The People’s Party (PP) is pressing for a thorough review of the plan to build a new underground parking facility within the parliament complex, pointing to irregularities in both the budget and the project’s design. PP spokesperson Parit Watcharasindhu has used a recent Facebook post to urge the government to urgently reassess the design proposal, highlighting concerns raised by the Comptroller General’s Department (CGD) regarding the project’s transparency. The CGD reportedly recommended canceling the project, and Parit stressed that if the government intends to proceed, the entire process must align with the Procurement Act. He also questioned the rationale for expanding the underground parking capacity to 6,500 vehicles from the current 2,000, underscoring potential overreach in the scope of the project.
Background and Context
The discussion around the parliament complex’s underground parking facility centers on a multi-faceted confrontation among fiscal prudence, governance norms, and urban planning logic. The plan involves constructing a four-storey underground garage that proponents claim will significantly improve the Parliament’s parking capacity and overall traffic management. The proposed capacity jump—from 2,000 spaces to 6,500—reflects a dramatic expansion that has prompted scrutiny from oversight bodies and opposition voices alike. At the heart of the matter is the assertion that current parking requirements, as defined by zoning regulations, would suffice with a 3,500-space limit, making the suggested 6,500-space expansion appear excessive. This tension between the proposed scale of the project and established zoning and planning standards has created a ripe environment for questions about necessity, proportionality, and cost-effectiveness.
The funding backdrop for the project features a budget allocation that critics say is not properly vetted or approved through the standard parliamentary process. The government reportedly commissioned a design study costing 105 million baht, a figure that has become a focal point in debates about transparency and accountability. Parit contends that this budget has already been transferred from the 2024 fiscal year reserve for the car park design, undermining claims that the funds had not yet left the public purse. The speed and method by which this money was diverted toward the project fuel suspicions about whether due process was followed. In particular, the use of a special budget procedure—an expedited pathway reportedly led by the House speaker—has raised alarms about bypassing ordinary channels that are designed to ensure thorough scrutiny and public accountability.
A critical dimension of the narrative is the CGD’s role as a watchdog of public procurement and budgeting processes. The CGD’s concerns about transparency have been widely reported, and their counsel to cancel the project if it cannot be aligned with the Procurement Act has been cited as a central point of contention. The CGD’s stance is that the project’s transparency issues undermine its legitimacy and call into question whether the project could withstand independent scrutiny, bidding integrity, and value-for-money assessments. The PP’s call for a comprehensive review, therefore, sits within a broader framework of checks-and-balances that aim to prevent misuse of public funds and to ensure that any large-scale infrastructure project complies with established procurement and financial management rules.
The political environment surrounding the project is further complicated by statements from parliamentary leadership. Deputy House Speaker Pichet Chamuangphan reportedly asserted that the budget had not been approved by Parliament, which would imply that the 105-million-baht study and related design expenditures were not yet sanctioned through the legislative process. Parit, however, counters this claim by asserting that the 105-million-baht fund had already been redirected from the 2024 fiscal year budget, serving as a reserve for the car park design. The claim underscores a broader debate about whether the project circumvented standard budgeting procedures and whether the rapid, special-budget pathway was used to sidestep parliamentary oversight. In addition, Parit raised concerns over a fast-tracked bidding process that he argues may have compromised fairness and competitiveness in the procurement process.
The bidding process and the selection of contractors are central to the controversy. The winning bidder, AGCC Group, allegedly submitted a bid that was only 0.2 percent below the median price, a margin that Parit suggests is unsustainably tight, particularly given the project’s large scale and risk profile. This observation has prompted concerns about whether price competition was genuine or if the bid was influenced by other factors, such as affiliations or perceived conflicts of interest within consortium members. Parit notes that one of the companies within the AGCC Group is associated with conflicts of interest and delays, a claim that adds to the skepticism surrounding the bidding process. The brevity of the bidding window, which lasted only 11 days, further fuels doubts about whether bidders had adequate time to conduct thorough due diligence, prepare comprehensive proposals, and present verified information about risk, schedule, and cost.
