Police Monitor 10 Areas For Signs Of Flood-Related Unrest: Bangkok

[webfact]

FLOOD CRISIS

Police monitor 10 areas for signs of flood-related unrest

The Nation

Police are keeping a close watch on 10 sensitive areas in Greater Bangkok, concerned that prolonged flooding there might prompt stressedout locals to take to the streets.

In Bangkok's Bang Khen district, many flood victims from the RamIndra area shut down the outbound lanes of RamIndra Road yesterday afternoon, paralysing traffic in the area.

The road blockage took place after Bang Khen District Office director Watcharaporn Kawayapnik failed to heed their demands that flood water be drained from their neighbourhoods within seven days.

Greater Bangkok refers to Bangkok, Pathum Thani, Nonthaburi, Samut Prakan and Samut Sakhon.

Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra urged people to be reasonable, rather than act on their emotions.

"We can have discussions. Acting on emotions alone will just lead to damage [of property]," he said.

National Police Office spokesman MajGeneral Piya Utayo said many policemen had been assigned to monitor rallies and demonstrations held by flood victims to gather evidence should they violate laws or damage property.

"People have the constitutional right to assemble, but their rallies must be peaceful," he said.

Piya said the 10 sensitive areas have been swamped with flood water of more than 50 cm for at least a month. They include communities north of the bigbag floodwall in Jantarubeksa and areas along the Phutthamonthol 2 - 4 roads.

There are a lot more than 10 floodhit areas needing special attention, however; indeed, RamIndra is not included in the police list.

Deputy National Police commissioner Pol General Pongsapat Pongcharoen, in his capacity as spokesman for the Flood Relief Operations Centre (FROC), held meetings with representatives of flood victims in Pathum Thani's Lam Luk Ka district and areas near Si Mum Muang Market to listen to their demands.

The Lam Luk Ka residents threatened to close a tollway if flooding in their area did not subside by the end of December.

"Flood water should at the very least subside enough for small vehicles to travel around," one of the representatives said.

Sukhumbhand said he could not comply with suggestions by many people that the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) simply allow runoff water from the upper part of the country to run through the capital and into the sea.

"Bangkok is the centre of government and business. The water flow into the capital must be controlled," he said.

Flooding has already eased in many areas of the capital. Defence Ministry spokesman Colonel Thanatip Sawangsang said flood water would be drained out of the Royal Thai Air Force headquarters and Don Mueang Airport, both in Bangkok, within 14 days.

The flood crisis has affected more than 5 million families around the country. The floodrelated death toll stands at 615 people, with three others reported as missing.

-- The Nation 2011-11-26

[tukkytuktuk]

Protect the rich and not the poor. Good old fashioned democrat policy from the sheriff of Bangkok.

[sungod]

Protect the rich and not the poor. Good old fashioned democrat policy from the sheriff of Bangkok.

So no poor people live in inner Bangkok then?

Talk about tunnel vision

[robblok]

Strange thing is that everytime it takes a protest to open gates wider. First they will say its the end of the world if gates are opened wider. Then a protest comes and gates are opened wider and then they say its no problem. And after opening wider no extra flooding of any significance.

Sounds to me like they want to play it too safe at the expense of people who are flooded. Also at some places they just build dams and close it all off at the expense of people up stream. Dams are all fine and well to protect area's but if you don't give the water a viable option to flow your making it a lot worse for people.

Then if you don't really compensate them you get unrest. Compensate them good, tell them the truth and communicate well and you can avoid it. Unfortunately all of these things will never happen.

[h90]

Protect the rich and not the poor. Good old fashioned democrat policy from the sheriff of Bangkok.

But you figured out that PTP is in full control, also in Bangkok, but also nord of it.

It is called desaster law.

I am no fan of the Democrats but you can't blame them for this.

[h90]

Strange thing is that everytime it takes a protest to open gates wider. First they will say its the end of the world if gates are opened wider. Then a protest comes and gates are opened wider and then they say its no problem. And after opening wider no extra flooding of any significance.

Sounds to me like they want to play it too safe at the expense of people who are flooded. Also at some places they just build dams and close it all off at the expense of people up stream. Dams are all fine and well to protect area's but if you don't give the water a viable option to flow your making it a lot worse for people.

Then if you don't really compensate them you get unrest. Compensate them good, tell them the truth and communicate well and you can avoid it. Unfortunately all of these things will never happen.

That was the mistake from the beginning, up in the nord at every possible place they tried to block the water from comming down.

Every 5 year old understand that the water doesn't disappear if you block it.

