Bangkok Questions Legal Basis Of SRT's Chatuchak Market Management

[webfact]

SUNDAY MARKET

BMA questions legal basis of SRT's management

The Nation

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) yesterday challenged the legal authority of the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) to run the commercial activities of a market, specifically Chatuchak Market.

"The Railway Act does not specifically state that the SRT can manage the market," Sanya Jantarat, an adviser to Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, told a news conference.

He was speaking after it was reported that the Cabinet on Tuesday issued a resolution assigning the SRT to manage Chatuchak Market from January 2 onward.

The BMA established Chatuchak Market a few decades ago. Under its management, the market has grown into a world-famous attraction popular not just among Thais but also with foreign tourists. The cash flow within the market is said to be huge.

"We are ready to respond to the Cabinet resolution, but we have to examine it first," Sanya said. "We have concerns for consumers and vendors at the market."

He said many parties now wondered which agency would take charge of the Chatuchak Market next year.

Sanya said the BMA would ask the government to forward the Cabinet resolution to the BMA to study.

"We have to examine whether the Cabinet has approved the SRT's management of Chatuchak Market or just the market's grounds," he said.

If the SRT steps in to manage Chatuchak Market, it may violate the Railway Act, Sanya said.

The BMA initially paid about Bt3.2 million a year in rent to the SRT for the plot on which the market is located. From 2001, the renewed contract saw BMA paying a much higher rent of more than Bt65 million a year to the SRT.

In 2008, the SRT raised the rent to about Bt200 million a year and the BMA agreed.

However, the BMA baulked at the SRT's recent push for an annual rent of Bt420 million. The quarrel over the rent hike finally led the SRT to take over the management of the market.

There are 8,805 registered stalls inside Chatuchak Market in addition to the stalls illegally operating around the site.

"I think I am going to face a higher rent fee," a clothes vendor at the market said yesterday. "That's the reason the SRT wants to take over from the BMA anyway."

Identifying himself only as "Supoj", he disclosed that he paid Bt25,000 a month for the right to operate his stalls. The rent was paid not to the BMA, but to people holding the right to lease the stalls.

"Most vendors here are sub-lessors," said Pornronnarong Nopdejchatchai, a 43-year-old shoe vendor.

There are three main groups of profiteers at Chatuchak Market.

The first group purchased the right to lease stalls from the original rights owners and sub-leased the stalls at a much higher fee. Key figures in this group are identified only as "Je Or" and "Seh Por". This group reportedly pockets a lump sum of about Bt1.5 billion from Chatuchak vendors each year.

The second group governs more than 1,000 unregistered or illegal stalls at the market. The group is led by someone known only as "Bro Yai". His gang collected Bt1,000 a day from each of the illegal stalls.

The last group, reportedly under the leadership of a "Seh Kor", reaps benefits from taxis, public vans, parking areas, and taxi motorcyclists around the Chatuchak Weekend Market.

Nisit Sintuprai, who chairs a working panel established by a deputy transport minister, said he expected the BMA to hand over the Chatuchak Market to the SRT within six months.

"In the meantime, we will set up working panels to look into each aspect of the management of the market including contracts, fee collection, laws and regulation of stalls," he said.

-- The Nation 2011-12-29

[goober]

Messy situation that will only end up affecting the stall operators.

As for these gangs operating the taxis etc outside, just more Mafia who pay money upstairs.

Morally bankrupt society where just a select few benefit.

[Moruya]

A Pheu Thai government trying to punish a Democrat-led BMA.

[airconsult]

A Pheu Thai government trying to punish a Democrat-led BMA.

Unfortunately for that theory, SRT notified BMA of the rent increase (and BMA initially refused) in late 2009 and early 2010 - long before the election dates were even posted or considered.

Seriously - on SRT's part this is just a commercial decision, they knew that the actual rents paid by Stall operators amounted to somewhere between 1.5 and 2 billion per year, and SRT received only 200 million. Under the current laws, if any State-owned company (or indeed public servant or MP) is not performing his task well, he can be sued by ANY citizen for incompetence.

What I am saying, is in a potential lawsuit, the SRT directors and management were liable for up to 1.8billion per year. (this was part of the 2007 constitution). That provision was designed to try and reduce graft and corruption by making the state-owned enterprises more efficient. Fortunately/unfortunately it leads to situations like this - If SRT does not try to improve their revenue they *may* be liable, and it will help subsidise the free train journeys both previous governments have ordered them to provide.

BMA will now wring it's hands and say it was unaware that most of the stalls are sub-let (which violates their contracts) and all it was attempting to do was provide cheap, quality market space. This threat of legal action is just a political ploy - it's well established that with government department approval, a state-owned enterprise may establish subsidiary companies for work outside their normal charter. And in this case, SRT is establishing a company to manage one of their assets (the land) - does that mean that no shops can operate there? Somebody had better tell the shops at Hua Lamphong and the shopping area at Sukhumvit station.

The next step will be BMA saying that the leases they approved run further than the official lease termination date of Dec31 - and who will compensate those lease-holders........