The project’s financial architecture also draws attention for its misalignment with the FY2026 budget planning. Parit emphasizes that the construction budget for the parking facility has neither been approved by the Budget Bureau nor included in the FY2026 plan, suggesting that the project would not enter consideration until at least FY2027. This sequencing inconsistency raises questions about the readiness and legitimacy of committing to a multi-billion-baht project without the backing of the formal budgetary framework and long-range financial planning. Parit’s concluding assertion—“I see no urgency to spend 105 million baht—never reviewed by parliament—on designing a 4.5-billion-baht underground parking garage”—condenses a broader concern about whether the pace of execution is being prioritized over prudent governance and transparent budgeting.
In aggregate, the background and context of the underground parking project reflect a confluence of demand-driven infrastructure planning, governance concerns, potential rule-bending in budgeting, and the friction between executive decisions and legislative oversight. The elements of scope expansion, cost escalation, procurement integrity, and the timeline for parliamentary approval all blend into a narrative that many observers interpret as a test case for how seriously a transparent, rules-based procurement regime can function in the face of high-stakes infrastructure ambitions.
Design and Scope of the Parking Project
The heart of the controversy lies in the proposed design and the resulting scope of the underground parking facility. The plan envisions a four-storey underground garage designed to significantly augment parking capacity at the parliament complex. The stated capacity target—6,500 parking spaces—represents a substantial increase from the current 2,000 spaces. This proposed expansion has provoked questions about whether such a scale is necessary or justified given existing parking needs, traffic patterns, and the ability of alternative parking solutions to manage demand more efficiently. In addition, the design has been described as excessive because current zoning laws would technically require only 3,500 parking spots, creating a perceived mismatch between regulatory requirements and the proposed build-out.
The design’s perceived excessiveness becomes a focal point for discussions about value-for-money and public risk. Critics argue that expanding capacity by more than the regulatory minimum could introduce unnecessary capital outlay and longer construction timelines, which in turn could amplify lifecycle costs, maintenance burdens, and potential future obsolescence. Proponents, meanwhile, might contend that the larger capacity is intended to future-proof Parliament’s infrastructure against rising traffic and vehicle ownership trends. The discourse, however, hinges on whether the extra capacity is grounded in demonstrable demand or is an artifact of a design philosophy that favors scale over proportionality. The balance between anticipated demand, space optimization, safety standards for underground structures, and long-term maintenance requirements shapes the core deliberations around the project’s design.
A critical design dimension under scrutiny is the nature of the underground parking’s alignment with urban planning and zoning regulations. The claim that the Parliament complex requires only 3,500 spaces according to current zoning underscores concerns about proportionality and compliance with land-use rules. If the broader 6,500-space plan cannot be justified through a rigorous demand analysis or a comprehensive planning framework, questions arise about whether the design has been tailored to political considerations or administrative convenience rather than objective need. The debate touches on broader principles of governance: when is it appropriate to expand critical public infrastructure beyond what is necessary for current needs, and what due diligence processes are required to ensure that such expansions are sustainable and well-justified?
Additionally, the cost dimension of the design elevates scrutiny. The project is projected to cost 4.5 billion baht to construct, translating to roughly 1 million baht per parking space. This unit cost invites comparisons with typical costs for large-scale underground parking facilities in similar contexts, inviting further inquiry into whether the price point reflects market conditions, geological challenges, structural complexities, or premium features associated with high-security or high-access environments. Critics describe this cost as unjustifiably high, arguing that it reflects inefficiencies in planning or procurement vulnerabilities, whereas supporters might argue that the cost accounts for safety, resilience, advanced drainage, ventilation, and modern traffic-management systems expected in a state facility of such magnitude.
