Conflict Over Barriers A Sign Of Divide: Thailand Flood

[webfact]

Conflict over barriers a sign of divide

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

The recent deployment of the big-bag dyke by the government has come to represent a very visible aspect of a top-down, centralised approach that ignores the issues of justice and fairness. The big bag floodwall has become a symbol of what is wrong and unjust about Thailand's national development over the past decades.

Since Sunday, a few groups of disgruntled residents who are negatively affected because they live on the "wrong" side of the floodwall have decided to protest and destroy some of the one-tonne bags and no one knows when such actions will cease for good.

The Yingluck Shinawatra administration and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration have failed utterly to articulate or explain the need for people on the other side to accept more water in order to save inner Bangkok. Out of the blue, one day authorities just decided that big bags will be the saviour of the inner city and the unlucky folks outside the barriers will just have to put up with more water. This happened with no advance consultation and no fair compensation being offered from the outset.

It took weeks before people in both the fringes of Bangkok like Don Muang and north of Bangkok in Pathum Thani's Lam Luk Ka district to decide that they had been unfairly made to sacrifice in silence and that they must do something about it. Prior to that most of the Bangkok-based national media paid little or no interest in the justice and fairness issues of the big bags, that is, until the big bags were removed or destroyed, threatening the inner city with a deluge.

Yes, society can't exist as a society if its members are unwilling to sacrifice when there's a need to save the majority or the strategic parts of society. But again, there can be no society when people who are not regarded as important are neglected and forced to endure more suffering and hardships without justice and fairness so that the rich people in the central part of the capital can go on enjoying their lives as usual.

The lesson of the big bag conflict is that Thai society is fragmented and not democratic or just enough in seeking solutions.

Earlier this week, when the big bags were first dismantled by angry residents in the Don Muang area, the Post Today newspaper was quick to run a scary main front-page headline stating, "Fallen Heaven" (sawan loem). This suggests that Bangkok is heaven while the rest may not be as celestial and those outside Bangkok may see it differently.

Although the news pictures of people taking matters into their own hands and defying the authorities' "solution" are disturbing to many, they can also be interpreted as ordinary folks increasingly rejecting top-down government "solutions" that they have no say in. They could even be considered a positive sign for the future of participatory democracy.

The authorities will have to adapt and come up with a more convincing solution that takes the interests of not just the central business district of Bangkok into consideration if they're to avoid more resistance.

The centralisation of Bangkok as a primate city which dominates the rest of the Kingdom will also have to be reviewed as more and more people are saying they will not accept the idea of unconditionally placing Bangkok above the rest at all cost as it was clearly shown in the conflict. The claim that since Bangkok is the centre of virtually everything, it must be saved and receive more preferential treatment than others, is in a way an unjust and self-perpetuating remark if it comes without a genuine attempt to decentralise power and wealth to other parts of the country. Such a ethos has increasingly become the very thing that generates resentment.

-- The Nation 2011-11-18

[dominique355]

"Although the news pictures of people taking matters into their own hands and defying the authorities' "solution" are disturbing to many, they can also be interpreted as ordinary folks increasingly rejecting top-down government "solutions" that they have no say in. They could even be considered a positive sign for the future of participatory democracy.

The authorities will have to adapt and come up with a more convincing solution that takes the interests of not just the central business district of Bangkok into consideration if they're to avoid more resistance."

Hmm, now apply this view of "people's participation" to, say, occupation of airports, busting international political meetings, occupying street intersection, burning down shopping centers and get away with it, what do you get?

Participatory democracy? I was under obviously wrong impression that "democracy" meant that all people got involved in a decision, not just a few and that in a democracy the majority rules, not a minute but loud minority.

If there is no more authority, no accountability, no rule of law, then that's not "participatory democracy" but anarchy.

[MengWan]

"centralised approach that ignores the issues of justice and fairness"

A flood is by nature unjust (water flows from high to low) and unfair (it affects more the poor and un-equipped) !

