In a scathing parliamentary exchange, member of Parliament Theerachai Phanthumas of the People's Party launched an attack on Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, alleging impropriety in her business dealings and questioning her suitability for leadership.
The core of the allegations centres on the Thames Valley Khao Yai Hotel in Pak Chong district, Nakhon Ratchasima province, a luxury property situated on land with a complex historical background.
Originally part of the Lam Takhong Self-Reliance Settlement, established in 1970 to relocate residents during the construction of the Lam Takhong Dam, the land was initially designated for public use.
Satellite mapping from the Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency (GISTDA) reveals that the site was located within a protected watershed area, subject to a 1971 Cabinet resolution prohibiting any commercial development or land-rights issuance.
Financial records reveal a lucrative business structure comprising two interconnected companies:
PD Khao Yai Co Ltd
Total assets: 292.8 million baht
Total revenue: 9.1 million baht
Net profit: 739,604 baht
Thames Valley Khao Yai Hotel Co Ltd
Total assets: 247 million baht
Total revenue: 112 million baht
Net loss: 12.9 million baht
The two companies reported combined revenue of 121,153,222 baht in 2023, raising questions about the origin and legality of the land acquisition.
Opposition MPs, including Viroj Lakkanaadisorn, have challenged the Land Department's assertions, questioning how the National Land Allocation Committee's resolution could potentially supersede the original 1971 Cabinet resolution protecting watershed areas.
Key Controversies
The allegations surrounding the Thames Valley Khao Yai Hotel reveal a complex web of potential improprieties. At the heart of the matter lies the land's problematic origin, which was initially part of a state-sponsored settlement project intended to provide agricultural land to local residents.
Of grave concern is the property's location within a watershed area that was previously protected by a 1971 Cabinet resolution, explicitly prohibiting commercial development and land-rights issuance.
The situation is further complicated by the prime minister's direct involvement, as she was a company director until recently and remains closely connected to the business through family and financial ties.
The emergence of multiple land parcels issued with titles, seemingly in contradiction to the original environmental protections, raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the land acquisition and subsequent hotel development.
These revelations suggest a potential exploitation of administrative processes, blurring the lines between personal business interests and public land use regulations, and casting a shadow over the transparency and ethical standards expected of high-ranking government officials.
As of now, no official state investigation has been initiated into the land ownership or hotel construction. However, the detailed allegations presented in Parliament suggest this matter is far from settled.