The replacement by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) of perfectly good paving stones outside a high-end hotel in Sukhumvit has met with the criticism and anger it deserves.
Netizens last week shared pictures of the pavement, which was laid by the hotel as a gift for city people, being removed despite being in excellent condition. Some posted a "before" and "after" picture with the question: "Why?"
They hit out at the move, saying it was a waste of public money.
Many said the pavement being removed was made of quality material and, unlike paving stones typically laid by city workers, there is no question about durability and beauty of the ones laid by the hotel.
In response, a senior official from the city's Public Works Department said the replacement work was for the sake of uniformity.
The answer was far from satisfactory and merely confirmed the removed slabs were still in excellent condition.
The official, who declined to be named, did not say if the replacement work was being carried out by the Wattana district office, which has jurisdiction over the area or the Public Works Department, which is responsible for construction projects across the city.
But whoever is carrying it out, it is an unnecessary waste.
Some netizens complained that pavements laid by city workers tend to be notoriously sub-standard and make walking in the city a hardship.
They also quickly become an eyesore that require frequent replacement, which is a burden on the state budget.
This has led to suspicion this "substandardisation" could be a form of graft.
This unnecessary replacement in Wattana district is just one example that shows how this agency, which has a massive budget of more than 80 billion baht for this year, tends to use public money unwisely and wastefully.
Some may blame a lack of efficiency and transparency for unwise spending, however, it's an open secret that construction projects give unscrupulous officials the chance to make a little bit extra through weak scrutiny.
It should be noted that the BMA has never had a strong accountability mechanism.
Before the coup, the city council, which serves also as a legislative arm, was largely dominated by local politicians who, despite being elected, operated on a patron-and client basis.
After the 2014 seizure of power, coup leader and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha named an unelected governor and dissolved the council.
He then handpicked new members who were largely retired government officials who tended to strengthen the patron-and-client system.
People struggle to recall when and where the council has taken a strong stance on vital issues like budget scrutinisation.
The council has never been interested in putting the brakes on wasteful projects. If it had, the city would not have lost that perfectly good pavement.
Many do not hesitate in likening the council to a rubber stamp, just like the coup-installed National Legislative Assembly has been in national politics.
Many a time, the BMA has faced criticism for proposing expensive and unworthy projects.
The pavement fiasco once again raises a big question about the work ethos of this state agency.
