August 18, 2008

Mr Smith Thammasaroj, the man who first blew the whistle about the potential of a tsunami hitting Thailand, Indonesia and other countries in the Indian ocean which actually took place six years after he had made the doomsday's forecast is back to the limelight with a new controversy.  He predicted that Bangkok and several coastal provinces border the Gulf of Thailand might be hit by a storm surge and submerged some time between August and October.

In a grim scenario painted by this former chief of the Meteorological Department and a former expert of the National Disaster Prevention Centre, storm surge, generated by gale-force wind of more than 100 kilometres per hour in the Gulf, would overwhelm the areas with waves of more than two metres high.  As for Bangkok, the 1.5 metre high flood wall erected along the Bangkok side of the Chao Phraya river will be overflown and the sea water will surge deeper inland, possibly up to Ayutthaya province and contaminate the source of the city's tap water.  The flood situation will remain for about two weeks before it subsides.

As a long-term solution to deal with future's storm surges which he believed would be more frequent and probably more violent, Mr Smith suggested that a flood wall of about four metres high should be built along the Gulf coast from Petchaburi in the South up to Chachoengsao in the East.  The costs were estimated at several billion baht.

As it did with his grim prediction about the tsunami back in 1998 before hell broke loose on the Christmas day in 2004, Mr Smith's forecast of the storm surge was initially ignored and greeted with disbelief.  Not even his former subordinates in the weather bureau were convinced.  They found him an alarmist and his prediction nonsensical.  Apparently unperturbed, he kept on repeating his doomsday's forecast whenever there was an opportunity.  Gradually and steadily, the initial public response of disbelief has turned to curiosity and concern as more and more people in Bangkok have started wondering if the city will face a huge flood from storm surge. 

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration which is directly responsible for safeguarding the capital city initially turned a deaf ear to Mr Smith's warning.  But as public inerest on the issue has mounted, it started to respond although not totally convinced.  As a precaution, authorities concerned were alerted, areas most prone to storm surge were identified and a guide book on how to deal with the emergency situation have been distributed.  A readiness drill was also planned in Chon Buri, another coastal town prone to the potential calamity.

Yet, the Meteorological Department remains adamant that there is a slim chance of a storm surge hitting Bangkok and coastal provinces.  Dr Wattana Kanbua, chief of the maritime meteorological centre, said recently that the bay area on which Bangkok is located is about 100 km wide while the area for the kind of storm to whip up a storm surge should be 300-1,500 km wide.  He also said that the  temperature of the Gulf has not yet reached 27 C which might induce a devastating storm.  In short, there is no way that there will be a storm surge this year.

Caught between the two conflicting opinions from the two experts, I am confused yet remain concerned.  I believe many other Bangkokians share my view.  Honestly, I am doubtful of Mr Smith's prediction which was largely based on statistics and assumption rather than scientifically proven.  But I will be wrong to just stand idly by and let my fate rests in God's hands alone.  Remember that popular saying:  Help yourselves first and God will help you.

I have worked out some precautionary plans such as where to park my cars, definitely not in underground parking lot and some survival kits which need to be made handy.  What about you?  It won't hurt if you take some precautions because when the crunch actually comes down hard on you, the authorities will all be tied up and you will on your own.  I have had experiences of how clumsy the authorities were in case of an emergecy situation of huge proportion. And I have doubt about their capability.

As for Mr Smith, he appears to have staked all his reputation on this forecast.  If he is proven right, then his reputation will soar.  What if he is wrong (which will be a big relief for we, the Bangkokians), then he may have to take a long rest to lick his wounds.

August 11, 2008

By now it is obvious that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife, Khunying Potjaman, will not return to their home country for a long time and will not stand trial in court on all the cases against them as well as other cases which are yet to reach the court of law.  The couple are currently in London with their three children who flew from Bangkok to join them since Saturday.

Both Thaksin and Potjaman who are on bail are due to report to the Supreme Court's criminal division for political office holders today.  Their lawyers will have to explain to the court the reason for their clients' failure to show up.  But I wonder what else the lawyers will be able to say to the court to ensure that their clients will return to stand trial now that Thaksin has made clear that he will not come back because he has no faith in the justice system here which he strongly feels of being interfered with and of being biased against him and his family.

In his hand-written letter explaining his reason not to come back to stand trial which was faxed from London to the media in Bangkok, Thaksin claimed that he was the target of an assassination attempt in order to get rid of him from Thai politics and from Thai soil.  Thus the need for him and his family to take a temporary refuge outside Thailand.  Nevertheless, he vowed to return "when the time is right".  "Today is not my day," he said.