[robblok]

Strange thing is that everytime it takes a protest to open gates wider. First they will say its the end of the world if gates are opened wider. Then a protest comes and gates are opened wider and then they say its no problem. And after opening wider no extra flooding of any significance.

Sounds to me like they want to play it too safe at the expense of people who are flooded. Also at some places they just build dams and close it all off at the expense of people up stream. Dams are all fine and well to protect area's but if you don't give the water a viable option to flow your making it a lot worse for people.

Then if you don't really compensate them you get unrest. Compensate them good, tell them the truth and communicate well and you can avoid it. Unfortunately all of these things will never happen.

That was the mistake from the beginning, up in the nord at every possible place they tried to block the water from comming down.

Every 5 year old understand that the water doesn't disappear if you block it.

Yes everyone understands that if loads of water come you cant block it unless you give it somewhere to go. Also without any planning you are sure to fail. Now they saved much of Bkk but made the disaster much worse. It could have been a lot less all that overland water would be a lot less if they had not blocked it up too much up north. Bkk would have had more water and higher rivers but many factories could have been spared.

But that is in hindsight, though its clear to everyone that blocking is not a good strategy.

[whybother]

Yes everyone understands that if loads of water come you cant block it unless you give it somewhere to go. Also without any planning you are sure to fail. Now they saved much of Bkk but made the disaster much worse. It could have been a lot less all that overland water would be a lot less if they had not blocked it up too much up north. Bkk would have had more water and higher rivers but many factories could have been spared.

But that is in hindsight, though its clear to everyone that blocking is not a good strategy.

Flooding Bangkok wouldn't have made much difference to how much north of Bangkok was flooded.

The water wouldn't have been there for as long, but there would have been a lot more flood damage overall and a lot more effort required for flood relief if Bangkok had been flooded.

[wlcart]

Protect the rich and not the poor. Good old fashioned democrat policy from the sheriff of Bangkok.

So no poor people live in inner Bangkok then?

Talk about tunnel vision

Yeah, sure, "inner" Bangkok has not had a drop of water because of the poor. Give me a break, spin it anyway you want but the powerful did benefit on the back of the less powerful, at least recognize it and admit it.

Some poor people just happen to be there.

[robblok]

Yes everyone understands that if loads of water come you cant block it unless you give it somewhere to go. Also without any planning you are sure to fail. Now they saved much of Bkk but made the disaster much worse. It could have been a lot less all that overland water would be a lot less if they had not blocked it up too much up north. Bkk would have had more water and higher rivers but many factories could have been spared.

But that is in hindsight, though its clear to everyone that blocking is not a good strategy.

Flooding Bangkok wouldn't have made much difference to how much north of Bangkok was flooded.

The water wouldn't have been there for as long, but there would have been a lot more flood damage overall and a lot more effort required for flood relief if Bangkok had been flooded.

Maybe yes, maybe no who can tell. If Bkk was flooded for a few days and it would have shaved off weeks here then sure it would have been good. Now you force water away from the river overland where it does more damage in other provinces.

THe gates at western Bkk closed because they fear flooding while it would shorten the way of the water for a 100km. Now it has to go all the way south instead of going through there to the river.

[whybother]

Protect the rich and not the poor. Good old fashioned democrat policy from the sheriff of Bangkok.

So no poor people live in inner Bangkok then?

Talk about tunnel vision

Yeah, sure, "inner" Bangkok has not had a drop of water because of the poor. Give me a break, spin it anyway you want but the powerful did benefit on the back of the less powerful, at least recognize it and admit it.

Some poor people just happen to be there.

All those elite that can still use the subway must be breathing a sigh of relief.

[whybother]

Flooding Bangkok wouldn't have made much difference to how much north of Bangkok was flooded.

The water wouldn't have been there for as long, but there would have been a lot more flood damage overall and a lot more effort required for flood relief if Bangkok had been flooded.

Maybe yes, maybe no who can tell. If Bkk was flooded for a few days and it would have shaved off weeks here then sure it would have been good. Now you force water away from the river overland where it does more damage in other provinces.

THe gates at western Bkk closed because they fear flooding while it would shorten the way of the water for a 100km. Now it has to go all the way south instead of going through there to the river.

If Bangkok was flooded for a few days, there still would have been a lot of damage. There would have also been a lot more people requiring relief.

And it would not have just been a few days. Look at Don Mueang before they put up the big bags. The water just sat there. Some of it moved slowly down Vipivhadi Rangsit. The Lad Phrao intersection was flooded for more than a week, and there was nothing stopping the water from moving on there. How bad would it have been if the big bags hadn't been there?