The 105-million-baht design study that catalyzed the project’s momentum becomes an essential element of the design discussion. The governance question centers on whether commissioning a design study of this scale—before Parliament has given its formal budgetary blessing—constitutes prudent use of public funds or an improper pre-judgment of the project’s viability. Parit’s assertion that the 105-million-baht fund has already been relocated from the 2024 fiscal year reserve for the car park design adds another layer of complexity to the design discussion. In this framing, the design study is not merely a technical artifact but a symbol of whether procurement and budgeting workflows are being followed with appropriate rigor and transparency.
The fast-tracking mechanism, described as a special budget procedure under the leadership of the House speaker, introduces another critical dimension to the design and scope discussion. This route, designed to expedite spending decisions, has the effect of compressing timeframes for review, bidding, and approval. The direct consequence is a potential narrowing of the window for independent scrutiny, risk assessment, and stakeholder consultations. When combined with the incident of diverting unspent funds from the previous fiscal year to the project, the fast-tracking approach enters the realm of governance debates about balancing agility in public works with accountability and due process. The overall design and scope narrative thus sits at the intersection of planning prudence, regulatory compliance, cost governance, and political legitimacy.
In summary, the design and scope of the underground parking project are not isolated technical decisions; they are deeply interwoven with questions of proportionality, compliance, cost discipline, and governance integrity. The four-storey underground structure, the dramatic capacity increase, the unit cost, and the procedural pathway by which design funding and procurement decisions were advanced together form a composite story. The combinations of zoning alignment, budget appropriateness, and procurement integrity will determine whether the project can proceed with broad-based legitimacy or be subjected to extended oversight, revision, or possible cancellation. The ongoing debates center on whether the project’s design is appropriately scaled to meet actual needs, whether it adheres to the law and the budgeting framework, and whether the procurement process can withstand public scrutiny and investor confidence.
Budget, Funding and Procurement Rules
The financial backbone of the parking project raises fundamental questions about how public funds should be allocated, managed, and dispersed for major infrastructure undertakings. The plan to develop a 4.5-billion-baht underground garage hinges on a budgetary and procurement architecture designed to ensure transparency, value-for-money, and compliance with statutory requirements. Central to the discussion is the 105-million-baht design expenditure that was incurred to commission the project’s initial design work. Critics argue that this amount was not subject to parliamentary approval before it was committed, which runs counter to typical budgeting and governance conventions that demand legislative endorsement for major expenditures. The claim that the 105-million-baht fund has already been transferred from the 2024 fiscal year’s reserve fund for car park design highlights concerns about the sequencing and integrity of the budget process.
The CGD’s position has added a layer of gravity to the budget debate. The CGD’s concerns about transparency are not merely procedural; they reflect worries about whether the project’s funding pathway can withstand independent evaluation. The CGD’s recommendation to cancel the project unless the process is aligned with the Procurement Act suggests that the project’s current funding arrangement may fail to meet the standards of public procurement governance designed to prevent misuse of public funds, ensure fair competition, and safeguard taxpayer interests. The Procurement Act functions as the legal framework that governs how government projects are advertised, bid upon, and executed, guaranteeing that competition remains fair and that decisions are based on objective criteria such as price, quality, and risk mitigation.
A critical budgetary question concerns whether the project’s construction budget has received the necessary approvals and whether it has been incorporated into the government’s medium- or long-term financial plans. Parit’s statements assert that the 4.5-billion project cost was not included in the FY2026 plan and would not be considered until at least FY2027. The implication is that the project is not currently part of the formal budgetary horizon, casting doubt on the prudence of moving forward under an expedited or nonstandard budget pathway. The Budget Bureau’s role in approving or withholding construction budgets is a central governance lever; if the bureau has not approved the project budget, any forward momentum could be seen as bypassing a key oversight mechanism. This concern is amplified by the assertion that the project’s funding has been fast-tracked through special proceedings rather than through the usual legislative channels.
