A quiet pool renovation has suddenly become Thailand’s latest hot-topic splash. The Huamark Aquatic Centre — slated to host swimming events for SEA Games 2025 — is at the center of a growing public debate after procurement documents revealed a 300-million-baht renovation budget and a line-by-line price list that has many Thais rubbing their chins.
The cost breakdown was shared by the popular Facebook page Young Shark Thailand (ฉลามหนุ่มไทยแลนด์), which says every figure comes straight from the Sports Authority of Thailand (SAT) procurement files. Whether you’re a swimming fan, a budget hawk, or someone who loves a good online kerfuffle, the numbers are worth a look.
Big ticket items that caught attention
- Grandstand seats: 3,118 plastic seats in green, red and yellow, reportedly costing a total of about 4.8 million baht — roughly 1,550 baht per seat, installation included. Not exactly throne-level prices, but multiplied by thousands, the math adds up.
- LED scoreboard and accessories: The new stadium LED scoreboard was listed at 2.5 million baht, with a “sending card” — a device to convert video signals for the screen — priced at 250,000 baht.
- Starting blocks: These competitive launch pads raised eyebrows. Eight starting blocks for the warm-up pool cost 1.9 million baht; 20 professional-grade blocks for the main competition pool were listed at 9 million baht.
- Touchpads: Timing is everything in competitive swimming. SAT reportedly bought 22 world-class touchpads for accurate race timing at a total cost of over 7 million baht.
- Signage: Even signage made the list — toilet signs inside the facility allegedly cost more than 140,000 baht, installation included. A small detail with a disproportionately large price tag, it seems.
- Movable pool bulkhead: The priciest single item on the sheet, the adjustable partition that divides the pool into zones, was listed at 18.9 million baht.
Put together, those items are just highlights from the redacted ledger. The full 300-million-baht figure covers a comprehensive upgrade intended to bring Huamark up to international competition standards — new seating, timing systems, scoreboards, pool technology and other infrastructure work.
Why the fuss?
For many, the surprise comes less from the need to upgrade an international venue and more from the sticker shock when specific unit costs are revealed. Online commentary split quickly: some netizens questioned whether the procurement prices were fair and whether taxpayers’ money was being spent wisely; others defended the costs as reasonable for world-class equipment and long-term use. A frequent refrain was: is this short-term spectacle or long-term legacy?
Young Shark Thailand urged followers to judge the numbers for themselves, pointing out that the page simply republished SAT’s official figures. The ensuing debate reflects a broader national conversation about transparency, value for money, and how public funds should be prioritized in the run-up to a major sporting event.
More drama beyond the pool
If the pool procurement debate weren’t enough, SEA Games preparations have been clouded by additional controversies. An outspoken Thai visual and lighting designer publicly claimed he and his team had spent more than seven months working on the opening and closing ceremony designs, only to be abruptly replaced in October. He says he received no prior warning and still has not been given an explanation — a story that added fuel to discussions about project management and decision-making processes in the lead-up to the Games.
Critics say these incidents highlight a need for clearer communications and better oversight. Supporters argue that staging a major regional sporting event requires rapid decisions and sometimes last-minute changes; either way, the public spotlight has sharpened.
What happens next?
The SAT has published procurement documents but hasn’t provided extended public commentary beyond routine statements. For now, the figures continue to circulate online, prompting calls for transparency and for officials to explain procurement choices in plain language. Some hope the renovated Huamark Aquatic Centre will become a lasting national asset — a world-class pool that Thai athletes and fans can be proud of for decades. Others want reassurances that the money spent will deliver long-term benefits rather than one-off spectacle.
Whether you’re cheering for faster swimmers or for tighter fiscal oversight, one thing is clear: the debate has made the Huamark pool renovation more than a construction project. It’s a public conversation about priorities, accountability, and the kind of legacy a hosting nation wants to leave when the final medal is awarded.
In the meantime, watch for more updates — and perhaps a few more soaking headlines — as SEA Games 2025 approaches and the renovated venue takes shape.
We posted the SAT procurement list so people can judge the numbers themselves, not to inflame things. The itemized costs came straight from official files and yes, some line items look eyebrow-raising. Feel free to ask if you want scans or specific line references.
This reads like textbook padding to me; 300 million baht and toilets cost 140k? That’s absurd. Who’s auditing these contracts?
Before shouting corruption, compare the specs: competition-grade touchpads and FINA-approved starting blocks cost a lot internationally. Still, public procurement should include unit specs so journalists and experts can verify prices against market rates.
We can publish the specific procurement line numbers if the SAT files allow it; some pages are redacted but many unit prices are clear. People often focus on a single number without seeing warranty, installation, and technical compliance costs.
Transparency alone isn’t the whole remedy; procurement needs independent technical review panels, especially for specialized equipment that has narrow suppliers. If Thailand wants long-term legacy venues, professional oversight is essential to avoid both overspend and under-spec purchases.