Flooding Bangkok may ("Maybe yes, maybe no who can tell") have shaved off the amount of time you have been flooded, but it would have cost a lot more and affected a lot more people. The people that have been flooded would have still been flooded, but they would have got a lot less support from everyone that could give support.

[wlcart]

Protect the rich and not the poor. Good old fashioned democrat policy from the sheriff of Bangkok.

So no poor people live in inner Bangkok then?

Talk about tunnel vision

Yeah, sure, "inner" Bangkok has not had a drop of water because of the poor. Give me a break, spin it anyway you want but the powerful did benefit on the back of the less powerful, at least recognize it and admit it.

Some poor people just happen to be there.

All those elite that can still use the subway must be breathing a sigh of relief.

I have been under flood water for a month and I do not really enjoy it. You wouldn't either. I understand why anyone in their community would fight to keep it dry. I accept that. That is they way the world works. But if you try to say to me that flooding our houses instead of yours benefits us, then forget it, that i cannot accept.

The simple truth is people protect their interest. Around me their are families sleeping in the sidewalks on under what ever protection they can find. There are massive amounts of misquotes and tons of dirty water. It is not a good situation for them. They want their homes back as soon as possible. Do you blame them?

Look at an elevation map. The natural course of water should have gone straight through Bangkok, and it did not. That added time and depth to our floods.

If you are in a dry area, I say appreciate the sacrifice that so many have made for you and stop acting like we should be big minded and happy about it. Day after day after day of flooded homes is a hard thing to live through. When you know that water wants to go away and someone is stopping it, you tend to feel a little down about it.

[robblok]

So no poor people live in inner Bangkok then?

Talk about tunnel vision

Yeah, sure, "inner" Bangkok has not had a drop of water because of the poor. Give me a break, spin it anyway you want but the powerful did benefit on the back of the less powerful, at least recognize it and admit it.

Some poor people just happen to be there.

All those elite that can still use the subway must be breathing a sigh of relief.

I have been under flood water for a month and I do not really enjoy it. You wouldn't either. I understand why anyone in their community would fight to keep it dry. I accept that. That is they way the world works. But if you try to say to me that flooding our houses instead of yours benefits us, then forget it, that i cannot accept.

The simple truth is people protect their interest. Around me their are families sleeping in the sidewalks on under what ever protection they can find. There are massive amounts of misquotes and tons of dirty water. It is not a good situation for them. They want their homes back as soon as possible. Do you blame them?

Look at an elevation map. The natural course of water should have gone straight through Bangkok, and it did not. That added time and depth to our floods.

If you are in a dry area, I say appreciate the sacrifice that so many have made for you and stop acting like we should be big minded and happy about it. Day after day after day of flooded homes is a hard thing to live through. When you know that water wants to go away and someone is stopping it, you tend to feel a little down about it.

You put it perfect.

[Bowery99]

I really think anyone who posts in these flood related political threads should have to tell if they are flooded and how long it has been. My guess is that the opinions expressed would certainly be measured along those lines, pretty well.

Near Ramintra KM4-8 house flooded full month up to a meter. In favor of removal of BBBs even if it means an extra 50 cm in my house, just get the freaking water outta here please already!

I realize businesses and tourism would hurt a bit more because of the inner districts being flooded BUT it WOULD go away FASTER too. So the people who have to live in naum key (shit water) are going to get sick and human expenses like that have to added in to any equation, while talking about these issues.

I am lucky and just rent my house and left I BKK (my wife is pregnant and I could afford to) when it got a foot and a half deep, some of my neighbors and friends are not that lucky. When I left BKK on November 3rd and the van drove by klongs near victory Monument/suk and saw low water levels all around there, it was obvious and maddening that they were screwing my house and neighbors in favor of the higher income areas.

It was decided then and there we are leaving this country as soon as the opportunity presents itself, we are both sick of it and don't want to raise a child in this kind of environment.

[whybother]

I have been under flood water for a month and I do not really enjoy it. You wouldn't either. I understand why anyone in their community would fight to keep it dry. I accept that. That is they way the world works. But if you try to say to me that flooding our houses instead of yours benefits us, then forget it, that i cannot accept.

The simple truth is people protect their interest. Around me their are families sleeping in the sidewalks on under what ever protection they can find. There are massive amounts of misquotes and tons of dirty water. It is not a good situation for them. They want their homes back as soon as possible. Do you blame them?

Look at an elevation map. The natural course of water should have gone straight through Bangkok, and it did not. That added time and depth to our floods.

