Similar to the demolition of the historical Supreme Court buildings in Bangkok, the leveling of a green area in Chiang Mai to pave the way for the construction of houses for judicial staff and court offices is unnecessary, costly and damaging.
They both set bad examples, overlooking the importance of the conservation of historical architecture for the former and the protection of the environment for the latter.
When the Court of Justice brushed up a decades-old project to tear down a group of old Supreme Court buildings in 2012 to build new ones, it drew fierce opposition.
Those old buildings, constructed from 1939 to 1959, stood opposite Sanam Luang and close to the Grand Palace for over 50 years. They possessed significant and irreplaceable historical and architecture value.
Yet the judicial institution succeeded in citing the project's legality in proceeding with spending more than 3.4 billion baht on it.
In recent weeks, another project built at the foot of the Doi Suthep National Park in Chiang Mai has also drawn much criticism. And this time, the Region 5 Court of Appeal office, which owns the project, also claims that it is perfectly legal.
The construction site is located on Treasury Department land and it is not part of the national park, it says.
Pictures show the compound of 45 houses and 13 office buildings for around 200 court staff looks like a resort.
The project's aerial views show a white landscape covering the once green area, about half the size of Lumpini Park in Bangkok, surrounded by forests. Trees have been cut down and replaced with large houses and buildings.
True, the area is not part of the national park. But it stands next to it. It does not mean that it was not eligible for preservation. Apart from the fact that it is state-owned land, the court office does not explain why the 1 billion baht project has to be built there.
Local people are not happy and that is understandable.
They make the point that even though it is legal, it is inappropriate. It spoils the scenic view of the park and damages the environment. The court's plan to plant more trees is not a sound remedy.
The court could have considered other options. If its current buildings are too crowded to accommodate more people, it could have tried to make the best use of the available space or rent smaller offices in town.
It remains questionable why the staff have to live in such a scenic area.
The housing project reminds many of the tearing down of the Supreme Court buildings.
The Court of Justice said the project in Bangkok was legal because the old buildings were not registered as heritage sites and the government in 1992 also bypassed the town planning law which forbids construction of new buildings higher than 16 metres in the old town area.
The new Supreme Court buildings are 32m high and due to be completed by the end of this year.
The court then claimed the old buildings were deteriorating and said it needed a bigger space. But activists and architects said it should have restored the historical buildings and brought in help from experts.
They called for the preservation of the old buildings. Like the case in Chiang Mai, their opposition failed to put a halt to it.
Both projects demonstrate a lack of public participation. The demolition of the historical buildings in Bangkok could have been avoided. The cutting down of trees at the foot of the national park could have been spared.
And a total budget of over 4 billion baht for both project could have been better spent on other necessary things.