Accusations of excessively loud bell ringing by a Buddhist temple in the city's Bang Kho Laem area have drawn a mixed reaction and also confrontation.
A resident of a nearby condominium lodged a series of complaints with police and the district office, which subsequently raised the issue with the temple's abbot. According to the complaints, Wat Sai rings its bells at rather unholy hours, at 3.30-4am every day. The resident was upset by the noise, complaining it wakes her up.
According to news reports, she is unhappy with all kinds of temple noise, including celebrations following kathin or pha paa ceremonies. The reports said she would pick up the phone and bombard the monks with complaints and then the authorities if the former ignored her.
The controversial bell ringing which takes place twice a day is, according the monks, a long-term tradition that they cannot afford to scrap, especially during the Lent period that will end soon. It's said that the bell ringing is a signal for resident monks to begin their day and conduct morning prayers. But the temple told the media it is open to a compromise, either by shifting the time or lowering the volume. That suggests noise is indeed the issue.
Yet numerous Buddhists feel the resident's vociferous complains are offensive. Many suggested she leave if she cannot tolerate the bell ringing on the grounds where the temple existed long before the condominium was built. Overnight the woman has been reduced to a social pariah who they believe deserves chastising.
An army of self-proclaimed Buddhism guardians have emerged who insist that the tradition must stay. Her fellow condominium neighbours have distanced themselves from the dispute and the woman. Some people said they live in the neighbourhood and find the sound of bells in the early hours of the morning absolutely fine.
"We have heard the bells ringing but have no problem with it," one condominium resident said, while some wonder why the woman does not use ear-plugs. Even the Bang Kho Laem district office has been criticised for accommodating the woman's "irrational irritation".
Bangkok governor Aswin Kwanmuang has also jumped on the bandwagon. He ordered his subordinates to find the woman who says is in need of "attitude adjustment", and offer the temple apologies for the district office's action.
On the other side of the dispute are people who urge a compromise as a way out of the dispute.
To a certain extent, the row indicates how society has changed and how the temple bell sounds that were once considered by surrounding communities to be auspicious may have lost their importance.
What was once part of people's way of life may no longer be considered so important while the issue of rights has become more predominant with some suggesting physical buffer zones may be necessary. However, this will be impossible without good city planning.
Setting aside what many see as the woman's over-reaction, she has a point. In fact, the bell-ringing dispute is a wake-up call.
Buddhist temples and other places of faith and religion such as mosques and Chinese shrines tend to think they can make excessive noise at any time of the day because of tradition. Unfortunately, this also tramples on other people's right to peace of mind, especially those with different beliefs.
Religious venues should be more considerate and, if possible, review their traditions and activities. There is no excuse for excessive noise. Those involved must realise traditions are man-made and can be adjusted to cater to social change and context. Instead of sensationalising the issue, everyone must be compassionate to coexist peacefully.