This Friday will mark one month since the under-construction MRT station at Vajira Hospital suffered a massive sinkhole on Samsen Road. The public has since been left in the dark, not knowing how a well-designed and costly subway tunnel collapsed so easily.
The public has been told that soil subsidence, underground water, or even a burst water pipe may have caused the collapse. Yet such explanations merely fuel concerns.
How could an expensive, supposedly state-of-the-art underground system be so vulnerable to routine and natural risks such as soil shifts, water leaks, or heavy rainfall?
If those were the real causes, other ongoing subway projects in the area could face similar risks. After all, the underground water level in Bangkok is constantly changing.
In terms of soil, it is an open secret that contractors dealing with projects beneath ground level often use construction technology to stabilise the condition of the soil.
The problem is that the government has not revealed many details.
Media reports focus on how contractors are providing remedies to damaged parties.
However, last week, Pheu Thai list-MP Plodprasop Suraswadi — chair of the Lower-House’s sub-committee on improving public safety and standards on civil construction — warned the public that the collapsed surface at the construction site extended for about 25 metres.
A few days later, Bangkok governor Chadchart Sittipunt openly brushed aside Mr Plodprasop’s warning, confirming the area as being already safe again.
The big question is why the MRT and the associated contractors have not come forward to clarify Mr Plodprasop’s warning.
Just this month, the Ministry of Transport quietly formed a fact-finding committee to look into the cause of the huge sinkhole.
This 11-person panel only contains a few neutral experts. The majority are officials from the Ministry of Transport, the Metropolitan Rapid Transit — the owner of the subway project — and contractors from the CKST-PL Joint Venture.
The ministry has not spelt out the framework of the fact-finding mission or when the results of the probe will be released.
Last week, members of the same Lower-House sub-committee sent a letter to the ministry urging the fact-finding committee to invite more neutral experts to join.
In countries with strong public safety records, professional probes are often conducted by third-party experts, with the results publicised. But in Thailand, most fact-finding committees feature stakeholders like contractors and only a few neutral experts. In many cases, the government publicises only some of the results.
Such is the case with the State Audit Office that collapsed early this year — only the conclusion of the report has been publicised. The names of the experts involved have not been revealed. The simulation model they used to test the structural strength and materials of the buildings remains “classified”.
The ministry must improve public safety standards — starting by making its fact-finding inclusive and transparent; then, by telling the public what the fact-finding mission will do and when the truth will be known.