The last time the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) tried its hand in a comprehensive manner at a city-planning exercise was in 2004. At that time city officials introduced a new five-year city plan, complete with fantastic-sounding programmes that, had they been successful, would have resulted in the city becoming greener, less congested and more aesthetically pleasing overall.

One of the key features of this plan is its call for zoning and land use to be more strictly controlled. This is a proposal that sounds impressive on paper but carries little weight in practice.

The BMA has not used the city plan to guide the city's physical, economic and social development by well thought out infrastructure investment strategies and the enforcement of rules, as it should have. Instead, the BMA has allowed politically well-connected property developers not to only flout the rules, but also to take the initiative in controlling how and where they exploit their business opportunities.

A common occurrence in many suburbs throughout Bangkok sees property developers start building housing projects in areas that do not have adequate infrastructure, such as water supply or a functioning sewage system, sell individual units, make a profit - and then expect the BMA to chase after them and spend taxpayers' money installing new infrastructure or upgrading what is already there. In a way, the city government is spending public funds to subsidise the business of property developers.

This is a matter of the cart being put before the horse and it leaves the city government in no position to take the lead on how to achieve the objectives of the city plan. The BMA has a yearly budget of about Bt30 billion. But much of that money is spent on the constant upgrading of infrastructure and the maintenance and upkeep of what already exists, with little money left for new projects.

The city plan calls for the restriction of land use in certain inner-Bangkok areas that have become overdeveloped, leading to severe traffic jams and air pollution among other problems. Green areas that used to be reserved as the "city's lungs" and for recreational purposes are dwindling and being replaced by the construction of new roads.

The major weakness of the city plan is the failure to include the five provinces adjacent to Bangkok - Nonthaburi, Samut Prakan, Pathum Thani, Samut Sakhon and Chachoengsao - into a "greater Bangkok city plan".

It has been evident for some time that urbanisation has already spilled over from Bangkok into these provinces.

A large number of Bangkok's 12 million people now commute between their residences in Bangkok's suburbs or these five provinces and their offices in downtown Bangkok.

Bangkok should learn from the experience of other well-run cities around the world. The concept of satellite towns should be explored and introduced in metropolitan Bangkok when and where relevant.

Under the satellite-town concept, now widely applied in many major cities in Germany and other European countries, a city should be divided into many residential areas and suburbs. Each area is made self-sufficient, complete with office/commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, shopping centres and other facilities. This should reduce the necessity of residents having to take long commutes to and from work. It thereby does away with many urban problems related to large numbers of people moving about, including traffic snarls and air pollution, among other problems. It also helps improve people's quality of life.

For a city the size of Bangkok, which has managed to continue to function despite being under very poor administration, it is never too late for the BMA and the central government to rethink, improve and refine the city plan to make sure that it serves its stated purpose of transforming Bangkok into a great place to live and work.