Thailand’s prime minister, Anutin Charnvirakul, has pulled the emergency brake on a major contractor after a string of deadly construction mishaps ignited public fury. In a decisive move following two high-profile crane disasters, Anutin ordered the Ministry of Transport to terminate the contracts with Italian-Thai Development (ITD) and to blacklist the firm — a striking signal that the government is trying to regain public trust and shore up the nation’s international reputation.
The announcement, delivered after a parliamentary meeting on January 15, came in the wake of two shocking incidents: a crane collapse onto a passenger train in Nakhon Ratchasima and a separate crane accident on Rama II Road in Samut Sakhon — both projects supervised by ITD. These tragedies not only raised questions about on-site safety and oversight but also thrust construction standards and contractor accountability into the national spotlight.
“We will revoke ITD’s contracts linked to these two projects and explore every legal avenue to ensure the public is safe,” Anutin told reporters, emphasizing that blacklisting the company was a necessary step to restore confidence. He made clear the government intends to stop any further work that might endanger people while it sorts out replacements.
First priorities, then a wider review
When pressed about whether ITD’s other projects across Thailand would also be axed, Anutin said the government is prioritizing the most recent fatal incidents first. Decisions on additional projects will follow — but only after a careful review. He also referenced the earlier, notorious collapse of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) building in Bangkok — a project jointly supervised by ITD and China Railway Engineering Corporation — urging the OAG to consider terminating that contract, too.
The OAG collapse — which occurred in March 2025 — remains a sore point for many citizens who want answers about construction quality, supervision, and how such a critical failure could happen. Together with the crane disasters, it has made infrastructure safety an impossible-to-ignore national conversation.
Replacement plans and possible legal recourse
Anutin said the government will open new bids to appoint replacement contractors so the affected projects can continue. He also warned that if rebidding or delays lead to increased costs, the state reserves the right to seek compensation from ITD. In short: the government will find new builders, but it may come knocking on ITD’s door for the bill.
That approach aims to strike a balance between moving forward with essential infrastructure work and holding contractors responsible for failures that endanger the public. For a country with ambitious development goals, the challenge is to keep momentum without compromising safety.
Politics, accusations and an election on the horizon
The fallout has unsurprisingly spilled into the political arena. Reporters asked Anutin about accusations that his Bhumjaithai Party favored Chinese-backed contractors on major infrastructure projects — a charge tied to contracts involving China Railway Engineering Corporation. Anutin rejected the criticism, saying that construction agreements were approved by the Thai government as a whole and executed according to law.
He also suggested some of the renewed criticism may be politically motivated, pointing out that Thailand’s general election in February is fast approaching and that infrastructure controversies can be weaponized during campaign season. Whether voters see it that way or as a genuine accountability issue is likely to be a pivotal question in the coming weeks.
Where things stand now
- ITD’s contracts for the two recent projects will be revoked and the firm blacklisted.
- The government will open new bidding to find replacement contractors.
- Authorities may pursue compensation from ITD if delays or rebidding raise costs.
- Other ITD projects will be reviewed later, and the OAG has been urged to consider terminating its contract.
The government’s move is a bold attempt to show that public safety trumps big contracts and political convenience. But it also raises practical questions: how quickly can replacements be found, how will timelines and budgets be affected, and will this satisfy a public demanding not just answers but real reforms?
In the coming weeks, expect more scrutiny of construction oversight, tighter questions about who signs off on major projects, and a flurry of legal and administrative activity as the Transport Ministry executes Anutin’s direction. One thing is clear: Thailand’s infrastructure debate has shifted from technical detail to a front-page, election-season issue — and the outcome may reshape how the country manages the projects that literally build its future.
Good on Anutin for pulling contracts, but is blacklisting a real fix or just a headline stunt? The public wants justice and safer sites, not PR. I hope they actually prosecute if negligence is proven.
This is long overdue — people have been warning about weak oversight for years. Why did it take fatal accidents to act? Accountability needs teeth, not just announcements.
We must separate political theatre from legal process; revocation is a start, but proper forensic engineering reviews are essential. If contractors are repeatedly unsafe, revoking contracts and pursuing damages is standard in many jurisdictions.
Totally agree with Dr. Anan, but the court of public opinion is already angry and the government has to show tangible steps fast. The forensic reports should be public to rebuild trust.