So, the approach of a FIGHT against floods cannot be "just and fair" ... (meet your enemy)

EFFICIENCY is the goal, and anything else is stupid politicizing !

Water does NOT do politics, people do, and they should refrain in this kind of situation

Edited November 18, 2011 by metisdead
Bold font removed.

[robblok]

I agree its totally unfair for those residents. I have been flooded too not because of those big bags. So i feel for them. The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry. They keep telling people how bad it would be if BKK is flooded and how much of the GDP would be lost (often forgetting that a lot is already lost because most factories are in the flooded areas).

I agree that flooding BKK is not the solution, but a fair compensation is. The 5000k is just not enough. Especially if your water levels are a lot higher then they would have been if there was no BBB. So id say give them more money and if there is no money put a property tax on BKK location that are saved because of this action. That would make it fair.

However many of the people who are saved because of this frown at it because they think the greater good means people have to sacrifice without compensation and they can go on living their life and moaning on beer shortages.

[Ijustwannateach]

Robblok, YOU're the moaner. Every single thread, blah, blah, blah, Bangkokians are rich coffee-drinking hi-so's who don't appreciate my pain.

I assure you, that if Ramkhamhaeng became flooded the way it has the potential to be, that you would be looking at hundreds of thousands of non-hi-so refugees.

Indeed, pretty much anyone who even uses the skytrain is not really all that finicky hi-so. Or buses. Just like most of the people I know.

You're probably right that the compensation is trivial, but it's not Bangkok's fault; it's the poor decision of the currently-in-power government. Or do you think all those people on Ramkhamhaeng living on or working for a paultry few thousand a month owe poor you more?

[gregb]

I agree its totally unfair for those residents. I have been flooded too not because of those big bags. So i feel for them. The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry. They keep telling people how bad it would be if BKK is flooded and how much of the GDP would be lost (often forgetting that a lot is already lost because most factories are in the flooded areas).

I agree that flooding BKK is not the solution, but a fair compensation is. The 5000k is just not enough. Especially if your water levels are a lot higher then they would have been if there was no BBB. So id say give them more money and if there is no money put a property tax on BKK location that are saved because of this action. That would make it fair.

However many of the people who are saved because of this frown at it because they think the greater good means people have to sacrifice without compensation and they can go on living their life and moaning on beer shortages.

Actually, I think most of us would be quite happy to stay flooded for a few months without complaints if the compensation was 5000k (5 million).

Edited November 18, 2011 by metisdead
30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[robblok]

Robblok, YOU're the moaner. Every single thread, blah, blah, blah, Bangkokians are rich coffee-drinking hi-so's who don't appreciate my pain.

I assure you, that if Ramkhamhaeng became flooded the way it has the potential to be, that you would be looking at hundreds of thousands of non-hi-so refugees.

Indeed, pretty much anyone who even uses the skytrain is not really all that finicky hi-so. Or buses. Just like most of the people I know.

You're probably right that the compensation is trivial, but it's not Bangkok's fault; it's the poor decision of the currently-in-power government. Or do you think all those people on Ramkhamhaeng living on or working for a paultry few thousand a month owe poor you more?

You can call me a moaner but why would my view on the subject of the BBB be less valid as others ?

Please state where is ay BKK people are rich hi so ?

Also thread after thread i state i am not affected by the BBB (look up bang bua thong / bang yai) Also i have stated countless times all compensation i will receive will go to the wife i don't care about it. So i don't think those poor people own me anything. But if your going to be protected at the cost of others then pay up.

Suppose i have a nice house and you have a house bigger and nicer. I never get flooded and if i do water will rush through without doing too much damage. THen one day you decide to up up a damm. Now my flooding is deeper and longer. I could understand your need to protect but expect you to compensate me for my deeper flood and longer suffering.

