It has been weeks since the Documentary Club, also known as the Doc Club & Pub, Bangkok's acclaimed micro cinema, suspended screenings at the site due to a licensing issue, without a practical solution in sight.
This is a disappointment to cinema buffs that also hurts the image of Bangkok as a thriving cultural scene that our pro-soft power Paetongtarn Shinawatra government is trying to project to the world.
To acquire a licence to screen films, an operator must follow a strict building and fire code. Under the law, the club's fire prevention measures were not strong enough, and it must now heavily modify its place to meet the standard.
The law is written to recognise big theatres, defined as a large premise accommodating crowds. Inarguably, such a law was necessary at the time, given that theatres before the digital age stored flammable film.
Back in the day, theatres had to be built from fire-proof materials and possessed extra electricity reserves in case of emergency.
Micro cinemas, like the one at the Doc Club, are different. The place serves audiences of 50 at most and carries minimal risk of a catastrophic fire breaking out. So, why is the same law being applied on such diverse auditoriums?
This case raises questions about the relevance of the 1979 Building Control Act which put controls on screenings at a time when films were screened at large theatres, using highly flammable celluloid film.
But these types of theatres are a thing of the past. Today, the film screening business and its related infrastructure have dramatically changed.
In a recent article in a Thai language newspaper, Khemmapat Trisadikoon, a researcher at the Thailand Development Research Institute, correctly highlighted how the obsolete law puts micro cinemas at a disadvantage and fosters a monopoly.
The researcher cites the case of Japan -- a country that attaches the utmost importance to public safety -- where many micro cinemas can still show alternative/independent films.
Existing regulations in Thailand allow mainstream theatres, bankrolled by a few fat-wallet investors, to take control of the film screening industry, including ticket price and film selection. This monopoly, being held by a few, should be dismantled.
Of course, public safety must not be compromised; but the laws in place and the way they are enforced must be proportionate and relevant to the present.
It does not make sense to require micro cinema organisers to comply with building codes written two decades ago.
What this micro cinema needs is appropriate and relevant safety measures, such as fire exits with clear signs and a sufficient amount of fire extinguishers.
The Doc Club offers regular talks about indie films and documentaries. It has built a community of cinephiles.
This venue belongs to the creative economy and deserves to be promoted by the government.
Instead of suppressing it by using obsolete laws, the state should look at possibilities to help foster its growth.
Some agencies are aware of the problem. The Thailand Creative Culture Agency, after corresponding with the operator, said it had raised the issue with agencies involved.
Such good news should give film buffs a sense of relief, but not really. It's unfortunate that legal amendments are a lengthy process.
The Doc Club operator was told it would take at least a year to complete the task. One year is optimistic speculation. Given the authority vacuum, with no agencies taking the matter seriously, it could take longer.
This will hurt not only the operator, which is a business entity, but also the public, which will be deprived of an opportunity to view alternative works that could be, as mentioned by Doc Club digital creator Thida Plitpholkarnpim, the "foundation for strong movie industry".
The government, which claims to champion "soft power", must not stay idle.
Instead, it must step in to save the place, do whatever it can to speed up the amendment process, and not allow bureaucracy and obsolete regulations to hinder creative activities.
The country needs to have more micro cinemas, and this cannot happen under the existing law. Revise it now.