Thai Govt Faces String Of Lawsuits Over Flood Disaster

[webfact]

Govt faces string of lawsuits

Wannapa Khaopa

Atapoom Ongkulna

The Nation

Two groups to sue state agencies, PM and Cabinet for the flooding situation and seek damages for victims

The man who virtually brought the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate to its knees two years ago has confirmed he will lead a class-action campaign against the government in connection with the flood disaster.

Government agencies concerned with flood management will be taken to court next month for failing to solve the disaster, said Srisuwan Janya, chairman of the Stop Global Warming Thailand Association.

The man who fought to force industrial projects in Map Ta Phut to adjust their plans and consider environmental issues more seriously said this campaign would be independent of a similar one being launched by a Chulalongkorn University lecturer.

"On December 19, our association will file a lawsuit with the Administrative Court against more than 10 government organisations that have worked to address flood problems," he said.

They are Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the Cabinet, the Flood Relief Operations Centre (FROC), the Royal Irrigation Department, the Meteorological Department, the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat), and the Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute, he said.

"Everyone who has been affected by floods in 26 provinces is invited to contact us so the association will represent them to file the suit," Srisuwan said.

"We will tell the court how each of those agencies has failed to solve the flood disaster, and force them to pay compensation to the flood victims and issue concrete and clear measures to prevent severe floods recurring in the future."

Compensation will be sought for their damaged assets, illness caused by the floods and loss of income.

Before the association files the suit in court, it will hold a meeting with flood experts and academics and flood-affected people on December 15 at Imperial Queen's Park Hotel in Bangkok to see what wrongs the government agencies committed in coping with the floods and resolving the flood problems, as well as to hear from the victims.

"We are inviting all affected people to join the meeting to share with us their troubles," he said.

The other campaigner, meanwhile, is hatching a similar legal plan, in which the government would face administrative, civil and criminal litigation in connection with its allegedly botched flood control.

Chulalongkorn University economics lecturer Narong Phetprasert said yesterday that he and his team were gathering legal evidence.

"Evidence will be collected over the next two months to build up cases against the government," he said.

Narong said the litigation would be based on five causes - administrative damage, negligence, lapse of duty, lost opportunity and property damage.

After assessing flood-hit communities, the legal team will draw up a list of defendants. He said the potential defendants included the FROC, the Agriculture Ministry, the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry, Egat and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.

Although the previous government had mishandled last year's flood control, the extent of flooding and damage did not warrant a court battle, he said, denying he was trying to target the Pheu Thai Party while sparing the Democrats.

He said he would work with the Law Society of Thailand in building up the cases on behalf of the flood victims.

The government would be taken to courts to face myriad charges, he said.

Key provisions to sanction the litigation include Article 9 of the Administrative Court Formation and Administrative Procedural Code.

Article 9 prescribes the mandate of citizens to sue the government for lapse of duty.

Article 157 of the Criminal Code prescribes for malfeasance. Article 420 of the Civil Code is the legal basis to sue for damage.

In a related development, the National Human Rights Commission has launched a probe into the impact from pumping flood water from industrial estates into surrounding communities, NHRC member Niran Pitakwatchara said.

-- The Nation 2011-11-16

[webfact]

PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling

The prime minister says she is ready to defend herself about the flood mismanagement case against the government on the court.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinwatra said she is ready to provide another side of the story on the government's management of the flood crisis, as some parties are considering filing civil charges to seek compensation from her government.

The prime minister said she will instruct agencies to develop an understanding with the people to prevent turmoil after the situation returns to normal, while suggesting that there are still thousands of jobs for those who could be laid off in response to flood losses.

Yingluck added that she has ordered the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration or BMA to talk with the people who demand the removal of the Big Bag levee in Don Muang District.

The premier went on to say the capacity of Bangkok's flood drainage system is now improving, particularly in the western and eastern sides of the city. She remarked that the Interior Ministry has set aside 50 million baht of its budget to finance the BMA's flood assistance efforts, and if the figure is still not enough, the ministry can ask for an additional amount.

The premier said the worst is over for the overall flood situation and its expected the situation will improve after the New Year.

Touching on the probe into the corruption allegation on flood relief bags, Prime Minister Yingluck said evidence has been forwarded to the Department of Special Investigation.

The information includes that collected by the Flood Relief Operations Center, or FROC, and the materials used during the parliamentary debate last week.

The prime minister said she's undaunted by the threat of legal action against the government for its alleged failure to manage the flood crisis. She said she's determined to remain as prime minister to help the Thai public.

-- Tan Network 2011-11-16

[Thailand]

The post flood bandwagon starts to roll.

Will be plenty more people wanting to get their name in light,after all TIT

[givenall]

PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling

"PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling", love this heading. How can you defend mishandling?

