Doi Suthep project damages our judiciary
The talk of the town over the past week and days to come, especially for residents of Chiang Mai, is none other than the housing and office building project for judges and officials of the Region 5 Appeals Court in the forest at the foot of Doi Suthep mountain in Mae Rim district.
The controversial construction project pits environment-conscious groups in the northern province against the Office of the Judiciary which serves as the “housekeeper” for the judiciary.
The project is located on an 89-rai land plot out of a total of 147 rai that was ceded by the Treasury Department to the military for the construction of the Region 5 Appeals Court. The plot is just a fraction of more than 20,000 rai of land in Chiang Mai that the Treasury Department has allowed the military to use for security reasons. The housing project, scheduled to be completed next month, has the capacity to accommodate some 200 officials including judges.
The plot is outside the Doi Suthep national park. Hence, there is nothing legally wrong with the project and, therefore, the cutting of trees in the area to pave the way for the construction work is not illegal either.
Thanong Thongpubet, a leading opponent of the project, however, contends that the implementation of the project breaches a clause in the constitution — that there was no public participation in the decision-making process.
His campaign on change.org which demanded the Region 5 Appeal Court return the forested area was well received, with nearly 20,000 netizens signing up.
Other non-legal arguments raised by the opponents is that Doi Suthep has been regarded as a sacred place for the people of Chiang Mai for centuries and, hence, any deforestation to pave the way for the construction amounts to an act of desecration.
Looking from the air when one flies into Chiang Mai, the construction site forms an ugly stripe of empty land dotted with housing units jutting into the huge green forest canopy. Some opponents are critical of the design which is alien in comparison with the surrounding forest.
Due to public uproar, Army chief Gen Chalermchai Sitthisad, who is also secretary-general of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), last month ordered the halt of the project for review. After a short investigation, he then allowed the construction to resume,
explaining it was “too late to stop the project” as it was almost done. About one billion baht has been spent on it and to abort it at this stage would cause a significant financial loss, said the army chief.
The core issue of this controversy is not whether the project is legal or illegal. It is all about the suitability of the project pertaining to the choice of location and the environmental consciousness of the judiciary in general, particularly the judges of Region 5 Appeals Court who are its beneficiaries.
In defending the project last week, Mr Sarawut Benjakul, secretary-general of the Office of the Judiciary, insisted on the legality of the project and the judiciary’s awareness of the environment issue at stake. He claimed that all the big trees at the construction site were not felled, but dug up to be planted elsewhere.
He also promised that more trees would be planted on the construction site to try to restore the environmental condition, but the project must proceed
because it is almost completed and, also, the judiciary will face a lawsuit from the contractors if the project is scrapped now.
Unhappy with his assurances, a small group of opponents started a protest march from Chiang Mai bound for Bangkok to petition Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to invoke his special power under Section 44 of the interim constitution to scrap the project. The protest march was, however, cut short in Lampang after the marchers became worried
of outside interference to politicise their cause.
Besides the issue of environmental impact raised by the project’s opponents, there are a few pertinent questions that should be asked to the Office of the Judiciary.
The first question is: Was it necessary for the judges of Region 5 Appeals Court to spend taxpayers’ money to build a luxury housing unit that costs more than 20 million baht? There are altogether 38
units probably all for the judges.
The next questions are: What if the other government officials of the executive and legislative branches want the similar treatment, similar luxury accommodation? Will the government or the Budget Bureau meet their wish for the sake of equality now a precedent has been set?
And last but not least: Don’t the judges of Region 5 Appeals Court already have their own accommodation?
Judges have long been normally held in high regard among Thai people for the simple reason that they are perceived as being more honest and trustworthy than the other government officials.
But this controversial housing project appears to have dented public confidence and trust in the judiciary as a whole, especially for people in Chiang Mai. Is the project worth it?
Don’t the judges of Region 5 Appeals Court already have their own accommodation?