[smutcakes]

A Pheu Thai government trying to punish a Democrat-led BMA.

In what way is this PT against Democrat, please can you explain that? This situation has not just appeared, it has been ongoing for a few years. The land is owned by SRT. If what is happening in the above article is true, you could make an argument for the only reason the BMA are not able or willing to pay the new terms of the lease proposed by the SRT is due to their poor management in the first place, allowing so much potential money to be siphoned off illegally. No doubt it would be the same situation whoever runs it.

[Moruya]

A Pheu Thai government trying to punish a Democrat-led BMA.

In what way is this PT against Democrat, please can you explain that? This situation has not just appeared, it has been ongoing for a few years. The land is owned by SRT. If what is happening in the above article is true, you could make an argument for the only reason the BMA are not able or willing to pay the new terms of the lease proposed by the SRT is due to their poor management in the first place, allowing so much potential money to be siphoned off illegally. No doubt it would be the same situation whoever runs it.

It clearly refers to a cabinet resolution passed on Tuesday.

JJ has been referred to as a world class market that evolved under the BMA over the past 30 or so years. The prices at the market have been noted as being too high. Do you not think a hike in rent will further deteriorate the market?

I'm not sure what the state is with Suan Lum nowadays but these markets are major attractions and should be preserved.

[airconsult]

A Pheu Thai government trying to punish a Democrat-led BMA.

In what way is this PT against Democrat, please can you explain that? This situation has not just appeared, it has been ongoing for a few years. The land is owned by SRT. If what is happening in the above article is true, you could make an argument for the only reason the BMA are not able or willing to pay the new terms of the lease proposed by the SRT is due to their poor management in the first place, allowing so much potential money to be siphoned off illegally. No doubt it would be the same situation whoever runs it.

It clearly refers to a cabinet resolution passed on Tuesday.

JJ has been referred to as a world class market that evolved under the BMA over the past 30 or so years. The prices at the market have been noted as being too high. Do you not think a hike in rent will further deteriorate the market?

I'm not sure what the state is with Suan Lum nowadays but these markets are major attractions and should be preserved.

I'm curious - I can see you are just thinking of the increase SRT wanted - but considering that sub-letting (which was adding most of the cost to the vendors) was illegal under the BMA's contract terms, and that SRT has been talking directly to the vendors (probably the SRT directors have had to hire extra personal guards by trying to cut out the middlemen)...... To the vendor - will it be higher, same, or lower?

By bringing the subletting practices into the public view and noting it is not legal right now, SRT is waving a stick at the middlemen - whether the result will be good or bad is far too early to tell.

Let's be honest - BMA's management has lead to the market being controlled by semi-criminals. You could even make a case that they were fully aware of this, and it was being used to fund certain families. Personally I would prefer if more of that "dark" economy be in the public view. Can SRT do worse?

Edited December 29, 2011 by airconsult

[Moruya]

A Pheu Thai government trying to punish a Democrat-led BMA.

In what way is this PT against Democrat, please can you explain that? This situation has not just appeared, it has been ongoing for a few years. The land is owned by SRT. If what is happening in the above article is true, you could make an argument for the only reason the BMA are not able or willing to pay the new terms of the lease proposed by the SRT is due to their poor management in the first place, allowing so much potential money to be siphoned off illegally. No doubt it would be the same situation whoever runs it.

It clearly refers to a cabinet resolution passed on Tuesday.

JJ has been referred to as a world class market that evolved under the BMA over the past 30 or so years. The prices at the market have been noted as being too high. Do you not think a hike in rent will further deteriorate the market?

I'm not sure what the state is with Suan Lum nowadays but these markets are major attractions and should be preserved.

I'm curious - I can see you are just thinking of the increase SRT wanted - but considering that sub-letting (which was adding most of the cost to the vendors) was illegal under the BMA's contract terms, and that SRT has been talking directly to the vendors (probably the SRT directors have had to hire extra personal guards by trying to cut out the middlemen)...... To the vendor - will it be higher, same, or lower?

By bringing the subletting practices into the public view and noting it is not legal right now, SRT is waving a stick at the middlemen - whether the result will be good or bad is far too early to tell.

Let's be honest - BMA's management has lead to the market being controlled by semi-criminals. You could even make a case that they were fully aware of this, and it was being used to fund certain families. Personally I would prefer if more of that "dark" economy be in the public view. Can SRT do worse?

All of this subletting and peripheral mafia could and should be stamped out.

[tragickingdom]

Corruption, Extortion and other Mafia activities always come together with big markets. Maybe the SRT can do what the democrat party bosses did not wanted to do. Get rid of all people who make money of vendors. If you are not selling at the market itself, bad luck, your stall will be taken. MOney should be collected on a daily basis where owners should duly Identify themselves. This means of course too that most money collectors have to go too.

[Arkady]

It is horrible place where animals are tortured and awful junk is sold and I can't imagine why anyone would want to go there. I suggest turning it into an extension of the Railway Park.