Opps I screwed up

Edited November 16, 2011 by givenall

[alstaxi]

Getting the fugitive ex pm a red passport might be on hold for awhile, looks good on them.

[sparebox2]

Lawsuit on govt OK, because govt has ask people in Sai mai & Don Mueng to evacuate at a time when evacuation is not necessary (eventually yes, but not then).

But NOT law suit on BMA please, as human do make mistake sometime, and should enjoy the benefit of forgiveness.

Please do not listen to FROC. Bangkokian should only list to BMA governor, and him alone.

[sparebox2]

PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling

"PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling", love this heading. How can you defend mishandling?

Opps I screwed up

That''s right. It is OK for BMA to say "Sorry i screw up. Now I repeat. Listen to me, and only me."

However, It is NOT OK for FROC to say "Sorry i screw up." as FROC is not supported by Mark nor the Army.

[BabySun]

PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling

"PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling", love this heading. How can you defend mishandling?

Opps I screwed up

Have you heard about idea: "Force Mejeour"?

Try to sue your insurence company about floods - you will know.

[DocN]

PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling

"PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling", love this heading. How can you defend mishandling?

Opps I screwed up

That''s right. It is OK for BMA to say "Sorry i screw up. Now I repeat. Listen to me, and only me."

However, It is NOT OK for FROC to say "Sorry i screw up." as FROC is not supported by Mark nor the Army.

Stop trolling!

[Buchholz]

PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling

"PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling", love this heading. How can you defend mishandling?

She's mishandling her defense of flood mishandling.

.

[tragickingdom]

This is of course nothing more than a plot to get elections void again. As if Yongluck can do something about the enormous amount of rain that felt and already started under Abhisit. It is not this government who is to blame but the governments of the last 60 years. They all allowed deforestation, they all allowed condo's and house to be build near the river in Bangkok so the water could not spill over in it's natural path and all Bangkok governors in the last 50 years were very good in two things : taking bribes and filling up the klongs to make way for roads.

In any normal country claims would be laughed away. You either have insurance or you don't. But you cannot hold either Abhisit or Yingluck to account for an act of God, whichever God it is.

[HAL9000]

Instead why don't they sue God for allowing rain to fall. He has infinitely more resources and they are sure to get a much higher settlement.

[hellodolly]

PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling

"PM Ready to Defend Flood Mishandling", love this heading. How can you defend mishandling?

Opps I screwed up

This is her idea of handeling the situation.

"The prime minister said she will instruct agencies to develop an understanding with the people to prevent turmoil after the situation returns to normal"

Normal being they bring her brother back all Lilly white and continues to back off on their election promises. Normal being put a red shirt on and you are super human deserving of special privileges.

Makes me sick to think that the people will fall for this type of government.

[hellodolly]

I believe that the Government should be held accountable for their gross mishandling of the situation.

The place to do that is at the voting poll.

To try to sue them will just deter more qualified people from ever seeking a political position. Why should they when if they make a honest mistake they will be sued.

It will continue to leave the door open for the people with criminal intentions and not the welfare of Thailand.

Graft is a criminal offense.

[Arkady]

I believe that the Government should be held accountable for their gross mishandling of the situation.

The place to do that is at the voting poll.

To try to sue them will just deter more qualified people from ever seeking a political position. Why should they when if they make a honest mistake they will be sued.

It will continue to leave the door open for the people with criminal intentions and not the welfare of Thailand.

Graft is a criminal offense.

You can see the same arguments in South Africa for limiting the power of the judiciary to hold the government to account on behalf of the people. Their constitution asserts that the power to govern shall be in the hands of the people. The ANC interprets this as meaning that as long as they can always get 65% of the vote based on racial lines, they should be free to do anything they want free of any judicial probes into their mega corruption. However, the judicial branch needs to be a fully functioning independent third leg of government that ensures accountability of the executive and legislative branches to the people in between election times.

I don't see any suggestion yet that individual politicians are likely to be prosecuted. If the government is sued but not individuals, why would that dissuade capable people from entering politics (or more to the point why have they been dissuaded up till now)?

The government is clearly culpable of ignoring all intelligent proposals for water management since the eminently sensible Litchfield Plan in 1960. Therefore it should be held accountable. If it is never held accountable for anything, it will never perform any better. The results of past government decisions or lack of them affect people long into the future and it must take responsibility. Otherwise, you are saying that, although government is responsible for long range planning for the good of all Thais, there should be a statute of limitation on government responsibility for its decisions of only about five minutes. That way you continue to incentivise corrupt people to enter politics to profit from short term projects and discourage the capable people who really want to work for the long term good Thai people.

I would like to see the government slapped with a massive bill for legal compensation as a warning to politicians that they are supposed to be putting effective long term plans into effect and that there will be consequences for the country, if they don't. Some one has to pay for the damage, so why not make those responsible pay?

