Amidst the rubble and rumors swirling from the March 28 collapse of the State Audit Office’s (SAO) brand new headquarters in Thailand, Auditor-General Monthien Charoenpol finds himself in an unusual hot seat. Fresh off a four-hour grilling session with the House committee on corruption and misconduct prevention and suppression, Monthien is not just defending his choice of high-ticket furnishings meant for the now-crumpled edifice—he’s also untangling the misunderstandings enveloping these luxury items.
Let’s set the record straight, shall we? Visionaries were employed to craft the architectural dreams and designs needed for the SAO’s new home. Their blueprints included detailed specifications for the dazzling equipment and furnishings intended to elevate each floor. But hold your horses—while the vision sparkled on paper, the dream was tragically cut short by an unexpected earthquake rumbling far away in Myanmar, causing the building’s premature demise. Until then, these furnishings were yet to make their physical debut.
Now, for those jaw-dropping price tags making headlines—the 30,000-baht showerheads and the 90,000-baht chairs. Shocked? Surprised? Both perhaps. Here’s where Monthien steps in to assure us, with the calm demeanor of a seasoned opera conductor. The lavish 90,000-baht chairs were not a one-for-all scheme intended to pamper every bottom in the SAO. Instead, they were meticulously chosen as a status symbol, specifically set aside for a distinguished ensemble—SAO’s chairman and board members. It’s the perk of rank, not the perk of the masses.
This strategic furnishing approach doesn’t imply a grand reset for all 2,400 staffers populating the building. No sir. In reality, the staff enjoy standard office chairs humming around a more modest 10,000 to 20,000 baht each. In a grand orchestra where not every chair can be the front row, hierarchy shapes decor. After all, in SAO’s world, the equivalence of executive roles with cabinet ministers, ordained by law no less, seems to justify a sprinkle of luxury.
Ah, and those misunderstood showerheads—once viewed as a waterfall of extravagant spending—appear less scandalous when the math of design comes to light. Essentially, two types of showerheads were originally integrated into the blueprint to meet modern necessities, a practical solution that became wallet-lightening only when considering its cumulative cost at fruition.
And what about the whispers of a movie theatre being planned for the office? Monthien raises an eyebrow and refutes these allegations with a slight chuckle. The so-called “theatre room,” shrouded in a cinephile’s illusion, was merely a usage of design terminology pointing to room configuration. Think multipurpose meeting room settings in a “theatre” style or “classroom” format, not multiplex marvels with popcorn concessions.
Lastly, not to be drawn into this drama, former auditor-general Phisit Leelavachiropas has taken a bow out, claiming his role was limited to merely preparing the curtain for the unfolding project in its nascent stages. And there, as Monthien concludes, lies the tale of the phoenix the SAO’s headquarters was meant to be, now but an architectural footnote, awaiting its next act.
I don’t understand why they needed such expensive chairs in the first place. Absolute waste of taxpayer money!
It’s about status and hierarchy. You can’t expect the high-ups to sit on cheap chairs, can you?
But does status really justify such lavish spending? I think not!
Was the collapse a design flaw or an act of God? The earthquake story sounds like a convenient alibi.
That’s a good point! Could it be a poorly constructed building? Seems a bit too coincidental.
Earthquakes do happen without notice, but I wouldn’t rule out a construction error either.
Did you even read the article? Myanmar’s earthquake is not an alibi; it’s the reason.
Furnishings or not, a building that collapses? It screams dodgy dealings to me.
Agree! What about the safety inspections? Were they even done adequately?
I bet someone cut corners to pocket the extra cash.
I think it’s all being blown out of proportion. Expensive chairs and showerheads are just what government should expect for top execs.
Why are they even talking about showerheads when the building’s in ruins? Priorities much?
Because people love drama! Especially when it involves ‘scandalous’ spending.
We should focus on preventing these events, not just dramatizing them.
The explanation about the theatre room was hilarious. Symantics, I guess?
As long as they don’t start planning theater-style, who cares what they call it?
The name was obviously misconstrued, but the room intention wasn’t a cineplex.
Building projects are always under scrutiny, but how often does actual change happen?
My thoughts exactly! We hear a lot, but accountability is rare.
These luxury items are unnecessary. Focus should be on efficiency, not ostentation.
Efficiency blends well with a bit of comfort for a conducive work environment.
Just another case of the rich looking out for themselves, as always.
Shame on whoever approved the ridiculous budgets. Common sense, where art thou?
I’m curious to see if heads will roll after this debacle, but I won’t hold my breath.
Bureaucrats have a way of slipping through the cracks!
They should invest in rebuilding with better safety standards. People are not statistics.
Good point! Safety should indeed be the first priority.
Still can’t wrap my head around 30,000-baht for a showerhead. What is it made of, gold?
Maybe focus on transparency first? Public needs to see where their money’s actually going.
Never thought I’d be intrigued by showerheads, yet here we are. What a time to be alive!
In the grand scheme, I think it’s all talk. Let’s wait and see if real action is taken, folks.
True. Action speaks louder than endless debates.