Cranes falling on trains sounds like a horror movie. Will they make the builders go to jail?
Jail might be too simplistic; we need systemic reform of construction regulations and independent inspectors, not just scapegoats.
Blacklisting ITD is bold but scary for timelines and budgets. Who will pick up the work quickly and at what cost? Farmers and commuters will pay if projects stall.
Costs are secondary when lives are at stake. Better a few months delay than another collapse that kills people.
I get that, Nina, but endless delays hurt poor people too; the state must balance safety with rapid, fair rebidding.
Economic externalities from corruption and poor oversight raise sovereign risk and deter foreign investment. Transparent rebidding with international watchdogs could be the solution.
Why not bring in firms with spotless records from Japan or Europe and use emergency procurement rules? It’s not rocket science.
I’m old and I’ve seen unsafe shortcuts before, so I’m relieved they acted. Still, who watches the watchdogs? I want to know who signed off on these cranes.
Signature trails are the key; procurement committees and on-site supervisors must be public. If a gov-approved safety officer failed to act, they should face consequences too.
Exactly Toby, not just the big company but the people who approved and inspected must be held to account.
This could lead to structural reforms like mandatory third-party inspections and digital permitting logs to prevent forged approvals.
Political winds are obvious here — an election is coming and crises get weaponized. Still, that doesn’t mean the safety problems aren’t real.
Oh please, every scandal is ‘politics’ until people demand real changes. The media and voters will decide if this is a stunt or a turning point.
Fair point, P’Nat. My worry is rushed decisions that break existing contracts and invite lawsuits; due process matters even when swift action is needed.
Due process shouldn’t be an excuse to let dangerous contractors keep building; temporary injunctions and supervised handovers are standard practice.
From an engineering ethics perspective, repeated failures by the same supervisor indicate systemic negligence. Blacklisting is appropriate but must be paired with regulatory reform and independent oversight.
As an engineer I second that — introduce mandatory third-party audits, and tie future bids to safety track records, not political ties.
Exactly; also require safety bonds and continuous monitoring with sanctions for breaches, rather than one-time fines.
Will the auditors be truly independent or just another layer of cozy contractors? That’s the cynical but realistic question.
International best practice includes rotating inspectors and publishing incident data; transparency reduces collusion and improves outcomes.
My school had a field trip cancelled after the train news and my mom cried. Why do grown-ups let this happen?
Kids see the human cost and that’s why reforms matter. We must teach civic pressure and demand better governance.
I hope they make the bad builders fix everything and pay for our trip.
Parents are scared; we want concrete timelines for safety checks, not political statements that vanish after the news cycle.
Construction firms are worried about precedent; mass blacklisting could chill the market and raise costs across the board. There must be a careful legal process.
The Transport Ministry will follow legal procedures; blacklisting follows investigation. Safety standards override market sensitivity when lives are lost.
We welcome strict standards, but insist on clear criteria and appeals so firms aren’t punished arbitrarily for isolated incidents.
Auditable criteria and public records are the solution; arbitrary lists create uncertainty, but undisclosed safety violations create danger.
This will be the defining infrastructure scandal of the election. Parties will try to pin blame and voters will look for leadership and accountability. The outcome could remake procurement norms.
Expect both sides to spin; incumbents will promise reforms and challengers will demand resignations. But voters will punish whoever seems closest to the contractors.
Right, the optics matter but so do substantive legal consequences; otherwise this becomes another forgettable controversy.
I’m done with elites protecting cronies. If the election doesn’t bring change, I’ll vote differently next time.
Don’t be naive — policy is messy and quick fixes rarely work, but accountability is a non-negotiable starting point.
People keep blaming ‘Chinese contractors’ or ‘Chinese influence’ and that’s dangerous scapegoating. The problem seems to be oversight and contract enforcement, not nationality.
Reporting needs nuance, Chan. It’s fair to scrutinize ties and foreign influence, but focus should remain on systems and accountability rather than xenophobic narratives.
Agreed, but transparency in how contracts were awarded is crucial so accusations can be evaluated on facts, not stereotypes.
Blaming foreign players echoes past anxieties; structural corruption and lack of oversight are the throughline across eras, not nationality.
Source note: officials say revocations will focus on the two recent sites first, then evaluate other ITD projects. Watch for rapid rebidding announcements and potential legal claims from the firm.