Kingdom needs a plan for crises

People in the aviation industry raised a good point, that it was time Thai people prepared for and got serious about crisis management, rather than learning to mount pressure on authorities or simply blaming each other for any failures.

Orient Thai president Udom Tantiprasongchai said during a radio programme on Tuesday night, shortly after the PAD announced the end to its lengthy protest, that Bangkok needed to think about a 'multi-centre for aviation'.

Bangkok has two major airports; Suvarnabhumi for international flights and Don Mueang for domestic. Air transportation was totally paralysed when protesters seized the two airports at the same time. Some 300,000 passengers were left stranded and the Thai economy could lose Bt140 billion in revenue from tourism and exports of perishable goods such as orchids and fresh food.

Ordinary rational people can calculate that this method of toppling a weak government such as Somchai's was too expensive. In fact the high price of the exercise benefited nobody, as we all knew the Constitutional Court would definitely dissolve the three parties, People's Power, Chart Thai and Matchima. The dissolution ensured the end of Somchai's government. It was only a matter of time. The airport seizure did not justify the party dissolution and it was unnecessary.

  Ironically, many airline executives and staff, including the national carrier's labour union, shot themselves in the feet by providing support financially and physically to the PAD.

  As many Thai people are not so rational and Thai protesters tend to think they will achieve the same results again if political struggle does not yield their aims, the rest of the country must think about a permanent plan of crisis management.

  For aviation, Udom suggested the U-tapao naval airbase should be developed as a commercial airport for charter flights. The airfield has proven capable of handling commercial air traffic and flying stranded passengers out of the country - although it looked like a shipment of refugees from a war zone, rather than tourists from the land of smiles.

  However, the country has to invest more in improving facilities, notably for security concerns, at the naval airport to meet international standards. Many airports, including some in the United States and United Kingdom, refused to allow flights from U-tapao to land due to the poor security checks.

  Investment in upgrading U-tapao would benefit the country in the long run, not only for crisis management but also for normal logistics. Cargo from the eastern industrial zone or even from the capital could use the facilities at U-tapao for shipment, to reduce loads at Suvarnabhumi. The country would also have another airport to export orchids from Bangkok's Nong Khaem district on time, if Suvarnabhumi were closed again.

The idea of multi-centre management could be applied to the government's administration as well. In fact, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra practised ruling the nation from afar when the PAD surrounded Government House in 2006, while the then prime minister was in the provinces.

Former Prime Minister Somchai learned from Thaksin how to run the Cabinet from a distance. He moved his office to Don Mueang airport and later Chiang Mai. He managed to hold Cabinet meetings via teleconferencing, a working technique invented during the Thaksin period.

Administrating from outside the capital should be an ideal alternative for any future government planning to loosen itself from crowded Bangkok. This country's government does not need to centralise everything in the capital and its outskirts since it is too risky. In future, for example, if a terrorist group seized Bangkok, many other provinces and towns could function as administrative centres, air transportation hubs and business centres. Business and life could go on as usual while the government was handling the situation unimpeded.