If you are in a dry area, I say appreciate the sacrifice that so many have made for you and stop acting like we should be big minded and happy about it. Day after day after day of flooded homes is a hard thing to live through. When you know that water wants to go away and someone is stopping it, you tend to feel a little down about it.

I no way am I saying that flooding your house instead of mine benefits you, but your house would have been flooded regardless.

Flooding the rest of Bangkok would not have benefited you. It would have meant that what relief there was would have been spread twice as thin, and there would have been less people to help as they would be looking after themselves. Flooding Bangkok would have also meant that there would be less money to spend on the infrastructure that has been damaged, less money to get people back to their jobs again.

Last I checked, the natural water course does go through Bangkok, and it was never blocked - the Chao Phraya river. But there was too much water for it and for the canals to handle it.

[robblok]

I have been under flood water for a month and I do not really enjoy it. You wouldn't either. I understand why anyone in their community would fight to keep it dry. I accept that. That is they way the world works. But if you try to say to me that flooding our houses instead of yours benefits us, then forget it, that i cannot accept.

The simple truth is people protect their interest. Around me their are families sleeping in the sidewalks on under what ever protection they can find. There are massive amounts of misquotes and tons of dirty water. It is not a good situation for them. They want their homes back as soon as possible. Do you blame them?

Look at an elevation map. The natural course of water should have gone straight through Bangkok, and it did not. That added time and depth to our floods.

If you are in a dry area, I say appreciate the sacrifice that so many have made for you and stop acting like we should be big minded and happy about it. Day after day after day of flooded homes is a hard thing to live through. When you know that water wants to go away and someone is stopping it, you tend to feel a little down about it.

I no way am I saying that flooding your house instead of mine benefits you, but your house would have been flooded regardless.

Flooding the rest of Bangkok would not have benefited you. It would have meant that what relief there was would have been spread twice as thin, and there would have been less people to help as they would be looking after themselves. Flooding Bangkok would have also meant that there would be less money to spend on the infrastructure that has been damaged, less money to get people back to their jobs again.

Last I checked, the natural water course does go through Bangkok, and it was never blocked - the Chao Phraya river. But there was too much water for it and for the canals to handle it.

Yes it would have flooded but less and shorter. That makes a big difference. Last i checked they blocked canals through western Bkk that would help draining water to the river. So they did block it.

Also come on 5k compensation, that is an insult so even if it was half of that it would not have mattered much. I am sure most people would gladly get 2,5k for a few weeks less of this

Edited November 26, 2011 by robblok

[tukkytuktuk]

Okay I take back what I said about the rich and the poor and the politics of decision makers. Could anyone have done any better? A year ago the major dams were only a quarter full, so you can understand why they wanted to store more water this year. The rainfall this year has been the biggest amount in over 20 years. Predicting the weather or future is an impossible science. Reacting to a flood never seen for 50 years is also extremely difficult. Each day the national news have their maps out trying to understand the flooding situation, everyday something new is learned. The big bags did slow the flood, it worked, alot of people said it wouldn't. Now I think another reason why the inner city is dry and why flood water will be diverted around the inner city is that the flood wall surrounding the city is also a great success. One thing I think the inner city folk will be thinking is what a great flood wall we have, its saved us from the great flood. Happy endings must be shown as well as the devestation to give people hope. This talk of relocating the capital city is another reason why the inner city must be saved. The flood has been an enormous shock to Thailand and the world now is the time to regroup and think of some more good ideas so this may never happen again

[wlcart]

I have been under flood water for a month and I do not really enjoy it. You wouldn't either. I understand why anyone in their community would fight to keep it dry. I accept that. That is they way the world works. But if you try to say to me that flooding our houses instead of yours benefits us, then forget it, that i cannot accept.

The simple truth is people protect their interest. Around me their are families sleeping in the sidewalks on under what ever protection they can find. There are massive amounts of misquotes and tons of dirty water. It is not a good situation for them. They want their homes back as soon as possible. Do you blame them?

Look at an elevation map. The natural course of water should have gone straight through Bangkok, and it did not. That added time and depth to our floods.

If you are in a dry area, I say appreciate the sacrifice that so many have made for you and stop acting like we should be big minded and happy about it. Day after day after day of flooded homes is a hard thing to live through. When you know that water wants to go away and someone is stopping it, you tend to feel a little down about it.

I no way am I saying that flooding your house instead of mine benefits you, but your house would have been flooded regardless.