Many of Thaksin's supporters will have sympathy for him and will miss him.  They will also believe in what he said.  His opponents, however, will cheer his departure although some of them, like the PAD core leaders, said they wanted him to stand trial.

For me, I believe Thaksin's absence from Thailand is a blessing in disguse for the country and, in particular, for the political climate which should gradually and steadily improve.  Our worst fear that there may be violent clashes between pro- and anti-Thaksin forces which could lead to a bloodshed should, from now on, ease.  But this does not mean that the deeply-entrenched political divide and hatred between the two opposing sides will soon disappear because of the absence of the Thaksin factor.  The rift is so wide that I have no idea when it will be bridged.  Or whether it will ever be bridged.

Minus Thaksin, the People Power party is doomed.  Already beset with bitter infighting, the party is likely to break up.  The next election will see medium-siezed parties competing with one another without a single party emerging as the dominant party. 

As for Thaksin, despite all the court cases and corruption charges against him, he remains the same old Thaksin - defiant, arrogant and that he is always right.  Not even the judiciary which most of use have faith in it is seen by Thaksin as being biased against him.  With this kind of mindset and attitude against the justice system here, I believe Thaksin will be away from the country for a long, long time.  I wonder his final wish to return to his motherland and to "rest in peace on the Thai soil" like all Thai citizens will ever be fulfilled.

As the July 27 election in Cambodia is only a week away, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen appears intent to play the Preah Vihear temple card to the fullest for his political gains despite the high risk of further straining the tense relations with neighbouring Thailand.

The Cambodian complaint to the United Nations Security Council over the weekend alleging Thai interference on its oil in the ancient temple area represents Phnom Penh’s latest diplomatic blitz which was suspected to be part of the political strategy of the Cambodian government or, in other words, the Cambodian People’s Party of Mr Hun Sen, to whip up national sentiments of the Cambodian electorate ahead of the election.  A few days earlier Mr Hun Sen demanded Thai troops to be withdrawn from the area adjacent to the temple, claiming that it is Cambodian soil.  This was already rejected by the Thai government.

Aside from protesting to the UNSC, the Cambodian government also arranged for staff of the United States, China, France and Vietnam emgassies based in Phnom Penh to be flown to the temple area for an inspection trip.  This came a day ahead of the meeting scheduled Monday July 21 in Thailand’s Prachin Buri province between the military top brass of the two sides.  The meeting was aimed to head off any untoward incidents which could spark off an armed conflict between the two armies which have recently built up their forces around the temple site.

All the diplomatic activities by Phnom Penh clearly indicated that the Hun Sen government wouldn’t care less if such activities would impact heavily on the good neighbourly relations between Cambodia and Thailand.  Also, it appeared that they were carefully planned.  Which was sharply in contrast with the Thai government which has always appeared to be on the defensive.  Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, for instance, kept on blasting the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and blaming everybody else but himself for undermining the Thai-Cambodian relations  instead of spending more time and concentrating on how to deal with Cambodia on the temple issue more wisely.

The border row over the Preah Vihear temple between Thailand and Cambodia should not have happened in the first place had the Cambodian government or the CPP not chosen to politicizing the issue ahead of the July 27 issue.  The Samak government, too, deserves to be blamed for playing along – for reasons which were not properly explained by the government – by rushing to endorse Cambodia’s unilateral listing of the temple as World Heritage site only to back off afterward due to protests from the Thai public and the opposition.  How the row will be resolved and whether it can be resolved peacefully is anybody’s guess.  I only hope that the anti-Thai riots in Phnom Penh some years ago which resulted to the burning and plunder of Thai properties in the Cambodian capital, including the Thai embassy, will not be repeated.  If that is repeated, the Thai-Cambodian relations will never be the same.

The current troop buildup on both sides of the border near the temple is indeed disturbing.  If my memory is right, the last time that Thailand was in a state of war with Cambodia was during the 80s when Cambodia was occupied by Vietnam.  Thai troops clashed with Vietnamese forces on various occasions.  The biggest fight was when a regiment of Vietnamese forces crossed the border into Thailand to crush Cambodian resistance forces.  An armed conflict over the temple issue between Thai and  Cambodian forces will be very saddening for both countries.  It should be avoided at all costs.

June 10, 2008

Western critics have always held in contempt the idea of a rice cartel by rice exporting countries.  "Impossible!" or "A pipe dream" are some of the standard comments heard each time the idea was raised.