The flooding is not BKK's fault but people are sacrificed for BKK. The reason i take the BBB is because its clear here. Water levels are higher and it will take longer because of it. In other cases its harder to find such a clear example. So I use this and then people cant refute the facts.

My pain is no longer there friend, said that countless times the pain and stress stopped the moment the water stopped rising and it started to go down. I am still of course not living a normal situation but it has nothing to do with this subject. I just got more empathy after having lived through it (think a few more weeks and ill be dry).

Could you explain to me why my idea of compensation is so crazy, why the people being sacrificed should not get money from those being saved ? Why do you expect them to do it for free ?

[robblok]

I agree its totally unfair for those residents. I have been flooded too not because of those big bags. So i feel for them. The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry. They keep telling people how bad it would be if BKK is flooded and how much of the GDP would be lost (often forgetting that a lot is already lost because most factories are in the flooded areas).

Why do you constantly repeat this nonsense?

Do you not understand that the residents of Bangkok have no say in this matter? Do you think there is a daily poll of inner city residents that is guiding government policy? Are you really that retarded?

The people in the dry have as much say as those that are wet - ZERO.

It is the government that is responsible for who is wet/dry and they arent really in control of that. The people that you are insulting here, the people who are on the other side of your imaginary divide have done nothing wrong.

You have a vivid imagination but it is not reality. Bangkok residents are neither rich, nor do they have any say in the matter. So for heavens sake <deleted>.

Ow Pedero i am sure you look like your avatar when you read my posts. Cursing wont help or shut me up. People are not in control but the government is. I agree there so its the governments duty to compensate them. I was just giving some idea's how to get money.

Where i come from people who benefit most from water management pay the most. Also when a road is being build land is not just being stolen they get money for it. Then people who use the road pay for it in road tax. Just showing you cause and relation.

I know fully well BKK residents are not rich but why would the other people be expected to be any richer ? Its only natural that the ones benefiting from the dam should pay to help those on the wrong side.

I don't see BKK people as evil, i love going there its close to where i live. Just my idea of fairness obviously does not match yours.

Edited November 18, 2011 by robblok

[robblok]

I agree its totally unfair for those residents. I have been flooded too not because of those big bags. So i feel for them. The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry. They keep telling people how bad it would be if BKK is flooded and how much of the GDP would be lost (often forgetting that a lot is already lost because most factories are in the flooded areas).

I agree that flooding BKK is not the solution, but a fair compensation is. The 5000k is just not enough. Especially if your water levels are a lot higher then they would have been if there was no BBB. So id say give them more money and if there is no money put a property tax on BKK location that are saved because of this action. That would make it fair.

However many of the people who are saved because of this frown at it because they think the greater good means people have to sacrifice without compensation and they can go on living their life and moaning on beer shortages.

Actually, I think most of us would be quite happy to stay flooded for a few months without complaints if the compensation was 5000k (5 million).

Yea stupid mistake but indeed 5000k is a bit over the top.

[Ijustwannateach]

The idea of more compensation in general isn't crazy; just your idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

One could just as easily say that the reason those areas are saved is that they are the only areas that COULD be saved, and they could be saved because of at least a limited bit of past investment in infrastructure, which came from tax and public moneys at the time. Should YOUR area be spared the consequences of the fact that YOUR area's government didn't plan ahead? Why should any other area pay for it more? Each of these areas has had 30 something years since the last really big flood, after all!

Maybe since Bangkok has water treatment, people outside Bangkok should sue for compensation that THEIR areas don't have water treatment. Maybe since Bangkok has a skytrain, areas outside Bangkok should sue because THEY don't have a skytrain. Just because tax from Bangkok paid for it- that means Bangkok taxpayers owe everyone else, right?

I agree that the government should do what it can- and that it's not. I strongly disagree with you that this has anything to do with people in Bangkok- unless you can prove that flooding Bangkok would help any other area against the 20 cubic KILOMETERS of water we're talking about (which you have never proven) and that the actual people of Bangkok somehow actually control the results (and I still don't seem to have that 'open the floodgate!' button here on my browser- guess the government doesn't want my opinion either!)

