Sukhumbhand: You can't say Bangkok is flooded, it only has 'water to drain'

[ozyjon]

What's that wet stuff falling from the sky,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Morch]

What ever happened to that 300+ billion baht earmarked to mitigate the flooding? Rhetorical question of course.

Well, there's apparently no flooding to mitigate. Just....water to drain. That ought to be an altogether different budget,

[gandalf12]

Well the Earth is flat so what do you expect to happen when it rains and Bkk being in the direct center it is only natural......

If we could bend the earth say into a ball shape then the water may run to the other side. That is a good idea let's get the universities working of an earth bending solution

[sawadeeken]

No matter how you change the wording........ 'A piece of crap' is still 'A piece of crap' and still smells like a 'Piece of crap"...........

[sanukjim]

Ah Yes,and the Bangkok air is not polluted ,it just has thicker air then other cities.WOW what a load of HORSE CRAP from an ignorant group.

[rkidlad]

I thought, flooding was when the water comes in from rivers/lakes (over the banks) and 'flood' into the city proper.

What happened was that it simply rained and the rain did not disperse.

So technically it may be a valid point (no drainage, vs. flooded). And flooding would probably be worse (harder to prevent spill over from lakes/rivers/oceans then it is to add some more drain pipes).

That being said, the real issue still needs to be solved: To get the water out of the streets quickly

Nope. Flood means when there's an area with too much water in a way that usually causes problems. Flooded is exactly what it is.

Anywho, what difference would it make other than to anger the public even more. I guess in his tiny brain he thinks people still respect him.

[sawadeeken]

"No flooding"............ ................."Only water to drain"............. (out of all those flooded houses and roads)

And never mind all the other 'Heavy Rain' forecasted................. It will get 'drained' also...........

[Lannig]

Instead of denial, why not passing this idea to TAT for a new tourist attraction?

[whaleboneman]

Moron comes mind

He's not a moron. He just doesn't have a clue.

[HooHaa]

"No flooding"............ ................."Only water to drain"............. (out of all those flooded houses and roads)

And never mind all the other 'Heavy Rain' forecasted................. It will get 'drained' also...........

Your excessive use of emoticons makes you appear simple.

Was that the intended result?

[hansnl]

In some way, he is right.

If there falls a lot of rain in a short time, expect that it will take some time before all that water had been drained.

Not only a problem in Bangkok, but even in the country where waterworks are very good, the Netherlands, where half the country lies below sea level.

[whaleboneman]

I thought, flooding was when the water comes in from rivers/lakes (over the banks) and 'flood' into the city proper.

What happened was that it simply rained and the rain did not disperse.

So technically it may be a valid point (no drainage, vs. flooded). And flooding would probably be worse (harder to prevent spill over from lakes/rivers/oceans then it is to add some more drain pipes).

That being said, the real issue still needs to be solved: To get the water out of the streets quickly

Sorry Jaybird, but has someone from the government just contacted you? Sounds like you've just had an "attitude adjustment".

[rkidlad]

In some way, he is right.

If there falls a lot of rain in a short time, expect that it will take some time before all that water had been drained.

Not only a problem in Bangkok, but even in the country where waterworks are very good, the Netherlands, where half the country lies below sea level.

Nope. Not at all the same.

[Moonmoon]

Build more drains?

[LannaGuy]

well it's about the same as Thailand 'waiting for democracy' right?

[JayBird]

I thought, flooding was when the water comes in from rivers/lakes (over the banks) and 'flood' into the city proper.

What happened was that it simply rained and the rain did not disperse.

So technically it may be a valid point (no drainage, vs. flooded). And flooding would probably be worse (harder to prevent spill over from lakes/rivers/oceans then it is to add some more drain pipes).

That being said, the real issue still needs to be solved: To get the water out of the streets quickly

Sorry Jaybird, but has someone from the government just contacted you? Sounds like you've just had an "attitude adjustment".

I'm up for my Visa Extension and already gave them my Social Account login ids, including ThaiVisa!

[Dancin Dna 11]

The solution is to get everyone to run their taps and hoses until the water level drops.

Problem solved.

[dcnx]

Don't say he is one of the dumbest people on earth. His brain just lacks the ability to function properly.

[arrowsdawdle]

Yet Sukhumbhand spent the whole dry season to just polish his noodle? it is not like flooding is something new in Bkk....

Something new? How many centuries has rain poured down on BKK and the rest of Thailand? Yet, every year the governments, all of them, act like it is a sporadic surprise event with no history.

This speaks volumes about there apparently being no word in Thai for planning. It also appears that all the "brilliant" students winning science medals have not yet discovered gravity, because that is what controls water flow and collection.

But let's indulge in conjecture for a moment and speculate whether the obvious avoidance of any solution to the flooding is a strategy that allows them that hold the country hostage to hand out relief bags in front of television cameras focused on their bold logos.

It is a page from the American Democrats' playbook from the chapter, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

[tomyummer]

Yes, it's the government's new implementation of a more cheaper street cleaning system.

[dhream]

And LOS is not corrupt. It just has some accounts to rebalance...

[Strangebrew]

Bangkok not flooded there is just a lack of dry ground is all. there sorted, trust him he is Thai.

[waldroj]

I suggest that Sukhumbhand is fully aware that his words would be controversial. But, he needed to be extremely careful in what he said, so as not to admit any responsibility (and thus make himself, and the BMA legally liable for the impacts of this recent event).

It would seem that the issue of just what constitutes a “flood” is poorly understood everywhere (not just here in Thailand), especially when it comes to legally determining who is responsible, and (more importantly) who will pay compensation.

For example, the following links serve to highlight just how confusing the interpretation can be:

In US:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mrx/hydro/flooddef.php

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/definitions#F

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/flood/

http://www.floodsmart.com/flooding-and-flood-risks/legal-definition-of-flood/

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/F/FloodWaters.aspx

In UK:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/flooding.html

http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=101

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/flood-risk/

In Australia:

http://ris.dpmc.gov.au/2011/12/08/reforming-flood-insurance-standard-definition-of-flood-regulation-impact-statement-treasury/

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/what-is-a-flood

[Kawapete]

AlL the sand trucked in during the flood in 2011 never left Bangkok and are now on top of the dirt already collected so no wonder the drain is a bit slow. Thailand are known as "land of smiles" but not "land of maintenance"

[Winniedapu]

I suggest that Sukhumbhand is fully aware that his words would be controversial. But, he needed to be extremely careful in what he said, so as not to admit any responsibility (and thus make himself, and the BMA legally liable for the impacts of this recent event).

It would seem that the issue of just what constitutes a “flood” is poorly understood everywhere (not just here in Thailand), especially when it comes to legally determining who is responsible, and (more importantly) who will pay compensation.

For example, the following links serve to highlight just how confusing the interpretation can be:

In US:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mrx/hydro/flooddef.php

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/definitions#F

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/flood/

http://www.floodsmart.com/flooding-and-flood-risks/legal-definition-of-flood/

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/F/FloodWaters.aspx

In UK:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/flooding.html

http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=101

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/flood-risk/

In Australia:

http://ris.dpmc.gov.au/2011/12/08/reforming-flood-insurance-standard-definition-of-flood-regulation-impact-statement-treasury/

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/what-is-a-flood

Not that hard to understand at all, setting aside all the dissembling. Too much rain + poor drainage + rubbish routinely thrown in the klongs and the street + incompetent City management = "lots of water not yet drained" - aka floods.

Not to hard to understand really... it's not as if this were the only evidence of incompetence in Thailand...

W