Thai Lawmakers Submit Motion On Moving The Thai Capital

[NanaFoods]

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.

Au contraire... there is great benefit !!

A trillion baht is small price to pay for gov't elites to keep their feet dry next rainy season.

It has the added benefit of not having to worry about flood control in Bangkok anymore.

[alant]

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

Otherwise I vote it be moved to Naypyidaw.

[Tatsujin]

Anyone got some land to sell cheap in Nakhon Nayhok?

[ginjag]

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.

Nakhorn Ratchasima--or Khon Khen---perfect position--centre, both have good airports easy for Pattaya, chiang Mai,Udon, Ubon, and distribution centres-on Highway 2.--main rail-bus.

and it will increase the value of my home .

[Hooters]

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.

Bangkok disappearing and the capital moving are two completely separate issues IMHO. If they government offices for the country of Thailand were moved to a new province that would not have any effect on the city of Bangkok. The old capital would be turned into a museum or disco and the government staff would live in a different province. The only thing that would change (in the short term) would be drier government offices. I think eventually there would be some development around the new capital city, but people from Bangkok aren't going to move to the new capital just because it's the new capital.

True , The capitol city in Australia is miles away from any major city about a 3 hour drive from sydney. There is absolutely NO way any one would leave Melb or Syd to be in that dump. some poster seemed very confused about what a capitol city is. No one that doesnt need to will leave bangkok to be in the new capitol in Isaan or where ever. Same goes for companies

[Arkady]

The British FCO will be happy for the opportunity to sell the rest of its land in Wireless Road, complete with the 30 new boxes constructed for staff to live in at the back, and move the British Embassy into a new highrise built by SC Assets in Nakhon Nayok. Consular staff and services can be cut further still since fewer Brits in need will make the trek to Nakhon Nayok. The few remaining accredited diplomats, recruited from the ranks of low flyer commercial bankers, will be left to pursue their trade mission duties undisturbed.

The Treasury Department will also be happy to get back land on Wireless Road it's been forced by the MFA rent to the US and Dutch governments for peppercorn rents for decades. It will all be turned into noisy gypsy caravan type markets and fun fares to rip off tourists like the site of the old cadet school.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Arkady

[Jerrytheyoung]

Decentralisation is not a bad idea: before Thailand some famous examples: Brasil moving its Capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia, Malaysia moving all the Government offices and administration in Putrajaya. Paris' development has been stopped by develpping a serie of new cities around and obliging the administration to leave the heart (Cergy- Pontoise, Marne la Vallee... if I remember well 5 new cities) and obliging the Industries to move elsewhere, for some at a 100 km minimum from Paris.

Slowing down the development of Bangkok where any new project cost several dozens of times more than doing the same project in the country is certainly less costly on the long range.

Good opportunity for converting the freed spaces in the heart of Bangkok in juicy condominiums.

The idea is good, but the issue as underlined by most of TV posters is the underlying graft, but it is to Thai people to appreciate: none parties has been exempted of corruption/graft until now,is not it? So who can give a lesson?....

Edited November 16, 2011 by Jerrytheyoung

[F4UCorsair]

Dams are seldom the answer long term. Egypt's Aswan high dam, finished about 1970, barely 40 years ago, is now all butvuseless as an irrigation source because it's silted up and is no longer 500 feet deep. Before the dam was built it carried rich silt downstream and deposited it on the river flats, thereby renewing the soil for agriculture. That no longer happens, and fertilizer is used, causing algal blooms in the Nile, thereby creating further problems.

Dams may be necessary but before people start f****** with nature, the consequences need to be assessed loooooong term.

Edited November 16, 2011 by F4UCorsair

[Abduljabbar01]

I hear Hell is a nice place for Thailand's capital. It's hot and all their best friends are there.

[merlen10002]

Will never happen, even taking time to read this dribble is stupid.

[Card]

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.netse...haksinomics.pdf

Oh goody, right next to Khao Yai national park. That means loads of new species to be introduced there to keep the indigenous beasties on their toes. There's nuffink like natural selection, can't beat it. Oh and my brand new condo to be built nearby will then be in the suburbs of the new capital city. Oh goody, can't wait.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Card

[wxyz]

they need a seawall dyke and a lot of pumps

[fresnoboy]

An interesting concept to move the capital. Check into who is the largest landowner in Bangkok......

Pray tell, how do we do that ?

[wxyz]

“I have some prime swampland in Bangkok to sell you”

“I have some prime swampland in Florida to sell you” is a slang expression used to poke fun at the gullibility of a person.

[wxyz]

An interesting concept to move the capital. Check into who is the largest landowner in Bangkok......

Pray tell, how do we do that ?

dollars to donuts,,, yingluck's brother owns the land of the new capital,,, or will,,,

[overhaul38]

Nice to see some thought being given to what is a known disaster in the making.