[witsawakorn]

I believe that the Government should be held accountable for their gross mishandling of the situation.

The place to do that is at the voting poll.

To try to sue them will just deter more qualified people from ever seeking a political position. Why should they when if they make a honest mistake they will be sued.

It will continue to leave the door open for the people with criminal intentions and not the welfare of Thailand.

Graft is a criminal offense.

You can see the same arguments in South Africa for limiting the power of the judiciary to hold the government to account on behalf of the people. Their constitution asserts that the power to govern shall be in the hands of the people. The ANC interprets this as meaning that as long as they can always get 65% of the vote based on racial lines, they should be free to do anything they want free of any judicial probes into their mega corruption. However, the judicial branch needs to be a fully functioning independent third leg of government that ensures accountability of the executive and legislative branches to the people in between election times.

I don't see any suggestion yet that individual politicians are likely to be prosecuted. If the government is sued but not individuals, why would that dissuade capable people from entering politics (or more to the point why have they been dissuaded up till now)?

The government is clearly culpable of ignoring all intelligent proposals for water management since the eminently sensible Litchfield Plan in 1960. Therefore it should be held accountable. If it is never held accountable for anything, it will never perform any better. The results of past government decisions or lack of them affect people long into the future and it must take responsibility. Otherwise, you are saying that, although government is responsible for long range planning for the good of all Thais, there should be a statute of limitation on government responsibility for its decisions of only about five minutes. That way you continue to incentivise corrupt people to enter politics to profit from short term projects and discourage the capable people who really want to work for the long term good Thai people.

I would like to see the government slapped with a massive bill for legal compensation as a warning to politicians that they are supposed to be putting effective long term plans into effect and that there will be consequences for the country, if they don't. Some one has to pay for the damage, so why not make those responsible pay?

I think any government in any country that can pull in 65% of the votes can do whatever it likes can't it? Perhaps the people in South Africa consider that that the alleged shortcomings of the ANC are an acceptable price to pay compared to the type of government that existed previously

If the Thai government was hit with a massive bill as you would like to see who pays? The tax payer of course. The US Army Corps of Engineers were sued for damages ( $77 billion claimed by the city) caused by their failure to maintain the flood defences of New Orleans however a court decision let them off the hook. If they had paid up its still taxpayers' money isn't it?

It's OK to say things should have been better with the application of 50 years hindsight but the fact is that Bangkok did have a flood defence system in place ( I remember a lot of the work being done in the late 1990s) and as far as I can see it worked pretty much as designed in that the main business and commercial areas of the city didn't flood. Unfortunately it didn't help people living outside the floodgates but I know that the 20 plus people in my company whose homes were flooded were pleased that they could at least work and travel to work on the MRT and have power and water available at the office. If all of the city's banking andbusiness sectors had closed during the floods I would think that would have been a bigger disaster for the whole country wouldn't it? Keeping the main airport and tourist areas of the city safe and dry seemed have been achieved as far as I know whicxh was probably a good idea. I found the confusing press releases and apparent lack of coordination and cooperation between the National Government and the BMA to be be two of the most obvious areas of poor goverment performance but I also saw an example of surprisingly civilised and country oriented rather than personal/party centred behaviour on the part of Yingluck and Abhisit when Abhisit said publicly that he didn't think that the PM should step down over her handling of the problem and the PM publicly thanked him. It could have been an opportunity for cheap shots to noone's benefit. I really feel for people who have had homes flooded but I am also thankful that the streets aren't full of looters etc which I suspect would have been the case if similar disastor had afflicted my home country.

[gregb]

I believe that the Government should be held accountable for their gross mishandling of the situation.

The place to do that is at the voting poll.

To try to sue them will just deter more qualified people from ever seeking a political position. Why should they when if they make a honest mistake they will be sued.

It will continue to leave the door open for the people with criminal intentions and not the welfare of Thailand.

Graft is a criminal offense.

Placing the big bag barrier or delaying the release of water for a month so that farmers could harvest another crop were not "honest mistakes". They were intentional actions undertaken with a full understanding for the consequences of the people they were injuring. A government official does sometimes need to decide to take something from one group for the benefit of the country. Just like sometimes they must take people's homes to build a highway. Some are injured but it is for the greater good of the country as a whole.

But the government always has the responsibility of properly compensating the people it injured when it undertakes such an action. There are 2 issues here. First, did the government really act in the best interests of the country? In some cases I think the answer is yes, and in others no. In the areas where it is no it could be a mistake or it could be malfeasance. But the more critical reason for the lawsuit is resolution of the second problem...failure to pay adequate compensation when the government knowingly, intentionally and disproportionately injured and is continuing to injure a group of people for the benefit of others.

Our family will be signing up for the lawsuit, and fulling supporting it.

[Gonsalviz]

Any bets on these lawsuit being pushed or financed by the Dems?