The closure of Phuket’s Big Buddha Viewpoint, which commands breathtaking vistas and has long been a beloved tourist magnet, has now stretched to almost a year. It remains a site of sorrow for locals, marking the location of a disastrous landslide last August that tragically claimed 13 lives. As tensions soar among the local community, temple authorities, and government officials, debates rage over responsibility and the pivotal question—should this iconic site reopen?
The land on which the Big Buddha majestically sits is legally owned by the Royal Forest Department’s Phuket branch (RFD Phuket). However, recent extensive deliberations have put forth a detailed list of 25 conditions that must be met before the site can once again welcome tourists. These stipulations, outlined during a meeting on Thursday, July 17, at Wat Kittisangkharam (Wat Kata), emphasize stringent adherence to existing Thai laws—including bans on unauthorized land use and measures to prevent environmental degradation. But the Abbot of Wat Kata, Phuket Phra Khru Wisut Kittiyaphon, along with the local populace grieving under the shadow of last year’s tragedy, have yet to endorse these conditions.
The assemblage, comprised of key stakeholders like Karon Deputy Mayor Trin Thipmongkol, village heads, police officers from the original inquiiry, and representatives of Phuket MP Chalermpong Saengdee, confronted pivotal issues at the meeting. Earlier this year, a criminal negligence investigation was stymied to the unmistakable dismay of residents, citing insufficient evidence as the reason for its closure. Chalermpong highlighted clause 17, pertaining to environmental impact compliance, alleging a stark omission—no comprehensive impact assessment report was presented at a previous review. Given the contentious past of the Big Buddha site, the absence of such a review was bewildering.
Rungnapa Phutkaew, the emphatic voice of the affected local community and President of the Phuket Provincial Bar Association, was forthright in her support for the RFD’s conditions but vocal about the need for additional measures. With urgency, she advocated for the removal of illegal structures, invigorated reforestation efforts, and a call for transparency and accountability from the Phra Phuttha Ming Mongkhol Sattha 45 Foundation—stewards of Big Buddha’s heritage. The foundation’s philanthropic gestures of hospital donations were met with scorn by Rungnapa, given the scant mention of reparations for bereaved families or the remediation of damaged homes from the landslide.
Tension is further compounded by the Abbot’s current hesitance to endorse the stipulations unless there’s resident consensus. As the gridlock over Big Buddha’s future continues, the weight of communal grief and justice-seeking looms large, prompting further discussions in the weeks ahead.
Amidst the turbulent developments at the Big Buddha Viewpoint, the overall news tapestry of Thailand remains vibrant with ongoing stories from across the nation. Maya Bay has temporarily closed for conservation, and regions like Pattaya and Bangkok continue to churn out headlines ranging from startling local incidents to whimsical travel promotions. Yet the plight of those grieving 13 lost lives at Big Buddha still resonates profoundly, uniting the island’s diverse voices in their call for justice and equitable resolution.
The government should prioritize safety over tourism. Why risk reopening when lives were lost?
But tourism is vital for Phuket’s economy. Can’t we balance safety with revenue?
Balancing is tricky after such a tragedy. Lives are worth more than income.
Agreed, but perhaps we can implement strict safety measures before reopening?
The Royal Forest Department needs to be more transparent. Where’s the accountability?
Totally! The negligence inquiry just disappeared, super sketchy.
Exactly! We need justice, not more dodging responsibility!
Isn’t it way more important to take care of the environment around Big Buddha first?
13 lives were lost! How can they even think about reopening?!
We can’t let this place become a ghost town. Balance is possible.
Some things can’t be balanced. Safety over tourist attractions any day.
The conditions seem thorough, but without enforcement, they’re meaningless.
True, plus locals should have more say in Big Buddha’s future.
Absolutely. They are the ones directly affected if something happens.
Makes sense, local input ensures that real issues are addressed.
People forget that tourism provides jobs, but we must do it responsibly.
Why isn’t the Phra Phuttha Ming Mongkhol Sattha 45 Foundation doing more for victims?
Maybe they fear financial repercussions if they admit fault?
Might be true, but morally they owe reparations and transparency.
Those 25 conditions sound like a step in the right direction but enforcement is key.
I agree. A plan is only as good as its execution.
I’d rather see the site become a memorial for those who died.
Interesting idea, but how would that impact the local economy?
Memorials can become places of reflection and attract respectful tourism.
Phuket’s livelihood depends too much on tourism. Diversify industries to prevent future dilemmas.
Smart point! Relying on one sector is risky.
Would love to see more eco-friendly ventures too.
Maybe closure is best till they properly assess environmental risks.