Published on November 11, 2005

Free land offer wins over panel, despite concerns over subsidence, low-lying land, noise pollution. First it was Suvarna-bhumi Airport fever. Then the hype was an ultra-modern airport city: Nakhon Suvarnabhumi. And now, Suvarnabhumi City is seen as the best site for the new Parliament.

Parliament President Bhokin Bhalakula announced yesterday that the area being developed as Suvarnabhumi City by Krisda Mahanakorn Plc was the most suitable location for the new Parliament building – but a final decision had yet to be made pending further negotiations with the developer.

The main reason for the choice is that the land is being given free of cost.

Krisda offered to give 400 rai for the building, on the condition that the government pays for the construction of a 6.5-kilometre and 60-metre-wide road covering 300 rai of land.

A spokesman for the company had earlier estimated that the road would cost Bt530 million.

Senator Seree Suwanpanont, a member of the joint committee scrutinising three locations proposed by the House committee on parliamentary affairs, said after its meeting yesterday that committee members had weighed the pros and cons and decided that Krisda Mahanakorn’s site was the most suitable.

Seree dismissed the argument by opponents of the site that the state would end up paying more for pilings since the land there is soft. Wherever the Parliament building was constructed in Bangkok or surrounding areas, it would need a solid foundation, he said.

He said the cost of building the new parliament had yet to be calculated.

Seree said he personally agreed with the choice because relocating the Parliament and government offices there would be in line with the government’s plan to develop Nakhon Suvarnabhumi around the new international airport.

Moving government offices out of inner Bangkok to a new, modern city would lessen traffic, create many more jobs and strengthen the economy, he said.

“I do not just blindly oppose the government. If what they do benefits the public, I support it. And I do not live or have land there. And even if the Parliament building does not get constructed there, it is natural that wherever the airport moves, development will follow,” he said.

Seree refused to comment on whether the fact that the chairman of Krisda is former Senate speaker Meechai Ruchupan had influenced the decision, saying he had no knowledge of any link.

The Senator said that since it was private land, it might be inevitable that the public suspects that the decision was made to benefit the private sector.

Bhokin, who had favoured the Thai Melon Textile Co site, said the panel dropped that idea because the area was too polluted. City planning would also be more difficult since there were many housing estates and factories around that site.

Bhokin’s change of heart came after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra built up the hype about Nakhon Suvarnabhumi. He had shown himself to be strongly in favour of the Thai Melon site for four months after Krisda made its land offer in July.

Bhokin dismissed concerns about noise pollution from the new airport and land subsidence, saying the site was 18 kilometres from the airport and two metres above sea level – not as low-lying as the airport area. Adjustments to city planning would be easier since the area around the project was rice-fields, he said.

Seree also dismissed fears of land subsidence, saying technology would be able to solve the problem. “In some countries such the Netherlands people live below sea level, and in Japan they fill in the sea to live on,” he said.

Bhokin said a third possible site, an arms depot in Nonthaburi, was dropped because it was close to a palace and faced restrictions on security and high-rise construction.

He said he told the joint committee to tell Krisda they must cooperate on zoning near the new parliament because of concerns the landscape around it might be obstructed by high-rises and buildings built by the firm.

Seree said the committee would negotiate to ensure that the road would benefit not only Krisda’s clients but also the general public. It should allow nearby roads to connect to it since Krisda was donating the land to the state, he said.

Bhokin said that the decision had to be made before December 5 so that the laying of the cornerstone could be done next year, which is the Diamond Jubilee of the King’s ascension to the throne.

Democrat Party deputy leader Jurin Laksanawisit, a member of the House committee on parliamentary affairs, said the whole idea of building a city and moving government offices close to the airport was against international practice. “Developed countries only do the opposite. They move the airport out of the city,” he said.

Democrat Party spokesman Ong-art Klampaibun called for the disclosure of more information about each choice of location, saying the public was being kept in the dark and information limited.

He said Bhokin should not base the decision on the new parliament on landscape and budget. “It should be somewhere the public can have easy access,” he said.

The Opposition would move to ensure the government holds a public hearing that provides full details and not cover up information about the projects, Jurin said.

Phochana Phichitsiri

The Nation

Post your comment to this story here