Flooding the rest of Bangkok would not have benefited you. It would have meant that what relief there was would have been spread twice as thin, and there would have been less people to help as they would be looking after themselves. Flooding Bangkok would have also meant that there would be less money to spend on the infrastructure that has been damaged, less money to get people back to their jobs again.

Last I checked, the natural water course does go through Bangkok, and it was never blocked - the Chao Phraya river. But there was too much water for it and for the canals to handle it.

You obviously do not live in a flood area, or you would realize that something as trivial as 10cm to you means so much to us. The difference of 10cm can mean being able to walk out of your house and get food, or have a little patch of dry soil under your feet.

All i want right now is enough water to leave so i can take a road into town and not have wade through water for 15 minutes and then hop on an army truck for a two hour ride. My wife is 8 months pregnant and I would like a route to the hospital in case our baby comes. I guess i ask for too much, how selfish of me. You are so correct, you stay dry, because without you being dry i would be worse off. Thanks so much for that.

Who can I give my address to send me some of that money you say Thailand saves by not flooding Bangkok? My neighbor could use it for a new car after theirs was lost, and the family of the woman down the street can use it to bury her. We are all waiting.

The people around here helping out are also flooded. I do not expect you to help me, but stop telling me I am better off because central Bangkok did not flood. It is just not true.

Believe me when I say to you it is heart breaking to look out your front door and see the water level rise, even a little. Because when it rises it does not lower.

As far as my house would have flooded anyway, i am not so sure. I am on higher grown than plon chit! I know enough about physics to know water flows down.

I am not an idiot for feeling unlucky and a little bit screwed.

[weka]

I have been under flood water for a month and I do not really enjoy it. You wouldn't either. I understand why anyone in their community would fight to keep it dry. I accept that. That is they way the world works. But if you try to say to me that flooding our houses instead of yours benefits us, then forget it, that i cannot accept.

The simple truth is people protect their interest. Around me their are families sleeping in the sidewalks on under what ever protection they can find. There are massive amounts of misquotes and tons of dirty water. It is not a good situation for them. They want their homes back as soon as possible. Do you blame them?

Look at an elevation map. The natural course of water should have gone straight through Bangkok, and it did not. That added time and depth to our floods.

If you are in a dry area, I say appreciate the sacrifice that so many have made for you and stop acting like we should be big minded and happy about it. Day after day after day of flooded homes is a hard thing to live through. When you know that water wants to go away and someone is stopping it, you tend to feel a little down about it.

I no way am I saying that flooding your house instead of mine benefits you, but your house would have been flooded regardless.

Flooding the rest of Bangkok would not have benefited you. It would have meant that what relief there was would have been spread twice as thin, and there would have been less people to help as they would be looking after themselves. Flooding Bangkok would have also meant that there would be less money to spend on the infrastructure that has been damaged, less money to get people back to their jobs again.

Last I checked, the natural water course does go through Bangkok, and it was never blocked - the Chao Phraya river. But there was too much water for it and for the canals to handle it.

You obviously do not live in a flood area, or you would realize that something as trivial as 10cm to you means so much to us. The difference of 10cm can mean being able to walk out of your house and get food, or have a little patch of dry soil under your feet.

All i want right now is enough water to leave so i can take a road into town and not have wade through water for 15 minutes and then hop on an army truck for a two hour ride. My wife is 8 months pregnant and I would like a route to the hospital in case our baby comes. I guess i ask for too much, how selfish of me. You are so correct, you stay dry, because without you being dry i would be worse off. Thanks so much for that.

Who can I give my address to send me some of that money you say Thailand saves by not flooding Bangkok? My neighbor could use it for a new car after theirs was lost, and the family of the woman down the street can use it to bury her. We are all waiting.

The people around here helping out are also flooded. I do not expect you to help me, but stop telling me I am better off because central Bangkok did not flood. It is just not true.

Believe me when I say to you it is heart breaking to look out your front door and see the water level rise, even a little. Because when it rises it does not lower.

As far as my house would have flooded anyway, i am not so sure. I am on higher grown than plon chit! I know enough about physics to know water flows down.

I am not an idiot for feeling unlucky and a little bit screwed.

Well said wicart.

Whybother, get you condescending hand off it.

People DIED while that water was being restrained - tell their families they wouldn't have benefited from partially flooding Bangkok

[whybother]

You obviously do not live in a flood area, or you would realize that something as trivial as 10cm to you means so much to us. The difference of 10cm can mean being able to walk out of your house and get food, or have a little patch of dry soil under your feet.

