expensive plan of moving the capital would be a great way to make alot of money for someone.

These guys probably own land in Nakhon Nayok.

[moe666]

I'll buy some in my girlfriends name

[h90]

I sometimes wonder about the motivation from some of these ideas in Thailand. Behind every great idea there is always an alteria motive for graft. Here is how it works: you come up with something that needs alot of money. In principle it sounds a great idea, but the idea is not the motivator; the motivator is to skim and profit from the expenditure. Money oils the wheels, a % is skimmed, someone profits from the tending, someone profits from scoping the projects, there is skim at every level.

So a very expensive plan of moving the capital would be a great way to make alot of money for someone.

Motivation?

Thaksin, symbolic value of the capitol, New Thailand, Thaksins believe in supernatural things, mix that together and you get an idea what this is about......

[w11guy]

They can call anywhere the capital but it's not going to make Bangkok disappear. Bangkok will have the same problems whether it is the capital or not. I can't see what moving the capital is going to achieve. People don't live in Bangkok because it's the capital; they live there because it's Bangkok. The people of NYC aren't leaving in droves because Washington is the capital.

[w11guy]

They can call anywhere the capital but it's not going to make Bangkok disappear. Bangkok will have the same problems whether it is the capital or not. I can't see what moving the capital is going to achieve. People don't live in Bangkok because it's the capital; they live there because it's Bangkok. The people of NYC aren't leaving in droves because Washington is the capital.

[whybother]

He said the main alternative options for relocating the kingdom's political and economic heartland were in eastern and northeastern provinces.

Maybe what they really want to do is set up a new capital ... of a new country ... in the middle of Isaan.

[Lifer]

That's a great article! That should have all the residents of Bangkok scrambling to leave. It's also a good article to persuade investors looking to invest money in Thailand to stay far away (or current ones to start leaving) Bangkok. They have know about this for many years same as Venice, Italy, but I doubt one bit of planning has been done in the past around this fact.

It will be a waterworld of floating bars and bar girls.

Lookout Chiangmai, you will soon be "Little Bangkok!" Amazing Thailand!

[MaiChai]

Kao Yai?

[givenall]

Sure, that will happen.

It is just another ploy to milk the nation. I have hard time to trust Thai governmentwhen they want to do anything to help, normally it is opposite

[IsaanUSA]

They can call anywhere the capital but it's not going to make Bangkok disappear. Bangkok will have the same problems whether it is the capital or not. I can't see what moving the capital is going to achieve. People don't live in Bangkok because it's the capital; they live there because it's Bangkok.

EXACTLY!

Moving the capital means building a new building for the government offices and a few hundred people moving to work in that building. They could build it wherever they want and it will not make any change except add confusion and perhaps end up at the butt of some jokes.

[Orac]

They can call anywhere the capital but it's not going to make Bangkok disappear. Bangkok will have the same problems whether it is the capital or not. I can't see what moving the capital is going to achieve. People don't live in Bangkok because it's the capital; they live there because it's Bangkok.

EXACTLY!

Moving the capital means building a new building for the government offices and a few hundred people moving to work in that building. They could build it wherever they want and it will not make any change except add confusion and perhaps end up at the butt of some jokes.

I thought the problem was that Bangkok is disappearing, both through sinking and due to the threat of rising sea levels.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Orac

[elcent]

mission impossible

The only thing they can do is to make the best out of a bad situation. Do not implement programs that only go one way. Nature is a great resource and when planned carefully there will be lots in return.

When the Dutch can handle to live below sea level, so can Thailand.

Stay in "Dutch" and don't get fooled by your local dream weavers which would only cost you a fortune with nothing in return.

I also doubt the Chula proposal. Is there anybody that can think further and with a vision?

As I mentioned weeks ago. Check options to build a dam near Bangkok(Ayutthaya). Who the hell would chose knowingly to build up factories and housing estates in natural flood-ways and paying an extra heavy tax additional to the yearly floods? You'll need it(a dam closer to the capital for your security and water assurance in dry seasons) very badly and sooner than you might think. There are natural flood-ways, make use of it and don't beat around the bush. Nobody is going to buy into it.

Edited November 15, 2011 by elcent

[xminator]

mission impossible

The only thing they can do is to make the best out of a bad situation. Do not implement programs that only go one way. Nature is a great resource and when planned carefully there will be lots in return.

