Thon Buri temple halts renovation plan

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.