A long-standing row between the abbot of Wat Kalaya and the noble Pravitra family demonstrates loopholes in conservation laws and poor enforcement as several heritage places are being threatened in the name of development.
The row goes back to the early 2000s when the Pravitra family, of royal lineage since the early Rattanakosin era, filed a court complaint against the abbot for having a chedi (Buddhist stupa) holding relics of their ancestors.
Among the relics were those of Chao Chom Manda Chaem, a concubine of King Rama V, and other senior family members in the stupa that was demolished to pave the way for a new pavilion. Chao Chom Manda is a concubine who bore a king's child or children.
The family said the land where the temple was situated was donated by Chao Chom Manda's father, whose name Kalayanamit is the temple's namesake and the family was deeply hurt by the abbot's act and indifference.
The same abbot has been the subject of a few scandals.
He had several ancient buildings torn down in the monks' living quarters and built new ones, shrugging off the Fine Arts Department's and conservation sector's attempts to protect the structures.
He was also notorious for evicting a community who had lived on the monastery compound for a few generations in an action he described as "tidying up the temple".
The abbot eventually lost the court case brought by the Pravitra family, with the judge handing him a three-year prison sentence, but since he confessed, the court reduced the penalty to a suspended one-year term.
He also promised to have a chedi of the same design built for the Pavitra family on the same spot, but he never honoured his word, and the family, after 16 years, have lost patience.
The case recaptured public attention in August 2019 when the Supreme Court ordered the abbot to fulfil his promises, immediately demolish the controversial pavilion and rebuild the chedi for the disgruntled family.
The abbot has yet to fulfil his promises.
How could he get away with snubbing the court's order?
Concerned authorities like those in the Office of Buddhism have defended the monk's questionable actions, saying he should be immune given his intention "to develop the temple".
The authorities even claimed the secular conservation law could not punish the monk. As the scandal peaked, the abbot was promoted to another level by the Sangha Council.
Unfortunately, issues such as the Kalaya temple case are not rare as authorities tasked with conservation work shy away from protecting national heritage.
Among such examples are the controversial MRT stations in Bangkok's old town quarters and the new gigantic station for the high-speed train project in Ayutthaya that triggered the Save Ayodhaya campaign.
But what's the use of development -- as seen by the Office of Buddhism as an example -- if it is pursued at the expense of national heritage?
The same question applies to the MRT station, the high-speed project in Ayutthaya, and other dubious projects in other areas.
Either way, the Kalaya temple case needs to be fully resolved. State agencies must ensure that court orders are respected accordingly to allow the Pravitra family to heal.