Out of the blue and rather belatedly, former auditor-general Phisit Leelavachiropas offered a ridiculous apology over the collapse of the State Audit Office (SAO) building in Chatuchak district, saying he was sorry for using feng shui in his selection of the building's location.
Such a remark is not funny at all, given the likely deaths of more than 90 construction workers trapped under the debris of the collapsed building. Over 40 bodies have been recovered, but about 50 are still listed as missing.
But no sir, it was not feng shui that is to blame for the collapse of the building. Nor was the devastating earthquake in Myanmar on March 28, because hundreds of skyscrapers in Bangkok, including dozens still under construction, did not crumble.
Of course, some buildings suffered cracks and over 50 buildings were declared unsafe for human occupation. But the SAO building was the only one which collapsed like a house of cards.
Hence, the big question mark arises for curious members of the public about what went wrong with the SAO building. Were there irregularities in the construction process?
Mr Phisit, who was then the auditor-general, said the original site for the SAO building was in Pathum Thani.
However, the site was flooded heavily during the epic floods of 2011. Also, the location is close to the high-tension power lines of the Electricity Generating Authority of Authority, making it too dangerous to build a high-rise there.
The new location that Mr Phisit picked is a 10-rai land plot leased out by the State Railway of Thailand. It is in the capital and highly convenient because of its connections with the subway, BTS and expressway.
A committee was set up by an order of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra to determine the exact cause of the collapse. Several agencies, among them the Department of Special Investigation, the Metropolitan Police and the Department of Public Works, Town and Country Planning are involved in the probe.
Although no individuals have been blamed for being responsible, suspicions have emerged in the course of the investigation that beg clarifications from the SAO and the charter-mandated State Audit Committee (SAC), headed by an army general.
The first question that should be directed at the SAC which is in charge of policy of the SAO is: Why did the SAO hire two firms, Forum Architect and Meinhardt (Thailand) to design the SAO building at a cost of about 74 million baht instead of using the services of the Fine Arts Department or the Department of Public Works, Town and Country Planning?
At first, the SAO planned to use official architects. The SAO set a 180-day deadline for the completion of the design which was rejected by the Department of Public Works because the period was too short. So, the rejection gave the SAO the legitimate option to hire two firms.
But since the SAO's main duty is to check the budgets allocated to each state agency are spent appropriately, the SAO should set good example by spending its own budget wisely.
It is such a pity the SAO did not lead by example. Instead, the SAO took advantage of a legal loophole to hire the firms to design the building.
Even though the budget used in the project was leftover money accumulated over the past several years with no need of being returned to the Budget Bureau, it is still taxpayers' money that should be spent wisely.
The second question is: Was the SAO's committee in charge of overseeing the work aware of the change of the design of the lift core or elevator shaft core?
The elevator shaft core is crucial part for this building design. It serves as spine of the building, providing vertical support and facilitating movement between floors.
Did the committee make a well informed decision? Did it bother to ask why the design needs to be changed and what the effect would be?
A far more disturbing aspect of the process that emerged recently is the alleged forgery of a signature of an engineer and the use of his signature to approve the change of the design of the lift core by PKW joint venture, which was contracted by SAO to supervise the building project.
Veteran engineer Somkiat Chusangsuk has lodged complaints with police and the DSI, claiming he has nothing to do with the project and his signatures on documents were forged.
Another jaw-dropping fact that emerged recently is the appearance of another name, Pimon Charoenying, an 85-year-old engineer among the engineers responsible for the design. He denied signing his name in certifying the design.
Then there are the miscellaneous items procured by SAO for its executives which were overpriced and unnecessary, such as 2,000 landline phones at 6,800 baht each, furniture imported from Italy and bathroom showers which cost more than 10,000 baht apiece.
More disturbing things are likely to emerge as investigators dig deeper into the files seized from companies involved in the project.
How many people will face legal backlash soon will be known. But the image and reputation of the SAO and the State Audit Committee have already been tarnished beyond repair.
That brings to mind the big question, which is: Is there any state agency left in this country that can be trusted and has not been tainted by corruption?
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.