Like it or not, this 'poo' government (as Steve M. wonderfully calls it) was elected by the masses- and not the masses in Bangkok- and they're responsible. Go moan to them.

[Reasonableman]

Does that also mean that when the sandbags are removed by mobs of angry flooded residents, that the people living in houses that are then inundated can sue them for the resulting damage?

[robblok]

The idea of more compensation in general isn't crazy; just your idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

One could just as easily say that the reason those areas are saved is that they are the only areas that COULD be saved, and they could be saved because of at least a limited bit of past investment in infrastructure, which came from tax and public moneys at the time. Should YOUR area be spared the consequences of the fact that YOUR area's government didn't plan ahead? Why should any other area pay for it more? Each of these areas has had 30 something years since the last really big flood, after all!

Maybe since Bangkok has water treatment, people outside Bangkok should sue for compensation that THEIR areas don't have water treatment. Maybe since Bangkok has a skytrain, areas outside Bangkok should sue because THEY don't have a skytrain. Just because tax from Bangkok paid for it- that means Bangkok taxpayers owe everyone else, right?

I agree that the government should do what it can- and that it's not. I strongly disagree with you that this has anything to do with people in Bangkok- unless you can prove that flooding Bangkok would help any other area against the 20 cubic KILOMETERS of water we're talking about (which you have never proven) and that the actual people of Bangkok somehow actually control the results (and I still don't seem to have that 'open the floodgate!' button here on my browser- guess the government doesn't want my opinion either!)

Like it or not, this 'poo' government (as Steve M. wonderfully calls it) was elected by the masses- and not the masses in Bangkok- and they're responsible. Go moan to them.

Mr ijustwannateach, i think English is what you teach. Taxes are my specialty and they always rob Peter to pay Paul one way or an other. That is the nature of tax. Now that i linked it more direct you start to stagger because suddenly you see how taxes work.

I prefer them to scrap the populist policies, but they will never do that.

Its proven that this BBB has a bad effect on the people living on the wrong side. Flooding BKK would help them but is an crazy idea(compensation is not). Its easy to prove that the bags have a bad effect by measuring water levels on both sides. But even a small experiment on the beach could prove it. (Usually a beach is sloping ) empty a bucket of water and measure how deep the water get while going down. After that do the same now build a small dam of sand and do the same again measure the depth of water on the wrong side of the dam.

Your examples of things that are and are not are nice but not relevant. The BBB was not there when the people bought their houses. They had no way to know how it would affect them. It came there after the fact. Those other things have been there a long time (water treatment / sky train). Also those other things don't really have the same effect as a flooding. Hope you can agree with that.

[robblok]

Does that also mean that when the sandbags are removed by mobs of angry flooded residents, that the people living in houses that are then inundated can sue them for the resulting damage?

I would say so yes, i give them as much chance as the people who are flooded getting real compensation. Id say not fair in both cases.

[gregb]

Does that also mean that when the sandbags are removed by mobs of angry flooded residents, that the people living in houses that are then inundated can sue them for the resulting damage?

The bags are the property of the government. If you wish to sue the government for malfeasance, then you should be allowed to.

[Moruya]

I don't see the people damaging the barriers as part of the polarised social issue. This is purely a group of people who's suffering has been extended by the government to keep a much larger number of people dry taking action themselves.

It's not red vs yellow - it's dry vs wet.

[robblok]

I don't see the people damaging the barriers as part of the polarised social issue. This is purely a group of people who's suffering has been extended by the government to keep a much larger number of people dry taking action themselves.

It's not red vs yellow - it's dry vs wet.

Its not like that all the time. A bit above our village we broke the dams down to let water into our village. We saw no reason in keeping the water locked up above us. If we would not have broken those dams our village would be dry earlier but others would suffer more.

