What I read
The article" Phuket boat tragedy shows our indifference" (2018), stated that the latest sunken boat tragedy in Phuket province which caused more than 40 deaths could be one of substantial evidence that showed the indifference of Thai authorities. Even though, the government have experienced on many marine accidents, it seems that there is no preventive plan to deal with the cases.
___________________________________
My response
After reading this article, I partly agree with the writer’s notion for this reason.
In Thailand, the tragic accidents have occurred many times but the action of government is to “lock the stable barn door, after the horse is stolen”, for example, the measure to limit the maximum passenger who can stand at the pier came after the collapse of Phran Nok pier in Bangkok in 1995. For this situation, we can blame the authorities for not giving sufficient preventive measures.
Moving to the latest case, I think that weather alert provided by the authorities is enough to show that the government unit is not reckless. As a government sector, the authorities have no right to stop someone from doing something if there is no provision of law that allow the authorities to take action, as a result, the authorities are not able to prohibit the boat operator. To me, the government is responsible to have safety measures that meet the international standard but safety is everyone’s responsibility indeed.
In Thailand, the tragic accidents have occurred many times but the action of government is to “lock the stable barn door, after the horse is stolen”, for example, the measure to limit the maximum passenger who can stand at the pier came after the collapse of Phran Nok pier in Bangkok in 1995. For this situation, we can blame the authorities for not giving sufficient preventive measures.
Moving to the latest case, I think that weather alert provided by the authorities is enough to show that the government unit is not reckless. As a government sector, the authorities have no right to stop someone from doing something if there is no provision of law that allow the authorities to take action, as a result, the authorities are not able to prohibit the boat operator. To me, the government is responsible to have safety measures that meet the international standard but safety is everyone’s responsibility indeed.
___________________________________
My question
How far should the government control tourism operator?
___________________________________
I heard about this news a few days ago, I agree with the author's thinking, why do they still choose going after receiving the weather warning? I think the boat operator should have lots of experience to guarantee people's safety. If the weather forecast gives an early serious warning, the pier should close and stop any boats leaving.
ReplyDeleteI also like Beer's thoughtful comments. My own response was to think of flying, where I think that there is far too much government interference, and it's getting worse. Some of the rules that governments force on air travellers seem silly, such as having to take off our shoes for a scan because once (one time only that I know of) someone hid a small knife in his shoe. Exactly the same threat could exist for bus travel or taxi travel. So, following the childish official logic, every BTS user in Bangkok should be required to remove their shoes for an X-ray scan before they can board the BTS in case they are carrying a knife in their shoe that they might use to threaten other passengers. ANd of course, people can not be allowed to carry bottles of liquid on the BTS because it might ... be a bomb or whatever it is that now causes the ban on carrying liquids onto planes. Or do the law makers think that the lives of BTS travellers are not as important as people who fly?
ReplyDeleteSometimes the responses to possible dangers are excessive, and perhaps the plane companies, concerned with their reputation, can be relied upon to make better decisions than interfering politicians who want to look tough on crime to win votes.