Public opinion is divided over the government’s financial assistance for victims of the Bangkok nightclub fire, with some arguing the compensation should come solely from the nightclub’s operators rather than public funds.
The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) outlined the financial assistance available to victims and others affected by the fire at Rong Beer Na Lat Phrao nightclub on July 12.
According to a statement published on the BMA’s Facebook page, injured victims requiring hospital treatment are eligible to receive up to 4,000 baht, while victims who escaped without injuries may receive up to 2,000 baht. Families of those who died are eligible for 29,700 baht each.
The BMA also said an additional payment of 2,300 baht would be available for injured survivors as part of its assistance programme.
The compensation is available not only to victims and their relatives but also to residents, business operators, street vendors and others who suffered injuries or property losses as a result of the fire.
Separately, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department said families of those who died could receive up to 300,000 baht if investigators determine the deaths resulted from criminal offences committed by those responsible for operating the venue.
Compensation from the nightclub’s operators has not yet been determined. Police are continuing their investigation while the major shareholder remains in critical condition in hospital.
The proposed state assistance prompted debate on social media. Some users argued that compensation should be paid by the nightclub’s owners rather than the government, saying public funds collected through taxation should be used for broader public services instead of compensating victims involved in a single incident.
Others argued that people who chose to visit a nightclub knowingly accepted certain risks and should instead pursue compensation through civil or criminal proceedings against those responsible for the venue.
Social media personality Ajarn Beer Khon Tuen Dham also criticised the use of public funds for the relief programme. He said it was inappropriate to use taxpayers’ money for compensation in individual cases.
He also shared his personal views on entertainment venues, which he considered “places of ill repute that good people should avoid.”
Other social media users disagreed, arguing that people have the right to visit entertainment venues and that consuming alcohol should not affect their eligibility for government assistance.
Supporters of the compensation programme also argued that the tragedy highlighted alleged failures in safety standards and enforcement by both the nightclub’s operators and relevant authorities. They said victims, as taxpayers, should be entitled to financial assistance.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a Thai scholar currently residing in Japan as a political exile, also voiced his opinion on the matter, stating that entertainment venues should not be viewed as places frequented by evil people, given their significant role in the Thai economy and employment rate.
Government agencies have not yet announced the final compensation amounts that will be paid to victims and other affected people.
The story Debate grows over govt financial assistance for victims of nightclub fire as seen on Thaiger News.