[daiwill60]

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

What an idiotic response.

They do it now because things like this take 50 years or so to gradually happen. Nobody is suggesting moving lock, stock and barrel suddenly next month and leaving an empty wasteland behind where Bangkok once stood.

If nothing got done in readiness for the future by our forefathers, or us here now, there would be nothing here for us now or for our kids in the future.

Why should we invent electricity? We are gonna be dead in 50 years.

Why should we build a town here? We are going to be dead in 50 years.

On another point raised however, Did I or did I not see here recently, that massive investment is being made in Khon Kaen these days in the way of development of Khon Kaen as a Green City of the future,

it also makes one think , when you hear so many people talking about the amount of people from Bangkok who are buying property up in Isaan, that the capital may already be on the move anyway.

My wife also recently came across these images ( see attached ), relating to how Thailand may look in less than 50 years. I scoffed at these at first, but ???

Thailand after Sea level rises etc.docx

[hammered]

It is an issue that needs raising. Of course it wont happen but maybe discussion will lead to some changes/decentralization. Sinking primate city on a flood plain at a time of worsening climatic events is not a great idea for the future

[ginjag]

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.

bingo - you need to make sure BKK does not flood. Why move the capital... ? Silly idea.

As most persons are aware that the capitol is increasingly going to be deluged more and more---bingo- and cost doesn't come into it, as it's unrealistic, unstoppable, unavoidable, unsustainable. you want more. It will be like putting water through a tissue-to spend billions to try..........and then to fail.

Relocating slowly, government H.Q. followed by other important venues that have been inundated during this saga.

The capital having to be slowly swallowed up back to what it was in the first place=swamp. Taking care of up river and dams should be the priority, not trying to shore up down here near the delta.

[chaoyang]

Field Marshall Phibun had plans to relocate the capital to Phetchabun, but WWII arrived first. Like many of his ideas, it was an interesting one. Did you know that Bangkok once had a "Speaker's Corner" modeled on the one in Hyde Park? -- Another of ideas ideas.

[Chopperboy]

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...!

Yeh, but they've got the best fortune tellers!

Noticed how they moved just BEFORE the monks & the storm.

TS is either a master of strategy, or those FT's are really good.

[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

What an idiotic response.

hey moron where are you manners? It was a deserved response to the "lifer" saying

"That's a great article! That should have all the residents of Bangkok scrambling to leave"

[Golden Nugget]

Relocating to Pattaya would be appropriate...

[anterian]

Just move Bangkok to Nepal, that should be safe enough.

[GooEng]

Kao Yai?

a thai friend told me that at some point abhisit actually suggested pak chong(on the egde of khao yai) as the location for the new capital....

[mca]

Kao Yai?

a thai friend told me that at some point abhisit actually suggested pak chong(on the egde of khao yai) as the location for the new capital....

I fully agree. The perfect location. They've got a McDonalds drive-thru.

[Buchholz]

Kao Yai?

a thai friend told me that at some point abhisit actually suggested pak chong(on the egde of khao yai) as the location for the new capital....

It'd be interesting to see if this suggestion was ever actually made.

As Thaksin's idea of 2003 to move to Nakhon Nayok was the last time I've seen any mention of moving the capital... that is, until 2011, when Pheu Thai Party (aka Thaksin, ver. 4.0) is proposing the same move all over again.

.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[sparebox2]

If Thaksin is in charge, the new capital coupld be Phanom Phem.

[Buchholz]

In response to whether the capital city should be relocated, 60.4 per cent said no, though 27.8 per cent said yes and proposed Nakhon Ratchasima as an option.

2011-11-26

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Activists-file-complaint-against-Yingluck-Pracha-30170663.html

Yingluck's government's motion to move the capital to Nakhon Nayok and reap their billions has their work cut out for them.

That is, if they care about the public's opinion.

Then again, that really isn't crucial to them with that amount of money at stake.

.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Buchholz

[maidu]

It's a smart idea and I've been suggesting it for years - mostly in published letters to the 2 Eng.lang newspapers out of Bkk.

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.

Reason for the idiotic proposal is purely political.

Not idiotic at all. The idiotic thing is to keep dumping tens of billions of baht on a sinking flood-prone city. Sure speculators will make some money by gobbling up properties in Nakhon Nayod or wherever. granted, there are plenty of drawbacks and expenses to moving away from Bkk, but it's got to be done, unless Thailand wants its capital city to be under one to two meters of standing water year 'round.

I predict the moving idea won't happen. Main reasons: too many important royal and religious sites in Bkk, plus expenses and loss of investments, and inconvenience of so many people relocating. However, the costs of not relocating are higher, and the city will just as surely get inundated either way.