City Hall Criticised Over Insufficient Earthquake Compensation Amid Mounting Public Pressure
Bangkok’s City Hall is under fire after revelations that earthquake compensation offered to residents affected by the March 28 tremor falls well short of actual repair costs, sparking widespread public criticism and political scrutiny.
People’s Party MP Supanat Meenchainan brought the issue to light on social media, highlighting that residents of damaged condominiums may need to pay tens of thousands of baht out of pocket for repairs, while the city’s compensation offers ranged from only 300 to 700 baht per unit, with as little as 75 baht allotted for wall cracks. In one case, the amount was a mere 41.90 baht, prompting accusations that the relief is “deeply inadequate.”
MP Demands Accountability
Supanat strongly criticised the compensation scheme, pointing out the stark contrast between such low offers and the government’s high spending on infrastructure projects. “Taxpayers deserve better treatment,” he stated, adding that he has taken the matter to a House standing committee, which will summon officials for questioning on April 24.
City Hall Defends Policy, Promises Further Review
At a press conference, Deputy Bangkok Governor Tavida Kamolvej defended the policy, saying it complies with existing disaster mitigation regulations. She clarified that the current compensation is calculated for specific material costs and limited-area damage, and acknowledged that some figures were based on preliminary assessments.
Tavida also noted:
- City engineers will reassess damages, potentially adjusting compensation amounts.
- A request for an additional budget will be submitted to the Finance Ministry.
- A parliamentary amendment proposing higher compensation is in progress, though the approval process may be slow.
Public Reaction and Political Fallout
The issue has ignited public frustration, especially among condominium owners, many of whom feel abandoned by authorities. Calls are growing for transparent and equitable disaster relief policies, as public confidence in how funds are managed begins to waver.
This situation underscores broader concerns about government preparedness, disaster response mechanisms, and the real-life impact of bureaucratic red tape on everyday citizens.