The financial architecture underpinning the project includes a controversial claim about reliance on unspent funds from the previous fiscal year. The use of reserve funds or unspent fiscal resources to finance future-year projects can be legitimate under certain budgetary rules, but it also invites scrutiny about whether sufficient planning, transparency, and accountability are in place. When combined with the potential misalignment of the project’s timing with the FY2026 budget and the lack of explicit parliamentary clearance, this aspect of the funding question becomes a flashpoint for discussions about fiscal discipline and governance integrity. The overall narrative suggests a tension between the desire to deliver a high-profile infrastructure project and the need to uphold strict compliance with budgetary processes, procurement rules, and legislative oversight.
The Procurement Act stands as the benchmark against which the project’s funding and procurement strategies will be judged. The Act governs the procedures for tendering, contract awarding, and contractor performance monitoring, and it is designed to ensure competitive processes, transparency, and accountability in the use of public funds. The PP’s call for a re-examination of the project under the auspices of the Procurement Act reflects a broader insistence that major public works must pass through robust, rules-based gates. The procurement process’s integrity is particularly crucial given the project’s large scale, the potential for conflicts of interest, and the concerns about the comprehensiveness of the bidding window. The 11-day bidding window has been highlighted as unusually short for a project of this magnitude, raising additional questions about the sufficiency of due diligence and the ability of bidders to deliver thorough, verifiable proposals.
In this section, the budget, funding, and procurement rules converge to form a framework for evaluating whether the underground parking project can justify its financial implications and be conducted under proper governance. The essential questions revolve around parliamentary approval, adherence to the Procurement Act, appropriate use of public funds, and the overall coherence of the financial plan with the government’s broader fiscal strategy. The eventual outcome—whether the project proceeds, is revised, or is halted—will depend on how convincingly the government and Parliament can demonstrate compliance with the letter and spirit of procurement laws, the legitimacy of funding choices, and the transparency of the decision-making process.
Transparency, Accountability and CGD’s Role
Transparency and accountability are the touchstones of the public procurement process, especially for large-scale infrastructure initiatives with multi-billion-baht budgets. The Comptroller General’s Department (CGD) has emerged as a pivotal actor in the scrutiny of the underground parking project, raising concerns about the project’s transparency and its alignment with established governance standards. The CGD’s role, as described in reports, includes evaluating whether the project’s design, budgeting, and procurement steps adhere to the country’s procurement laws and financial management regulations. The CGD’s concerns about transparency are presented as a categorical warning that, without rigorous adherence to procedural norms, the project risks funding inefficiencies, weak governance, and potential misuse of public resources.
Parit’s publicly stated position underscores the PP’s emphasis on accountability. He argues that if the government intends to continue with the project despite the CGD’s concerns, it must ensure that the entire process is conducted in full compliance with the Procurement Act. This stance ties directly to the broader objective of safeguarding taxpayer interests and ensuring that the project’s benefits justify the costs. The insistence on full compliance with procurement norms reflects a broader public stance that large public investments warrant meticulous oversight, robust bidding processes, and transparent decision-making that can withstand scrutiny from Parliament, civil society, and the media.
The CGD’s recommended cancellation of the project—contingent on meeting procurement standards—frames a potential turning point. If the government fails to align with procurement rules, the project could face delays, modifications, or outright termination. The CGD’s position thus functions as a governance check that helps ensure the project’s legitimacy and public acceptance. It also reinforces the idea that transparency cannot be compromised in the pursuit of efficiency or speed in public works. The CGD’s concerns, while technical, carry political significance because they implicate the credibility of the government’s management of public funds and the Parliament’s ability to exercise its oversight responsibilities.
Extensions to transparency concerns include how information about the project has been communicated to the public and how decisions have been recorded and justified. The rapid progress of the project—via special budget procedures and the reallocation of reserve funds—has created a perception that essential steps may have been bypassed or insufficiently documented. Such perceptions can erode public trust and lead to calls for more rigorous oversight mechanisms, independent audits, and more transparent reporting about cost escalations, risk management plans, and project milestones. The PP’s emphasis on transparency therefore resonates with broader democratic governance principles: when public funds are used for significant infrastructure, there must be accessible, verifiable, and timely information about how decisions are made, who is responsible for those decisions, and how taxpayer value is measured.