Similar comments were heard the other day when Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, out of the blue, raised the idea of rice producing countries in Southeast Asia grouping together to form an Opec-style rice cartel during his visit to Burma to plead with the Burmese military junta to open up the country for relief materials to flow in for victims of Cyclone Nargis.  No sooner that the issue was raised, it quickly died down.  There were no responses from government leaders from rice producing countries, among them Vietnam, Burma, Laos and Cambodia.  Mr Samak himself did not pursue the matter probably because he might not be serious about it in the first place.  Or perhaps he has no idea about how the idea is to be implemented.

But Dhanin Chearavanont, the chief executive of Charoen Pokphand agri-business conglomerate, does not believe that the idea of a rice cartel is a pipe dream.  He believes that it can become a reality if there is genuine cooperation from rice exporting countries.

As the world's leading rice exporter, Mr Dhanin said Thailand should take the lead in the attempt to form the rice cartel which will coordinate production of rice producing countires in the region and to regulate rice prices.  He however is of the opinion that the rice prices must be kept high but at reasonable levels.

In order to regulate rice prices, certain mechanism must be in place such as storage facilities to store up surplus rice and to release them when prices are right.  "The trick is to sell less for higher prices than to dump the product at lower prices," he said, adding that Thailand must not dump its products to undercut the prices of the other exporters.

When a man like Mr Dhanin said the idea of a rice cartel is not impossible, we should lend him not just the receiving ears but should give it a try.  Take the case of Opec for an example.  Had the Arabs believed in the criticism that they would never be able to come together to coordinate their oil output and to regulate the oil prices, Opec would never been established.  And how Opec has evolved in the past 40 plus years since its inception in the 60s.  It has now become a monster which, in apparent conniavance with all the filthy rich western hedge funds, is now holding the world hostage and is now bleeding every soul on earth, especially the poor, with its outrageous and irrational oil price hike.

The percieved rice cartel should not follow in the same footstep of Opec in jacking up the prices of oil almost on daily basis and without good justification.  It should be formed to regulate production and prices in a way to give the impoverished farmers a fair share of their produce.  And last but not least, it can serve as a bargaining chip of oil consuming countries.

June 2, 2008

Our close brush with what could turn out to be a violent confrontation between police and anri-Thaksin protesters as a result of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's loose tongue reminds me of Aesop's fable about the shepherd boy and the wolf.  But in Aesop's fable, the foul-mouthed shepherd boy just tends to his herd of sheeps.  In our case, we have a foul-mouthed shepherd boy who is leading the government - which is much more worrisome.

Frankly, I must admit that I don't know what are the exact reasons which prompted the prime minister to change his mind about his threat to use force to break up the protest at the Makkawan bridge in the heart of Bangkok.  However, there are press reports that the top brass as well as the other coaliton parties opposed the violent approach to end the protest.

But Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung has a totally different story about why Mr Samak changed his mind.  He claimed that the ill-intentioned elements linked to a man with a ''black teeth and thin face'' who planned to carry out terrorist acts to provoke violence had been dealt with and thus there was no need for the police to break up the protest.  The protesters can carry on their protest, he added.

However, I don't buy Chalerm's fairy tale.  But I think what is more interesting is not why Prime Minister Samak changed his mind about the use of force than why the prime minister threatened to use force in the first place.

Mr Samak might have been angry with the protesters some of whom accused him of being disloyal to the Monarcny and of attempting to introduce presidential system to replace constitutional monarchy.  He might be disturbed that the protest had blocked the roads and caused a lot of inconvenience to many bus commuters.  But I guess he might have been duped by someone close to him who had fed him with disinformation about the ill-intentioned provocateurs who tried to provoke violence.  This fact was mentioned by Mr Samak in his Saturday's address to the public and was again referred to by Chalerm in his televised statement about Mr Samak's about-face regarding the use of force to break up the protest.

If my guess about Mr Samak might have been duped about the terrorist plots is right, then I think we are having a bigger problem - not just a prime minister who has a loose tongue but one who tends to be credulous too.

There seems to be odd similarity between Mr Samak and Jakrapob Penkair, the former PM's Office Minister, who is facing lese majestie charge for his controversial speech given last August at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand.  Both appear to have a loose tongue which has landed them into trouble.  Jakrapob remains definat and unrepentant to the last minute that he did nothing wrong although it was seen in a totally different light by most of the people who have read the text of his speech.  Meanwhile, a defiant Mr Samak denied he ever said he would use force to break up the protest although the public at large thought differently when they heard him speak on the television.

But the young foul-mouthed politician, Jakrapob, was already gone - forced to resign in fact.  What's next for Mr Samak?  Will he face the same fate as Jakrapob? 

As in Aesop's fable, the shepherd boy paid dearly in the end for his foul-mouthing of wolf cries.