So wet and wet do have compassion and of course here the difference in level was not that much. We just want it to flow here so everyone is dry sooner.

[sparebox2]

he purpose of the BBB is to keep Bangkok dry.

Let the BBB do its intended function.

[trompelemonde]

The idea of more compensation in general isn't crazy; just your idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

One could just as easily say that the reason those areas are saved is that they are the only areas that COULD be saved, and they could be saved because of at least a limited bit of past investment in infrastructure, which came from tax and public moneys at the time. Should YOUR area be spared the consequences of the fact that YOUR area's government didn't plan ahead? Why should any other area pay for it more? Each of these areas has had 30 something years since the last really big flood, after all!

Maybe since Bangkok has water treatment, people outside Bangkok should sue for compensation that THEIR areas don't have water treatment. Maybe since Bangkok has a skytrain, areas outside Bangkok should sue because THEY don't have a skytrain. Just because tax from Bangkok paid for it- that means Bangkok taxpayers owe everyone else, right?

I agree that the government should do what it can- and that it's not. I strongly disagree with you that this has anything to do with people in Bangkok- unless you can prove that flooding Bangkok would help any other area against the 20 cubic KILOMETERS of water we're talking about (which you have never proven) and that the actual people of Bangkok somehow actually control the results (and I still don't seem to have that 'open the floodgate!' button here on my browser- guess the government doesn't want my opinion either!)

Like it or not, this 'poo' government (as Steve M. wonderfully calls it) was elected by the masses- and not the masses in Bangkok- and they're responsible. Go moan to them.

The responses of people of in the 'dry parts' of Bangkok either smack of smugness that they are dry or fear that they too will be flooded while also playing on the importance of keeping parts of the parts of the city where they reside dry.

(The last bad flooding was in 1995, not thirty years ago.Also the big wastewater projects in Bangkok and the BTS were, if I remember correctly, funded by sources other than the Thai tax payer - at least initially)

[trompelemonde]

he purpose of the BBB is to keep Bangkok dry.

Let the BBB do its intended function.

Bangkok is actually a province (termed as a 'Special Administrative Area') not just the CBD and a few other parts. Bangkok is already heavily flooded.

[BlueTerrace]

I assure you, that if Ramkhamhaeng became flooded the way it has the potential to be, that you would be looking at hundreds of thousands of non-hi-so refugees.

Indeed, pretty much anyone who even uses the skytrain is not really all that finicky hi-so. Or buses. Just like most of the people I know.

You're probably right that the compensation is trivial, but it's not Bangkok's fault; it's the poor decision of the currently-in-power government.

Hear, hear!

[Ijustwannateach]

^^^I've said it before: let my area flood. It doesn't affect me financially nor will it ruin my things- and I'll be out of here before the water reaches the street. It will be very bad for the poor around here, though (which is MOST of the people, contrary to the strange vision of the Bangkok population that many of the flooded irrationals have).

[ExpatOilWorker]

Can't we just keep the water behind the BBB until Songkran festival in April?

Then they can sell the water, keep the proceedings and everybody are wet and happy. Problem solved, move on.

[Payboy]

Can't we just keep the water behind the BBB until Songkran festival in April?

Then they can sell the water, keep the proceedings and everybody are wet and happy. Problem solved, move on.

Also no one needs to pee in their water pistols or buckets before splashing farangs.

[h90]

People are divided if you divide them by barriers.....what a surprise.

[pedro01]

I agree its totally unfair for those residents. I have been flooded too not because of those big bags. So i feel for them. The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry. They keep telling people how bad it would be if BKK is flooded and how much of the GDP would be lost (often forgetting that a lot is already lost because most factories are in the flooded areas).

Why do you constantly repeat this nonsense?

Do you not understand that the residents of Bangkok have no say in this matter? Do you think there is a daily poll of inner city residents that is guiding government policy? Are you really that retarded?