All i want right now is enough water to leave so i can take a road into town and not have wade through water for 15 minutes and then hop on an army truck for a two hour ride. My wife is 8 months pregnant and I would like a route to the hospital in case our baby comes. I guess i ask for too much, how selfish of me. You are so correct, you stay dry, because without you being dry i would be worse off. Thanks so much for that.

Who can I give my address to send me some of that money you say Thailand saves by not flooding Bangkok? My neighbor could use it for a new car after theirs was lost, and the family of the woman down the street can use it to bury her. We are all waiting.

The people around here helping out are also flooded. I do not expect you to help me, but stop telling me I am better off because central Bangkok did not flood. It is just not true.

Believe me when I say to you it is heart breaking to look out your front door and see the water level rise, even a little. Because when it rises it does not lower.

As far as my house would have flooded anyway, i am not so sure. I am on higher grown than plon chit! I know enough about physics to know water flows down.

I am not an idiot for feeling unlucky and a little bit screwed.

I don't live in a flooded area, and I can't imagine to think what it would be like to live in the conditions that you are living in. I wouldn't live in those conditions if I had an 8 month pregnant wife, especially if I had the choice.

I think that one thing that you are missing is that reducing your flooding by 10cm wouldn't mean that Bangkok would be flooded with 10cm. What would happen is that some areas of Bangkok would get 2 metres and some areas wouldn't get any flooding.

The costs of flood damage is already huge, and would be much, much higher if the water was allowed to move "freely" through Bangkok. That would mean that you would be worse off if Bangkok was flooded. You wouldn't get that 2 hour army truck ride. You probably wouldn't get a truck ride at all. The areas that got flooded would include medium and high rise apartments and high density low rise apartments/houses. That would mean that the number of affected people would be doubled or tripled. The damage to infrastructure would be much higher. Which would mean that there would be less money to spend on repairing the already damaged areas.

I don't know where you live, but the flooding would have flooded many other higher elevated areas before it got to Ploen Chit. I doubt you would have missed out on it if the water was allowed to go through Bangkok.

[whybother]

Well said wicart.

Whybother, get you condescending hand off it.

People DIED while that water was being restrained - tell their families they wouldn't have benefited from partially flooding Bangkok

Do you think no one would have died if Bangkok was flooded?

[Bagwan]

This morning I was almost tipped out of bed by the ringing of my door bell. There stood 4 well dressed persons by Thai standards shoving a card under my nose and asking for money because of 'big nam'. I've been here long enough to lose my innocence and the cynic in me smelled yet another scam. I pointed out that there were no floods here in Jomtien so what 'big nam' were they referring to? To my surprise this caused much mirth and they went on their way leaving me mystified.

I would not be surprised if these were the same people that periodically come round asking for money for crippled soldiers. Responsibility for the amelioration of people suffering from this man (or woman) made disaster or wounds incurred through service to their country rests solely with what passes for Government in this country, not farangs who are preyed upon and treated like a second rate citizens. Just how crooked and without conscience can some folk be? Before the armchair warriors dip their pens into their poison wells to respond I admit to supporting a UK charity that cares for orphaned children based in Chang Mai of over a quarter of a century, to raising my Thai family out of poverty and assisting 3 Thai friends living in BKK, victims of the floods.

In the hope that the picture below brings a smile to the faces of those presently suffering, even if it is sardonic, I submit the following. I'd like to say keep your pecker up but that might well be misunderstood especially by American readers.

[robblok]

@whybother,

Have you ever studied physics ? If you put dam on a sloped area the area before the dam will get flooded deeper. Its proven. So he might not have missed out but it would less water and it would be faster gone. As you have no experience of living in a flooded area you have no idea how much difference 10-20 cm is.

Also Bkk borders the river so in the end pumping it int he river would have been easier and a faster way of getting it in the sea. Now it has to travel longer and destroy more homes on the way. So in theory the whole thing would have been over faster. Companies could rebuild faster and as water was not so high cost would be less. Remember much capital is actually earned outside inner Bkk but added to Bkk to make it look more important.

More people might be hit but for a shorter period, most help did not come from the army but from private people. I am sure there would be adequate help especially because the whole mess would be shorter.

I am not so sure what your saying is right, i really think the factories contribute more then inner Bkk. It makes more sense too you dont put stuff like that int he center. Can you tell me what in inner Bkk is making so much money ?

Even if you wint he argument then it could be said that if Bkk was so important then the compensation could be at least 5 to 10 times higher for the ones that were hit to save Bkk. Because if so much money would be lost paying them off for water retention would be fair.

