A decade has passed since Bangkok and the Indonesian capital of Jakarta became sister cities. It was a wise choice because they have much in common, including the same time zone. In both cities, residential and commercial development is outstripping the infrastructure needed to support it, overcrowding is rife with constant migration from the provinces and traffic gridlock and floods are a growing problem. To make matters worse, both capitals are built on soft clay foundations and are gradually sinking.
The World Bank estimates that by 2025, sea water could be lapping at the gates of the Indonesian president's palace. And by 2050, it believes Bangkok's flood risk will have increased four-fold. But Indonesia's current president does not think the country should wait until the last moment. He wants to move the administrative capital to somewhere less vulnerable, a point of view that has sparked a lengthy public debate.
It is a debate we should be taking a close interest in as we have a similar problem. We know parts of Bangkok are already up to a metre below sea level and still sinking; the only point of contention being the rate at which this is happening. Excessive ground water extraction over many years gets much of the blame, though this has been gradually slowed by high fees and awareness campaigns.
To this can be added coastal erosion, climate change, rising sea levels, shifting clay soil, ill-considered actions such as filling in many drainage klongs and turning them into roads, and the sheer weight of a rapidly growing, badly planned metropolis. Although city officials routinely point an accusing finger at construction projects for creating land subsidence, worsening flooding and hampering drainage, they should not forget that they were the ones who signed off on them, often without ensuring the necessary infrastructure to service them was in place.
Billions of baht have been spent by taxpayers in recent decades on flood prevention networks to safeguard the capital including dykes, heavy-duty pumps, dredging, floodgates, giant tunnels and other drainage projects but sometimes just too much water gets dumped on the city in too short a time and there is nowhere for it to go. Trying to waterproof a city with so many problems is like pouring money into a bottomless pit as flood defences can only go so far. This month has been particularly chaotic and was described by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration as having the highest rainfall in 50 years.
As Bangkok celebrates its 230th year as the nation's capital, perhaps it is time to start lightening the load. The decentralisation of limited administrative functions is not a radical concept in this age of superfast communications. Among others, Malaysia has moved much of its administration from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya, 25km to the south, and that has reduced congestion in the capital. Myanmar shifted its administrative capital from Rangoon to Nay Pyi Taw and Germany moved its capital from Bonn to Berlin.
Properly carried out, such a move can boost development and stimulate regional economies. Bangkok's status as the commercial and national capital and seat of government would be unaffected. The parliamentary study groups that like to visit Britain should take time to see how easily decentralisation of government can be carried out and the benefits that can be achieved. It is a simple evolutionary process and not as radical as some might think.
Elections for Bangkok city governor are just a few months away. That will provide an opportunity for the candidates to put forward their plans for the capital's long-term future and for voters to decide just how realistic they are.