The people in the dry have as much say as those that are wet - ZERO.

It is the government that is responsible for who is wet/dry and they arent really in control of that. The people that you are insulting here, the people who are on the other side of your imaginary divide have done nothing wrong.

You have a vivid imagination but it is not reality. Bangkok residents are neither rich, nor do they have any say in the matter. So for heavens sake <deleted>.

Ow Pedero i am sure you look like your avatar when you read my posts. Cursing wont help or shut me up. People are not in control but the government is. I agree there so its the governments duty to compensate them. I was just giving some idea's how to get money.

Where i come from people who benefit most from water management pay the most. Also when a road is being build land is not just being stolen they get money for it. Then people who use the road pay for it in road tax. Just showing you cause and relation.

I know fully well BKK residents are not rich but why would the other people be expected to be any richer ? Its only natural that the ones benefiting from the dam should pay to help those on the wrong side.

I don't see BKK people as evil, i love going there its close to where i live. Just my idea of fairness obviously does not match yours.

Your idea of fairness is to blame people with no say in the matter - "The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry" - no-one I have met in Bangkok feels that way.

This is all in your rather vivid imagination.

You are a tiresome bore who is unable to assess the situation with the facts on the ground vis a vis who is making the decisions.

[robblok]

I agree its totally unfair for those residents. I have been flooded too not because of those big bags. So i feel for them. The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry. They keep telling people how bad it would be if BKK is flooded and how much of the GDP would be lost (often forgetting that a lot is already lost because most factories are in the flooded areas).

Why do you constantly repeat this nonsense?

Do you not understand that the residents of Bangkok have no say in this matter? Do you think there is a daily poll of inner city residents that is guiding government policy? Are you really that retarded?

The people in the dry have as much say as those that are wet - ZERO.

It is the government that is responsible for who is wet/dry and they arent really in control of that. The people that you are insulting here, the people who are on the other side of your imaginary divide have done nothing wrong.

You have a vivid imagination but it is not reality. Bangkok residents are neither rich, nor do they have any say in the matter. So for heavens sake <deleted>.

Ow Pedero i am sure you look like your avatar when you read my posts. Cursing wont help or shut me up. People are not in control but the government is. I agree there so its the governments duty to compensate them. I was just giving some idea's how to get money.

Where i come from people who benefit most from water management pay the most. Also when a road is being build land is not just being stolen they get money for it. Then people who use the road pay for it in road tax. Just showing you cause and relation.

I know fully well BKK residents are not rich but why would the other people be expected to be any richer ? Its only natural that the ones benefiting from the dam should pay to help those on the wrong side.

I don't see BKK people as evil, i love going there its close to where i live. Just my idea of fairness obviously does not match yours.

Your idea of fairness is to blame people with no say in the matter - "The problem is that the residents of BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry" - no-one I have met in Bangkok feels that way.

This is all in your rather vivid imagination.

You are a tiresome bore who is unable to assess the situation with the facts on the ground vis a vis who is making the decisions.

You should have seen the people i had discussions with. They really did see it as their god given right. They were in the all important BKK. Just like there are people who think everyone in BKK is rich.

Kinda depends on who you discuss with i think. I never said everyone in BKK is rich but i am tared with the same brush. Same as i tar others with the brush that all BKK see it as their god given right to stay dry. Neither is true, but both are used to polarize the issue. I am guilty of that but makes for a more interesting discussion. Then later you can both take back a few things and meet on common ground. Think most negotiations go like that discussion often too.

The government is making the decisions, so if they decide to put a higher tax on BKK to pay for damages in the other parts its ok ? But when i ask for it its not ok ? Personally i rather see them sacrifice their populist policies to give fair compensation. But i am too much of a realist to think that will happen because too much money will be made on those policies.

I don't blame BKK, but i do expect them to compensate the people on the wrong side of the BBB. That is only fair. How its done i don't really care about an extra tax, scrapping of policies whatever. But its just crazy to sacrifice someone and then not compensate him fairly.