When the Dutch can handle to live below sea level, so can Thailand.

Stay in "Dutch" and don't get fooled by your local dream weavers which would only cost you a fortune with nothing in return.

I also doubt the Chula proposal. Is there anybody that can think further and with a vision?

As I mentioned weeks ago. Check options to build a dam near Bangkok(Ayutthaya). Who the hell would chose knowingly to build up factories and housing estates in natural flood-ways and paying an extra heavy tax additional to the yearly floods? You'll need it(a dam closer to the capital for your security and water assurance in dry seasons) very badly and sooner than you might think. There are natural flood-ways, make use of it and don't beat around the bush. Nobody is going to buy into it.

Problem is, where would you build your dam. It would be so long if you focus just on Bangkok, that you might as well build it across the bay of thailand and start pumping. Might be cheaper then moving the capital too...

[elcent]

mission impossible

The only thing they can do is to make the best out of a bad situation. Do not implement programs that only go one way. Nature is a great resource and when planned carefully there will be lots in return.

When the Dutch can handle to live below sea level, so can Thailand.

Stay in "Dutch" and don't get fooled by your local dream weavers which would only cost you a fortune with nothing in return.

I also doubt the Chula proposal. Is there anybody that can think further and with a vision?

As I mentioned weeks ago. Check options to build a dam near Bangkok(Ayutthaya). Who the hell would chose knowingly to build up factories and housing estates in natural flood-ways and paying an extra heavy tax additional to the yearly floods? You'll need it(a dam closer to the capital for your security and water assurance in dry seasons) very badly and sooner than you might think. There are natural flood-ways, make use of it and don't beat around the bush. Nobody is going to buy into it.

Problem is, where would you build your dam. It would be so long if you focus just on Bangkok, that you might as well build it across the bay of thailand and start pumping. Might be cheaper then moving the capital too...

I'd like to see an independent feasibility study carried out by three different groups without any political interference. Those one or two dams more would also assure water for the farming industry during the dry season, plus lots of energy in return.

A kind of sea protection wall maybe an additional option. When the Dutch built their wall everything was pretty much low-tech. Now it could be even combined with energy winning measures.

Edited November 15, 2011 by elcent

[Nisa]

How idiotic. The cost of building a new infrastructure alone, to make this possible, would far exceed the costs of simply not pumping drinking water from underneath Bangkok. Bangkok is sinking because of the water removed from under it. The rise of the ocean is insignificant compared to this. The fact that the capital is located in Bangkok has little to do with the reasons for protecting inner Bangkok. Just because the capital moves doesn't mean the population and business will move from Bangkok ... in fact it won't and would simply put the capital out in the middle of nowhere and very very difficult for citizens to get things done with government.

[Hooters]

That's a great article! That should have all the residents of Bangkok scrambling to leave. It's also a good article to persuade investors looking to invest money in Thailand to stay far away (or current ones to start leaving) Bangkok. They have know about this for many years same as Venice, Italy, but I doubt one bit of planning has been done in the past around this fact.

It will be a waterworld of floating bars and bar girls.

Lookout Chiangmai, you will soon be "Little Bangkok!" Amazing Thailand!

why would they do that? in 50 years you gonna be DEAD

[englishoak]

Typical OTT reaction. If they spent some money on the infrastructure needed and water management instead of greasing their own pockets and neglecting it there would be no problem. They can even take that huge amount of cash the other nations have donated to begin the project. At least the poorer people would see some benefit to it some why down the line.

[tlansford]

Whether the capital moves or not, Bangkok still needs to be protected.

[sparebox2]

Whether the capital moves or not, Bangkok still needs to be protected.

Why move if you still need to protect Bangkok.

Reason for move, is that they don't need to spend money to protect.

[sparebox2]

He said the main alternative options for relocating the kingdom's political and economic heartland were in eastern and northeastern provinces.

Maybe what they really want to do is set up a new capital ... of a new country ... in the middle of Isaan.

A new Thailand state in middle Isaan. Interesting. Who is going to rule? Thaksin? No Way.

[elcent]

amnesty degree passes cabinet. Over 60 years old and with a punishment of not exceeding 3 years will receive amnesty on December 5. No time needs to be served before.

sounds like troubles ahead. Yingluck didn't attend the meeting which was behind closed doors.