[robblok]

@bagwan,

I would not give any money to any charity, maybe that TV reporter guy who gave complete openness about how money was spend. But guys like this... no way.

[elcent]

Well said wicart.

Whybother, get you condescending hand off it.

People DIED while that water was being restrained - tell their families they wouldn't have benefited from partially flooding Bangkok

Do you think no one would have died if Bangkok was flooded?

probably tens of thousands would have died in Bangkok. No way to reach out to millions trapped in their apartments for a month.

I have been living in a flooded area, the most battled Klong Mahasawat in 1995. For me it was clear that there would be a bigger problem this year due to the wrong release date of major dams. These areas will be under water for months. In 1995 it took 4 months, some areas even 6 months.

I understand the grief of many, but to blame it on the dry areas is simply wrong. The lowest areas in Bangkok inner city are Ramkhamhaeng UNI area and a large portion along Sukhumvit, Prakanong and other places. No way to cope with 2 to 4 meters of flood. This is simply impossible. It's easier to reach out at the outskirt than in tense populated areas. Not to forget it would have reached the new airport with huge amounts of water too.

The army made that clear right at the beginning and pretty stern.

The only thing you people can do is to demand a legal investigation over the mismanagement and after that sue for compensation.

If the dams would have been releasing water in due time, there would have been a scenario that the inner city would have been flooded, but not too high.

With this bold release then, it would have created the silent death tsunami for the inner city. Fortunately some saw through right at the beginning.

Edited November 26, 2011 by elcent

[robblok]

Well said wicart.

Whybother, get you condescending hand off it.

People DIED while that water was being restrained - tell their families they wouldn't have benefited from partially flooding Bangkok

Do you think no one would have died if Bangkok was flooded?

probably tens of thousands would have died in Bangkok. No way to reach out to millions trapped in their apartments for a month.

I have been living in a flooded area, the most battled Klong Mahasawat in 1995. For me it was clear that there would be a bigger problem this year due to the wrong release date of major dams. These areas will be under water for months. In 1995 it took 4 months, some areas even 6 months.

I understand the grief of many, but to blame it on the dry areas is simply wrong. The lowest areas in Bangkok inner city are Ramkhamhaeng UNI area and a large portion along Sukhumvit, Prakanong and other places. No way to cope with 2 to 4 meters of flood. This is simply impossible. It's easier to reach out at the outskirt than in tense populated areas. Not to forget it would have reached the new airport with huge amounts of water too.

The army made that clear right at the beginning and pretty stern.

The only thing you people can do is to demand a legal investigation over the mismanagement and after that sue for compensation.

If the dams would have been releasing water in due time, there would have been a scenario that the inner city would have been flooded, but not too high.

With this bold release then, it would have created the silent death tsunami for the inner city. Fortunately some saw through right at the beginning.

Actually i dont blame the people inside but they don't seem to want to admit that others are suffering for them. Also the compensation is crazy low, (seeming that so much money would be lost if Bkk was flooded). I just feel that the greater good is not a one way street where the protected take it for granted and think that 5k is a good compensation for those that have lost everything.

The one to blame is the person who managed the dams. That is what started it all. Then a government that kept lying until they could not deny it any longer. Had i known a bit earlier how bad it was going to be instead of the worst is over ect ect. I would have done it differently.

But what irritates me is that the ones that are saved have almost no compassion and think its their right to be saved. Not all of course because there are those who care. But in general there are posters who think so. Me and those who got flooded stopped posting our views after a while. Because its hard for the dry to understand the wet.

[elcent]

Actually i dont blame the people inside but they don't seem to want to admit that others are suffering for them. Also the compensation is crazy low, (seeming that so much money would be lost if Bkk was flooded). I just feel that the greater good is not a one way street where the protected take it for granted and think that 5k is a good compensation for those that have lost everything.

The one to blame is the person who managed the dams. That is what started it all. Then a government that kept lying until they could not deny it any longer. Had i known a bit earlier how bad it was going to be instead of the worst is over ect ect. I would have done it differently.

But what irritates me is that the ones that are saved have almost no compassion and think its their right to be saved. Not all of course because there are those who care. But in general there are posters who think so. Me and those who got flooded stopped posting our views after a while. Because its hard for the dry to understand the wet.

People should not have listened to govt sources. They were wrong all the way. Be it ignorant or on purpose.

It could have been avoided.

Most people in the inner city were affected too. Many invested tens of thousands of Baht to build walls long before it was officially mentioned or news worthy. Business was also on a stand still and stores empty.

Unfortunately, those who listened to govt were baptized in dirty waters. The right info was withheld until it was too late to act.

