The new fiscal year is around the corner, and along with it comes a flurry of debates about big-budget projects. One of the most talked-about plans is the Transport Ministry’s proposal to construct a new office building, with a price tag that’s raising more than a few eyebrows. The proposed 3.83 billion baht expenditure has drawn intense scrutiny from the main opposition People’s Party (PP), who are asking the kind of probing questions that keep government officials on their toes.
In a recent session of the House of Representatives, Surachet Pravinvongvuth, a member of parliament from the PP, resurrected memories of a costly blunder- a not-so-distant scandal involving the State Audit Office (SAO). They spent a whopping 2.56 billion baht on a new office building, which inconveniently decided to buckle under the pressure of an earthquake. Naturally, Surachet wondered why the Transport Ministry’s building, projected to be even more expensive, was seen as a necessary investment.
As the House deliberated over the government’s colossal 3.78 trillion-baht budget bill for the 2026 fiscal year, Surachet seized the opportunity to voice his concerns. Initially, the budget for the Transport Ministry’s new building was a staggering 4.5 billion baht, before a presumably swift intervention by the Budget Bureau pruned it down to the slightly less intimidating 3.83 billion baht.
The grandiose plan encompasses an 18-rai track of land, located in the bustling real estate hub of Bang Sue. In comparison, the ill-fated SAO building sprawled over just 10 rai. Surachet candidly highlighted these details, painting a picture of extravagance that might leave the average taxpayer feeling a little overwhelmed.
In the upcoming fiscal year, the Office of the Permanent Secretary has its sights set on a total budget of 1.12 billion baht, almost twice its usual allowance of around 600 million baht. The reason for this surge? You guessed it – the new building. The plan spells out an allocation of 574.8 million baht in the first year alone, with the remainder of the bill being divided over the following two years.
The design of the 22-storey edifice has already been completed, but one of the revelations is that only 319 staff members are due to move in once it’s up and running. Surachet wasted no time challenging Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit to clarify just who was going to enjoy this lavish new workspace.
The minister, it seems, is all set to claim a prime spot at the top of the building, with a 65-square-meter office that comes complete with a helipad – handy for those days when you want to avoid the infamous Bangkok traffic. Surachet wasn’t done with his architectural critique yet; he went on to question the use of the ninth and tenth floors, slated to include a 300-seat auditorium. He quipped that it resembled more of a luxurious theatre setup found in Iconsiam rather than a functional conference room. Down on the eighth floor, plans for a 1,000-square-meter convention hall dwarfed the 520-square-meter venue at The Peninsula Bangkok, amplifying the sense of opulence.
As the debate raged on within the House, Suriya had yet to respond to Surachet’s pointed remarks. Whether the project will receive the ultimate go-ahead or face an encore of budget revisions remains to be seen. Meanwhile, taxpayers might wonder if there’s an affordable ticket for the screening of this intriguing saga.
Is building another luxury office really the best use of taxpayer money? Look at the SAO disaster. Why don’t we learn from past mistakes?
Agreed. Seems like we’re repeating history at an even higher cost.
Exactly, and what about prioritizing infrastructure that actually benefits the public?
Everyone’s quick to criticize, but having a centralized and modern headquarters could improve efficiency in the long run.
But how much efficiency justifies billions in expenditure? And 319 staff only? Seems excessive.
True, but quality facilities might attract better talent too. It’s a tricky balance.
A helipad for the minister? Seriously? Even CEOs aren’t this lavish. Thailand’s priorities seem skewed.
It’s classic political extravagance, nothing new. What about job creation?
Job creation through unnecessary construction isn’t sustainable. We need better solutions.
If only we could have a K-Pop concert in that auditorium. I’d totally support this project!
This is government largesse at its worst. Bet the ministers barely work a day in there once it’s built.
Exactly, they make these palaces for themselves, not for the people. We need accountability.
No problem with dreaming big, but this should be done in stages. Check what works first before sinking in so much money.
Bet there’s some shady deals behind this, just like with the SAO. Time for a real investigation.
The amount could have been used for improving public transport. Not for a fancy office complex.
Public transport upgrades should definitely be a higher priority, considering urban traffic.
What are the environmental impacts of this construction? Anyone asked about sustainable building practices?
Yes! That’s a point often overlooked. These projects should be green-focused.
This debate just drags on and on. Just make a decision already, so we can know where our money’s going.
The lack of transparency is exhausting. Clear timelines and justifications would help.
A proper investment now can save money in the long term. But the current plan seems unnecessarily opulent.
It’s almost as if the government wants to outdo the last scandal. What’s next, a golden elevator?
Why not turn the old building into something useful, like a community center or public space?
Great idea, converting old spaces can be both cost-effective and community-focused.
There’s a contradiction in increasing bureaucratic expenses while cutting essential services during a financial crunch.
If they cut back on the bloat, more could be spent on critical infrastructure improvements.