Bangkok has turned 240th years old. The government, via the Culture Ministry, recently celebrated this auspicious occasion, with cultural performances and fun-filled activities at several landmark spots.
The city was established in 1782 when the then Somdej Chao Phraya Mahakasatsuek rose to power, crowning himself King Rama I. The forefather of the Chakri dynasty moved the capital from Thon Buri city to the other side of the river, named it Krungthep, or Bangkok as known by Westerners.
Celebrating the occasion is understandable. But it's a pity that the government, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration in particular, only wanted to regard it as an event, missing an opportunity to do something more meaningful to mark the milestone.
One idea is giving away trees to make the city greener, perhaps 240 (as commemorative number) 2,400, or 24,000 plants, or even more. Also, it should be the time to review the state of the city, if any changes are needed regarding development policy, if any improvements can be made. An assessment of what is wrong and how to fix it.
Of course, I fully understand Bangkok is now much bigger since it was established in 1782. Thon Buri merged with Krungthep in 1971 and now the city, with 50 districts, has more than 1.56 million sq km. There are five million registered residents and several million non-registered.
With such enlarged areas, it would be unrealistic to think the city would be tranquil and calm as in those old days. The expansion, without thorough planning, comes with problems, too many problems. It does not take much time to appreciate the problems facing Bangkok; just a glance at the gubernatorial election campaigns, those candidates have already listed them for you.
In theory, the 240th anniversary milestone should also be an occasion in which we assess the well-being of the city and the residents. We have to admit that Bangkok has grown without balance. As a result, the city, which serves as an economic centre, has skyscrapers, and networks of roads and expressways, but weak social infrastructure. In many ways, Bangkok is like a sick person, with several chronic illnesses.
Look at the air we breathe. PM 2.5 dust now seems to last longer than previous years when the toxic air would be gone around mid-March. When we celebrated the city's birthday on April 21, the air quality charts had turned yellow, with some red spots, meaning this man-made pollution was harming our health.
As I was writing this article, dust levels in quite a few areas like Din Daeng exceeded 100 microgrammes per cubic metre (μg/m³), the level that affects respiratory system.
The dust levels at certain time last week ranged from 40-90 μg/m³, regarded as "good to moderate" quality based on the country's safe-threshold of 50 μg/m³, as against 37 μg/m³) as recommended by the World Health Organization.
Has anyone noticed that the BMA has kept a low profile regarding its battle with the toxic haze? Perhaps, the agency realises the measures it has taken in the previous years such as water spraying has not solved the problem. Why waste time and effort? With such an inefficient state, Bangkokians tend to pray for the rain which ironically could trigger another form of trouble, floods.
I dare say that the BMA, with its current work culture, has no ability to tackle city smog which requires a new development policy and drastic measures to tackle the problem at the root cause, such as limiting tall building construction projects. These structures block the wind that normally blows the dust away. A ban on private cars in certain city areas is another option.
No problem can be solved as long as the agency is stuck in a bureaucratic mode which emphasises daily routines, rather than taking initiatives, amid allegations of kickbacks and corruption.
And Bangkok's traffic congestion is notorious. The state began developing its public transport system only recently which was way too late. Under such circumstances, those who can afford a car hit the roads with the result everyone is struggling on the road.
More importantly, unbalanced development results in a loss of city values, like old communities. One is the Mahakan Fort community in the old Rattanakosin area, which was well-known for its wooden houses representing several early Rattanakosin styles.
According to academic studies, some dated back to the King Rama III era and could not be found anywhere else. Yet the BMA under Aswin Kwanmuang ignored all the petitions that the wooden structures be kept and renovated as city heritage items, tearing them down and kicking out the people to make way for a controversial park.
I can go on and on about the city's problems. Don't get me wrong, I do not oppose those fun-filled activities. But after all the spectacular celebrations, we should get down to the real issues about the city's development direction with regard to its livability. We should celebrate the past glories with a view to a better tomorrow. We need to ask what kind of Bangkok we'd love to see in the years, or decades, to come.
Ploenpote Atthakor is former opinion pages editor, Bangkok Post.