The role of the CGD in this narrative is not simply a passive observer but an active agent whose findings bear on the political calculations surrounding the project. The CGD’s stance implies that a comprehensive, standards-based procurement process should govern the project. This includes clear tender specifications, open competition, rigorous evaluation criteria, and transparent contract awarding. The procurement steps must be auditable, with documentation and communications that enable independent verification. The PP’s insistence on adherence to the Procurement Act thus aligns with a broader, normative expectation for governance that can sustain long-term public confidence in major infrastructure ventures.
In sum, transparency and accountability are not abstract concepts but practical imperatives that shape each stage of the project—from planning and funding to bidding and contract management. The CGD’s role, as well as the PP’s insistence on procurement-compliant processes, serves as a critical barometer for whether the underground parking project can be justified as a responsible use of public resources. The interplay among parliamentary oversight, executive action, and independent procurement scrutiny will determine the project’s future trajectory and its legitimacy in the eyes of taxpayers and stakeholders who rely on the government to steward public infrastructure ethically and efficiently.
Bidding Process, Contractors and Tender Compliance
The bidding process for the underground parking project has become a central flashpoint in the debate over procurement integrity and cost governance. The winning bid, submitted by AGCC Group, is reported to have come in at a price only 0.2 percent below the median price, a narrow margin that raises questions about the competitiveness and transparency of the bidding process. A price that tightens around the median can signal either efficient market competition or potential competitive manipulation. Either interpretation underscores the need for rigorous bid evaluation criteria, transparent comparison metrics, and robust due diligence to verify the authenticity of each bid’s price, technical capacity, risk management plan, and schedule realism.
Parit raises concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and delays associated with members of the AGCC Group. The very notion of conflicts of interest in a project of this scale casts doubt on the integrity of the procurement outcome and prompts calls for more stringent conflict checks, disclosures, and governance safeguards. The concerns about delays suggest that the bidder or associated parties might face execution risks that could push back project milestones, escalate lifecycle costs, or complicate logistics in the construction phase. These risk factors can influence value-for-money assessments, as they have direct implications for schedule risk, financing arrangements, and the project’s overall risk profile.
Another aspect of the bidding controversy is the unusually short 11-day bidding window. This compressed timeline can hamper bidders’ ability to perform comprehensive due diligence, including site assessments, geotechnical studies, risk analyses, and the development of robust project execution plans. A truncated bidding period can impede the submission of well-supported, high-quality proposals and may give rise to concerns about the thoroughness of the bidding process. In procurement theory and practice, longer bid windows are typically associated with greater competition, higher-quality bids, and more resilient project outcomes, especially for complex infrastructure projects with significant technical, safety, and long-term maintenance considerations.
From a governance perspective, the bidding process’s integrity hinges on whether the contract award conforms to the Procurement Act’s requirements for open competition, objective evaluation criteria, and documented decision-making. The fact that the project’s construction budget was reportedly not approved by the Budget Bureau or included in the FY2026 plan raises questions about whether the procurement process operated within the boundaries of legitimate financial planning. The combination of a tight bid window, concerns about conflicts of interest, and the absence of formal budget approval creates a scenario in which the legitimacy and sustainability of the awarded contract could be challenged through procedural review, parliamentary scrutiny, or independent audits.
The broader procurement implications extend to how risk is allocated and managed in the contractor selection process. Public infrastructure procurement benefits from clearly defined risk-sharing arrangements, performance-based contracts, and explicit milestones tied to payments, with contingencies for cost overruns. If any of these elements are inadequately defined or inadequately scrutinized, the project’s cost trajectory—and by extension, the public’s exposure to financial risk—could be adversely affected. In this context, the AGCC Group’s bid and the surrounding concerns about potential conflicts of interest become critical data points for performance risk analysis and procurement governance.