[zydeco]

Well said wicart.

Whybother, get you condescending hand off it.

People DIED while that water was being restrained - tell their families they wouldn't have benefited from partially flooding Bangkok

Do you think no one would have died if Bangkok was flooded?

probably tens of thousands would have died in Bangkok. No way to reach out to millions trapped in their apartments for a month.

I have been living in a flooded area, the most battled Klong Mahasawat in 1995. For me it was clear that there would be a bigger problem this year due to the wrong release date of major dams. These areas will be under water for months. In 1995 it took 4 months, some areas even 6 months.

I understand the grief of many, but to blame it on the dry areas is simply wrong. The lowest areas in Bangkok inner city are Ramkhamhaeng UNI area and a large portion along Sukhumvit, Prakanong and other places. No way to cope with 2 to 4 meters of flood. This is simply impossible. It's easier to reach out at the outskirt than in tense populated areas. Not to forget it would have reached the new airport with huge amounts of water too.

The army made that clear right at the beginning and pretty stern.

The only thing you people can do is to demand a legal investigation over the mismanagement and after that sue for compensation.

If the dams would have been releasing water in due time, there would have been a scenario that the inner city would have been flooded, but not too high.

With this bold release then, it would have created the silent death tsunami for the inner city. Fortunately some saw through right at the beginning.

Actually i dont blame the people inside but they don't seem to want to admit that others are suffering for them. Also the compensation is crazy low, (seeming that so much money would be lost if Bkk was flooded). I just feel that the greater good is not a one way street where the protected take it for granted and think that 5k is a good compensation for those that have lost everything.

The one to blame is the person who managed the dams. That is what started it all. Then a government that kept lying until they could not deny it any longer. Had i known a bit earlier how bad it was going to be instead of the worst is over ect ect. I would have done it differently.

But what irritates me is that the ones that are saved have almost no compassion and think its their right to be saved. Not all of course because there are those who care. But in general there are posters who think so. Me and those who got flooded stopped posting our views after a while. Because its hard for the dry to understand the wet.

In two days, I and my neigbors will have been flooded for one month. With no real end in sight. The BMA doesn't care. FROC certainly doesn't care. Nobody cares except those of us under water. Inner Bangkok goes merrily along like nothing ever really happened. And for them it didn't.

This event has changed my long term plans for staying here. The staggering incompetence, the utter lack of foresight and planning, and the complete indifference to people submerged as an act of government policy makes Thailand too unreliable and unjust of a place to remain. The entire government is made up of grifters, liars, and petty criminals posing as humanitarians. Frankly, I cannot see how anyone could be foolish enough to sink so much as one red penny into this country for the long term. Were I the Japanese and Chinese, I'd clear out of this place, pronto, and leave it to suffer the consequences of its institutionalized thievery and complacency.

[whybother]

@whybother,

Have you ever studied physics ? If you put dam on a sloped area the area before the dam will get flooded deeper. Its proven. So he might not have missed out but it would less water and it would be faster gone. As you have no experience of living in a flooded area you have no idea how much difference 10-20 cm is.

I am aware (from what people on here have been saying) what a difference 10-20cm would make. But if you think that's worth areas of Bangkok having 2 metres, then that's up to you.

Also Bkk borders the river so in the end pumping it int he river would have been easier and a faster way of getting it in the sea. Now it has to travel longer and destroy more homes on the way. So in theory the whole thing would have been over faster. Companies could rebuild faster and as water was not so high cost would be less. Remember much capital is actually earned outside inner Bkk but added to Bkk to make it look more important.

Thonburi and Nonthaburi are close to the river too. It doesn't seem to have made much difference to those areas.

More people might be hit but for a shorter period, most help did not come from the army but from private people. I am sure there would be adequate help especially because the whole mess would be shorter.

I am not so sure what your saying is right, i really think the factories contribute more then inner Bkk. It makes more sense too you dont put stuff like that int he center. Can you tell me what in inner Bkk is making so much money ?

It probably would have been a shorter period, but more people being hit for a month would have doubled the people hit, and tripled (or more) the cost of the damage.

Even if the factories contribute more THAN inner Bangkok (which I don't necessarily think they do), there is no point having both of them flooded. Besides that, there are simply more people that would be affected if Bangkok was flooded.

Even if you wint he argument then it could be said that if Bkk was so important then the compensation could be at least 5 to 10 times higher for the ones that were hit to save Bkk. Because if so much money would be lost paying them off for water retention would be fair.

Yes, the compensation is not worth the effort. That is a completely different subject.