Just when you thought politics couldn’t get more cinematic, here’s a twist: the new parliament house perched alongside the Chao Phraya River in sunny Bangkok is making waves with its rather curious budget request. While it may sound like a plot for a political thriller, the drama unfolds in everyday economic hardship faced by countless Thais juxtaposed against a hefty wish list for the legislature’s lavish refurbishments.
In the spotlight are renovations that aren’t quite receiving standing ovations. The proposed spending spree, featuring a 4D cinema and a costly revamp of the seldom-used Sala Kaeo, known affectionately (or not) as the ‘Crystal Pavilion,’ calls for a whopping 113 million baht. This costly redo, critics claim, has more detractors than fans. Puangthong Pawakapan, an associate professor hailing from Chulalongkorn University, chimed in, echoing sentiments that the work is as redundant as a sequel to a box-office flop. After all, she humorously points out, trying to endure the sauna-like heat of the pavilion after 8 am is not for the faint-hearted—unless you fancy being roasted alive. Her cutting quip about turning into “grilled chicken” under the sweltering sun resonated widely on social media, sharing the spotlight with Rukchanok Srinork, a vocal People’s Party (PP) MP from Bangkok who made it clear she isn’t casting her vote in favor of this blockbuster budget.
Slipping further into controversy is the pièce de résistance – the installation of a 180-million-baht 4D cinema. Imagine the surprise on MPs’ faces when they were asked to approve a budget for immersive experiences complete with lighting, sound, wind, rain, and vibration effects that mimic your favorite mall entertainment escapades. Bhuntin Noumjerm, another forthright PP MP, found himself nonplussed during a May 1 committee meeting. Scratching his head, he pondered what democracy had to do with a multiplex experience in the house of lawmaking.
“This is public money,” he sternly reminded, likely conjuring images of MPs experiencing an earthquake simulation while discussing national policies. His question, “What purpose does this cinema serve? Who will it benefit?” lingers as a poignant reflection on priorities.
The supporting acts in this theatre of ambition involve an array of lavish upgrades: a 118-million-baht request to enhance lighting in seminar rooms operating subterraneously on floors B1 and B2; a luxurious 117-million-baht proposal to transform the humble parliamentary kitchen into a recreational haven; and a near 100-million-baht pitch to amplify the conferencing experience with state-of-the-art sound and video systems, all intended for the grand 1,500-seat assembly.
To parliament’s defense, though, not all hope for visitor engagement is lost. The House of Representatives’ secretary-general, Acting Pol Sub Lt Arphat Sukanan, steps into the spotlight with a well-rehearsed line: the ‘cinema’ is not for popcorn and previews but a visionary ‘information room.’ He insists the idea was inspired by other countries, where audiovisual marvels captivate visitors, sparking rich conversations while sipping on their cappuccinos from nearby bistros.
As debates rage on, the saga of Bangkok’s riverside parliament captivates the nation, leaving all eyes on the outcome of this riveting fiscal drama. Like any good script, it invokes laughter, contemplation, and surely, an appreciation for the high stakes of spending other people’s money.
Isn’t it ridiculous that they want to spend so much on a 4D cinema when so many people are struggling?
I actually think it’s important for engaging visitors. It can be educational and highlight Thailand’s culture and history.
Sure, but couldn’t we do that with less expensive methods? A simple video could achieve the same.
Completely agree, Joe. It’s an extravagant waste.
This reeks of misplaced priorities. Investing in public needs should come before such luxuries.
On the other hand, don’t you think a modern parliament should have features that attract young generations?
Modernization is fine, but not when basic needs like education and healthcare lag behind.
Agreed. The focus should be on societal necessities first.
Why is no one discussing the sustainability impact of these upgrades? An eco-friendly design would be a better choice.
Yes! Especially in this day and age. Sustainability should be a priority in all new constructions.
True, although sometimes eco-friendly solutions can initially cost more. It’s a balance.
We elect officials to make decisions in our best interest. If they believe this is necessary, perhaps we should trust their judgment.
I respectfully disagree. It’s important to question where taxpayer money is going.
The concept of a 4D cinema in parliament sounds absurd! What’s next, roller coasters?
Hahaha, that’s a bit much, but I understand your frustration.
What’s concerning is how out of touch this makes the parliament appear to ordinary citizens.
I think the ‘Crystal Pavilion’ could serve a purpose if they renovated it to be a community space.
People just love to be negative! How about thinking of the tourism potential this could bring?
But at what cost? Our priorities are totally skewed.
Tourism already thrives without turning the parliament into an amusement park.
It is indeed disheartening how funds are allocated more towards spectacle than substance.
I think it’s innovative, but definitely not needed right now.
The government should open it up for public discussion, so citizens can have a say in where their money goes.
Next, they’ll propose building a water park beside the cinema!
I’d rather they prioritize revamping public transport.
It could provide good visitor engagement. But without public approval, it misses the mark.
How do these upgrades fit within the global trend of cutting unnecessary government spending?
If other countries can do it, why shouldn’t Thailand? Let’s not sell ourselves short.
Yes, but those countries have the economic backbone to support such features.