Ultimately, the bidding process for the underground parking project illustrates a fundamental tension in public procurement: the imperative to secure competitive, transparent, and accountable outcomes in the face of political pressure and accelerated timelines. The current discourse underscores the need for a thorough post-bid review, independent verification of the bidding process, and potential corrective actions to ensure that future procurement activities maintain integrity, deliver value for money, and align with the country’s Procurement Act. The outcome of these considerations will significantly influence public confidence in how infrastructure investments of this magnitude are planned, executed, and monitored.
Political Dynamics, Public Impact and Future Scenarios
The political dynamics surrounding the underground parking project are multifaceted, driven by the intersection of fiscal governance, opposition scrutiny, and the public’s interest in prudent management of public funds. The People’s Party’s emphasis on a review underscores a broader accountability agenda that seeks to ensure that major public works comply with established standards and remain transparent to taxpayers and voters. The PP’s messaging, particularly around the CGD’s findings and recommendations, positions the party as a watchdog advocating for procedural rigor and financial discipline. This stance resonates with concerns about potential misalignment between the project’s scale and the actual needs of the Parliament complex, as well as concerns about how such a large investment is justified in the current budgetary climate.
The government’s response to these concerns could take several forms, including a formal audit, a re-adaptation of the project’s scope, or even a pause or cancellation pending further review. If the government chooses to proceed, it may be required to demonstrate full adherence to procurement rules, secure parliamentary approval for funding, and provide a comprehensive transparent account of the project’s cost-benefit analysis, risk management, and long-term maintenance commitments. The political calculus also involves broader considerations such as public sentiment, media interpretation of the project’s legitimacy, and opposition strategies aimed at shaping public perception of governance and fiscal responsibility.
The public impact of the project’s controversy extends beyond the Parliament’s precinct. The use of a significant portion of unspent funds from the previous fiscal year to fast-track expensive infrastructure has implications for taxpayers’ trust in how the government allocates resources, particularly when the project’s budget has not received full parliamentary endorsement. The perception of bypassing normal processes can have reputational consequences for the administration, potentially affecting future policy initiatives that require broad-based support and transparent justification. Conversely, proponents may argue that the underlying need—addressing parking demands around the parliament—justifies expedited action and demonstrates responsiveness to logistical challenges faced by Members of Parliament and staff.
Future scenarios hinge on how parliamentary and executive actors respond to the CGD’s recommendations and PP’s calls for a comprehensive review. One pathway is the issuance of a formal pause or re-scoping exercise, inviting alternative proposals for parking infrastructure that align with zoning, budget, and procurement standards. Another possibility is the implementation of reinforced governance mechanisms, such as independent audits, enhanced disclosure requirements, and stricter conflict-of-interest policies for bidders and contracting entities. A more controversial scenario would involve the cancellation of the project, followed by the exploration of alternative strategies to address parking needs, including improved public transportation access, staggered scheduling for parliamentary staff, or the use of surface parking facilities if available in the surrounding area.
The broader political landscape—characterized by debates over governance, accountability, and fiscal prudence—will shape how these scenarios unfold. The PP’s ongoing advocacy for transparency and compliance will likely continue to influence public discourse and political bargaining as stakeholders weigh the costs and benefits of continuing, revising, or terminating the project. The outcome will depend on how convincingly the government can demonstrate readiness to comply with procurement laws, maintain budgetary discipline, and deliver a project that balances functional needs with sustainability, value-for-money, and public confidence.
Urban Planning, Fiscal Implications and Legal Considerations
The urban planning implications of the underground parking project are inseparable from the fiscal and legal dimensions of the initiative. The proposal to expand parking capacity to 6,500 spaces must be reconciled with existing zoning regulations that indicate a requirement for 3,500 parking spots. This discrepancy raises questions about regulatory compliance and the potential for future adjustments in urban planning guidelines or a re-evaluation of the parking demand hazard assessment around the parliament complex. In addition, the project’s location within and around a critical political hub intensifies scrutiny over the design’s resilience, accessibility, safety standards, and integration with other transport and emergency response infrastructure. A large underground structure demands meticulous attention to geological conditions, structural safety, ventilation and drainage systems, fire suppression, egress design, and long-term maintenance strategies. These technical considerations bear on both the project’s cost profile and its operational viability over the long term.
