No magic in mega

The flood was scary. But what is scarier than the flood disaster is the government and technocrats' obsession with mega projects on flood prevention.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra told the Asean Summit in Bali, Indonesia, last month that her government was considering setting up a network of weirs and dykes that can provide water during droughts and produce electricity. 

The Natural Resources and Environment Ministry is proposing a multi-billion-baht project to create a 300-kilometre "flood route", which is lined by concrete walls of about 1-2 metres high. 

The Engineering Institute of Thailand is floating an idea of building a 200-billion-baht 100-km tunnel linking Ayutthaya and Samut Prakan as the latest solution to future flood in Bangkok.

Many government agencies and private firms definitely have a long list of mega projects in their pockets, waiting for the right time to unveil them to the public.

There is still an ongoing debate on what caused the 2011 major deluge that killed nearly 700 people and affected almost 5 million people in dozens of provinces, including Bangkok.

No matter if the disaster was caused by extreme weather events or flaws in flood management or both, there is no guarantee that mega projects on flood control would be able to prevent the repeat of such catastrophe.

What is certain about these construction projects is that they cost a lot of money and will cause immense impact on the environment and the people.

How many natural waterways will be dammed and how many communities will be affected by Ms Yingluck's plan to build a nationwide network of weirs and dykes? 

How many families will be relocated to pave way for the 100km giant tunnel? How many rai of farmland will be sacrificed for the creation of a 300km flood route?

It is very likely that the devastating impact of these giant schemes will be far greater than flood disaster itself. Vast amounts of taxpayers' money will be spent on these projects while huge loans will be borrowed to fund the ambitious schemes, which are always plagued with corruption.

This does not mean the government should not do anything to prevent the repeat of this year's flood disaster.

A long-term and sustainable flood prevention plan is needed, but it should focus on small-scale, economically viable projects with minor adverse impact on the environment and society.

Long-term flood prevention measures do not always mean construction of mega projects. It could be a regular cleanup of rivers and klongs, strict law enforcement against waterway encroachers, upgrading pumping stations, adjusting sluice gate operations, or overhauling water storage management in the major dams.

It is understandable that flood-devastated business operators and residents who've suffered huge losses and endured various hardships, will want to see concrete measures to safeguard them from future floods.

However, we must not let the flood scare push us into implementing the wrong solutions. And we must not let politicians use the flood crisis to push for multi-billion-baht projects so that they can take under-the-table money from contractors and consultant firms.

The country should take the time to research the true cause of this year's flooding before jumping to the conclusion that Thailand needs more dams, more underground tunnels, a large-scale flood route, or permanent flood barriers.

If the we implement the mega projects without carefully weighing the pros and cons, we could end up like Mr Bean of the British comedy series, whose attempts to solve one problem always lead to bigger problems and troubles. Only this would be no laughing matter.

The series of multi-billion-baht projects proposed in the aftermath of the major inundation shows that Thai politicians and technocrats in the ministries are still very much obsessed with mega projects.

Whether this mega mania comes from their belief that giant projects are a panacea to our country's ills, or because the schemes give them the opportunity for corruption and kickbacks, this obsession with mega projects is dangerous. So every proposed scheme must be scrutinised by the public.