[MaxYakov]

TVF Link Posted on the 'Daily Flood Locations Nov 18th & 19th' thread regarding Dr. Seree's presentation on the 17 Nov 2011 (last night) Thai PBS English-language segment of 'Thailand's Worst Flood' which covered the three Big Bag Barrier Breaches (B-cubed).

[anterian]

Robblok, YOU're the moaner. Every single thread, blah, blah, blah, Bangkokians are rich coffee-drinking hi-so's who don't appreciate my pain.

I assure you, that if Ramkhamhaeng became flooded the way it has the potential to be, that you would be looking at hundreds of thousands of non-hi-so refugees.

Indeed, pretty much anyone who even uses the skytrain is not really all that finicky hi-so. Or buses. Just like most of the people I know.

You're probably right that the compensation is trivial, but it's not Bangkok's fault; it's the poor decision of the currently-in-power government. Or do you think all those people on Ramkhamhaeng living on or working for a paultry few thousand a month owe poor you more?

I can only assume that you are safe and dry in central Bangkok to write as you do. The whole point is the compensation is derisory. Take a simple 3 room village house, clean and repaint the walls, replace bed, bedding and furniture, replace toys, clothing, anything made of fibreboard (most furniture), probably fans and a few other electrical appliances. Now if you can do all that for 5000 Baht then I will believe in miracles.

[GoonDizzy]

My house in Thanyaburi has been under 4-5feet of water for almost a month. The water level is hardly moving due to the big bags. Not my words but one of the Dutch experts on TPBS today. He basically said that with the big bags in place the areas worst affected would suffer for around another 40 days. Without them... around 20 days but it would cause floods in BKK.

I totally agree it's unfair on residents on the dry side to be suddenly submerged without warning.

However, there is a warning. I believe that the residents along with a governor of the district have given the gov an ultimatum. They want to see a 3-5cm decrease in the water levels per day over the next three days. If it stays the same they will be doing whatever they need to. This has been shown a lot today on Thai TV.

If I lived just on the dry side of this big bag wall I would take the warning seriously. I would be leaving right now to be honest.

And let's be fair. If you had been living in 5 feet of toxic waste for a month with no sign of an end, nowhere to pee or poop (in a bag as many are now doing), little food, no idea when the kids can return to school, jobs being lost, folks without pay and the TV only banging on about BKK and its flood situation (tame in comparison), you too may just take the law into your own hands.

Good luck everyone and remember...the river is the only way for the water to go.

[robblok]

My house in Thanyaburi has been under 4-5feet of water for almost a month. The water level is hardly moving due to the big bags. Not my words but one of the Dutch experts on TPBS today. He basically said that with the big bags in place the areas worst affected would suffer for around another 40 days. Without them... around 20 days but it would cause floods in BKK.

I totally agree it's unfair on residents on the dry side to be suddenly submerged without warning.

However, there is a warning. I believe that the residents along with a governor of the district have given the gov an ultimatum. They want to see a 3-5cm decrease in the water levels per day over the next three days. If it stays the same they will be doing whatever they need to. This has been shown a lot today on Thai TV.

If I lived just on the dry side of this big bag wall I would take the warning seriously. I would be leaving right now to be honest.

And let's be fair. If you had been living in 5 feet of toxic waste for a month with no sign of an end, nowhere to pee or poop (in a bag as many are now doing), little food, no idea when the kids can return to school, jobs being lost, folks without pay and the TV only banging on about BKK and its flood situation (tame in comparison), you too may just take the law into your own hands.

Good luck everyone and remember...the river is the only way for the water to go.

That is real bad an extra 20 days just to keep the other side dry. Living in those conditions is real bad. I can understand the anger.

I read that they are getting now 20-30 k compensation and some gates are being opened wider. That was the deal i believe. Seems you have to act like a terrorist to get justice here.