This is not defensible on optics alone; even if items are pricey, officials should explain each choice publicly. I don’t trust a process that hides just enough to keep comfortable margins.
Optics matter politically, but the deeper problem is a culture of secrecy and assumed impunity. If officials don’t explain, people will invent worse explanations that stick.
Why are toilets that expensive? I could buy one for way less at the market.
Maya, it’s not just the porcelain; installation, signage, and accessibility work might be bundled together in that line item. Still, the procurement should break those out so we can see what’s what.
As someone who works with event tech, I can tell you many suppliers quote high for low-volume bids and include long warranties and calibration. Not an excuse, but a reason these numbers look high compared to retail.
A sensible approach is independent market comparisons: get three comparable quotes for each major item and publish them. Without benchmarking, numbers float in a vacuum and fuel conspiracy theories.
I support sports, but my kids’ school roof leaks and yet we spend millions on scoreboards; priorities feel skewed. Maybe a percentage of these budgets should go to local community upgrades as part of legacy promises.
Media should demand granular procurement data and expert annotations rather than amplifying single-line outrage. Context reduces misinformation and holds officials to clearer standards.
Exactly, Editor — context matters. If the SAT releases full specs, neutral engineers could summarize whether prices are normal or inflated and explain technical reasons for variance.
Toilet signs costing over a hundred thousand baht is peak bureaucracy. Someone is laughing all the way to the bank while the rest of us pay taxes.
Agreed, that number alone feels like a slap in the face to taxpayers.
As a coach, I want the venue to be safe and FINA-compliant, but signage doesn’t need to cost an arm and a leg unless it’s part of a larger branded package. There should be a line-item explanation for bundled services.
If they bundled it with advertising or consultancy, taxpayers deserve to see the contract pages showing who got the money and why.
Line-by-line publication is a start, but what we lack is an independent post-procurement audit that evaluates value for money over time. An initial high price can be justified by lifetime service, but only if the contract guarantees that service.
An audit is essential; otherwise these ‘legacy’ projects become white elephants. Put the audit results online and let citizens comment.
Agreed, Anucha. The audit should be public, include cost-per-use estimates, and require vendor performance bonds to protect public funds if suppliers underdeliver.
I get the pride in hosting the SEA Games, but infrastructure should benefit communities after the event. Will local schools and clubs be allowed to use this pool affordably? That’s the real legacy question.
Exactly — legacy access needs to be in the contracts and memos now, not an afterthought once the lights are off. Accessibility plans should be published.
We should demand a promise: X years of community access at Y prices, otherwise it’s just a stadium for elites. Put it in writing or don’t call it a legacy project.
I’ll push my local council to ask for those guarantees; if the SAT won’t, municipalities should negotiate community-use clauses when handing over facilities.
This is confusing — why does sport equipment cost like super expensive toys for grown-ups?
Maya, competition gear is certified and precise; even a touchpad has sensors validated by international bodies, which raises cost. Still, I agree the public deserves plain-language explanations.
Thanks, Coach — makes more sense now but still feels unfair when schools need money for basics.
Politics here is the real sport: everyone scores except taxpayers. Reveal the bidders, their past contracts, and any political ties and the mystery will shrink fast.
Those touchpads and movable bulkheads have niche markets and long lead times; if SAT imported FINA-certified parts with installation and calibration, the price jumps. The question is whether procurement ensured competitive tendering among qualified suppliers.
Transparency isn’t just about numbers, it’s about documents like bids, evaluation criteria, and supplier qualifications. Demand a town-hall with officials and engineers before construction finishes.
I just want our swimmers to have a proper home pool, but not at the expense of trust. Balance both and it’s a win.
If officials refuse to explain, civil society groups should file Freedom of Information requests and push for an independent procurement review. Public money must be accountable.
Journalists should collaborate with engineers to translate procurement tech-speak into plain facts the public can weigh. That would raise the level of debate beyond ‘expensive’ or ‘corrupt’.
From a sporting point of view, good equipment saves money in the long run: fewer repairs, better athlete development, and international hosting credibility. But procurement must still be fair and transparent to avoid distrust.
Anyone else think the opening ceremony controversy smells like mismanagement and favoritism? The guy worked seven months and got replaced with no notice? That’s not how professional projects should run.
I’m not impressed by the outrage machine; sometimes a price is high because it includes guarantees and local taxes. Take a breath, ask for details, then judge. Knee-jerk reactions don’t help.
Public projects always become political theater. I just hope somebody in the SAT is competent enough to ensure the venue lasts past the games. Quality matters more than quick headlines.
Would be useful to see international comparisons: how much did other SEA countries spend on similar upgrades? Maybe Thailand is in line, maybe not. Data helps.
These conversations make me cynical but also hopeful — at least citizens are watching and demanding answers. Pressure is the only way procurement improves.
We’ll keep posting updates and any new procurement documents as they emerge; follow-up stories are coming. Meanwhile, tag experts if you want us to ask specific technical questions of the SAT.