Thon Buri temple halts renovation plan
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- WAT KALAYANAMIT in Bangkok's Thon Buri district has agreed to postpone its controversial renovation plan pending a ruling by the Administrative Court.

The information was given to the press yesterday following a meeting between Crown Property Bureau executive Adul Boonluek and Department of Fine Arts (DFA) chief Borvornvate Rungrujee.

Borvornvate said the temple's renovation of four buildings - which had received the DFA approval - was under the bureau's responsibility and sponsorship since 2011. He insisted that the temple carried out renovation on 22 items in the compound, and the department had filed 15 cases against it - 10 cases have been dropped by public prosecutors but five cases are ongoing.

He said the department would next month ask the temple to demolish a new structure, which was unauthorised, within 30 days.

Meanwhile, DFA Archaeology Office director Tharapong Srisuchat yesterday joined forensic police and city officials in inspecting damage to the century-old pavilions. Tharapong met Bupparam police in the morning to file another complaint over the pavilion demolition, hence the department now had six cases against temple.

Bupparam superintendent Colonel Natthaporn Phadungchan said they would soon seek details from two migrant workers arrested for alleged illegal demolition and released.

Despite a warning to the temple not to tear down old registered buildings in its compound, and a complaint to police by DFA chief Borvornvate Rungrujee on Tuesday, the temple had earlier insisted it would continue the controversial renovation. The temple's chief adviser, Watchara Phromcharoen, on Thursday claimed the renovation was necessary because these buildings were in deteriorated condition. He said the plan was also to mark the temple's 190th anniversary and commemorate HM the King's 7th cycle in 2017.

Watchara said the temple's action was legal, saying a DFA move to register 28 temples as archaeological sites, including Wat Kalayanamit in November 1949, did not give any further details and the DFA had not notified the temple hence they continued to develop the temple as usual.

He said the DFA in 2003 accused the temple of damaging an archaeological site without permission, and the temple had replied that they had sought permission from the DFA earlier that year but got no reply so they went ahead with renovations. The prosecutor at the time did not pursue the case because the temple did not have an intention to destroy the site, he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Thon-Buri-temple-halts-renovation-plan-30256472.html

-- The Nation 2015-03-21

Just as a building is old, doesn't make it important, less so if making it important means it can no longer serve a useful life today. But looking at it now, it does not appear to be older than early 20th century. Anyone can explain the importance of this wat,

Just as a building is old, doesn't make it important, less so if making it important means it can no longer serve a useful life today. But looking at it now, it does not appear to be older than early 20th century. Anyone can explain the importance of this wat,

Just as a building is old, doesn't make it important,

And you decided this from a news photo? In any case, it is not for you to decide. The DFA registered these temples as archaeological sites in 1949 and only barbarians would destroy archaeological sites. Barbarians hiding behind monks robes are the worst kind. BTW, these temples do not belong to the monks that inhabit them; these monks are supposed to be caretakers to pass to the next generation.

the temple had replied that they had sought permission from the DFA earlier that year but got no reply so they went ahead with renovations

If the rule/law states that no changes are allowed without permission, the absence of a reply for the department that issues permissions is NOT to be taken as a YES. With all the misery in Thailand, why aren't these temples making any effort to raise their community instead of this ceaseless spending money on buildings.

Just as a building is old, doesn't make it important, less so if making it important means it can no longer serve a useful life today. But looking at it now, it does not appear to be older than early 20th century. Anyone can explain the importance of this wat,

Just as a building is old, doesn't make it important,

And you decided this from a news photo? In any case, it is not for you to decide. The DFA registered these temples as archaeological sites in 1949 and only barbarians would destroy archaeological sites. Barbarians hiding behind monks robes are the worst kind. BTW, these temples do not belong to the monks that inhabit them; these monks are supposed to be caretakers to pass to the next generation.

Im not suggesting anything other than, what I said regarding useful.... and I'm not deciding crap all on this topic.

I was just curious about the wat, as In its background, i don't give a crap about the DFA's issues other than I hope they are successful in protecting heritage. Be it from belligerent me or or belligerent monks