From a fiscal perspective, the project’s cost envelope—4.5 billion baht for construction and 105 million baht for its design—casts a long shadow over budget discipline and public-sector financial management. At roughly 1 million baht per parking space, the unit cost invites scrutiny against international benchmarks for underground parking projects with similar complexity and scale. The question of whether the cost is justified by anticipated demand, safety features, and resilience against potential natural or man-made events is central to the debate about fiscal prudence. If the project moves forward, it will require rigorous cost control, robust financial modeling, and ongoing monitoring to avoid cost overruns and to ensure that public resources deliver tangible and measurable benefits.
Legal considerations are equally pivotal. The Procurement Act stands as the legal framework governing public procurement processes, with procedural requirements that include competitive bidding, transparent tender evaluation, and documented decision-making. The CGD’s call for adherence to the Procurement Act indicates an expectation that future steps—if the project proceeds—will be conducted under these statutory guidelines. This is not merely a contractual formality; it is a guarantee of integrity in the process, designed to prevent favoritism, promote competition, and safeguard taxpayers’ interests. The absence of Parliament’s formal budget approval for the project or inclusion in the FY2026 plan could complicate any attempt to finalize contracts or disburse funds, unless appropriate legislative authorizations are secured.
The legal landscape also encompasses potential risk exposures. If any aspect of the project—design, bidding, or contracting—fails to satisfy statutory requirements, the government could face legal challenge, financial liability, or the need for remedial actions. An audit or investigation could reveal documentation gaps, deviations from standard procedures, or undisclosed conflicts of interest that would require corrective measures. This risk profile reinforces the argument for a rigorous, methodical, and transparent review process that aligns with both the letter of the law and the spirit of good governance.
Beyond the immediate legal and fiscal considerations, the project’s implications for urban mobility, environmental impact, and public safety are important. A large underground parking facility has the potential to affect traffic patterns, nearby infrastructure, and environmental conditions. Comprehensive planning would ideally integrate transportation demand management strategies, environmental safeguards, and safety planning together with financial and procurement considerations to ensure that the project contributes positively to the urban ecosystem surrounding the parliament complex. While these broader implications lie outside the core procurement debate, they are essential to a holistic understanding of the project’s long-term viability and social license.
Conclusion
The underground parking project at the parliament complex stands at the intersection of design ambition, budgetary discipline, and governance integrity. The People’s Party has foregrounded concerns about irregularities in the budget and the design, challenging both the scope of the project and the processes by which it has progressed. The Comptroller General’s Department’s issues regarding transparency, along with the CGD’s recommendation to cancel the project if the procurement process cannot be properly aligned with the Procurement Act, have amplified calls for rigorous review and compliance. Parit Watcharasindhu’s arguments about the 105-million-baht design fund being redirected from the 2024 reserve fund, the fast-tracked budgeting approach, the unusually short bidding window, and concerns about conflicts of interest in the winning bidder have contributed to a narrative that questions whether the project has proceeded with due regard for parliamentary oversight, budgetary due diligence, and procurement integrity.
The project’s scale, cost, and scope make it a powerful test case for public-sector governance, risk management, and accountability. If the government wishes to move forward, it must demonstrate a robust, transparent, and legally compliant process that adheres to the Procurement Act, secures parliamentary approval for funding, and provides comprehensive risk assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and transparent documentation of decision-making. Conversely, a full or partial cancellation could reflect a principled stance on governance and fiscal prudence, signaling to the public that public resources will not be deployed to meet political or expedient ends when a legitimate and auditable process is lacking. The ultimate outcome will depend on the capacity of all stakeholders to reconcile the project’s infrastructural aspirations with the imperatives of transparent budgeting, competitive procurement, and accountable governance, thereby preserving public trust in how critical public works are planned, financed, and delivered.
