Latest news with #FinancialandFiscalDisciplineAct
Bangkok Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
'Old guard' weighs idea of outsider PM
As the Constitutional Court is set to hand down a ruling against suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra for her controversial phone call with Cambodian strongman Hun Sen that was later leaked, most political pundits remain downbeat on her prospects. Should she be dismissed, the ruling Pheu Thai Party would have to form a new cabinet. Meanwhile, her father Thaksin, a former premier who is also experiencing legal trouble due to his privileged hospital stay after being handed a prison sentence upon his return from exile -- dubbed the "14th floor saga" -- is battling to ensure the party clings on to power. He has pushed Chaikasem Nitisiri as a replacement for Ms Paetongtarn in the event of her political demise. At the same time, the "old guard" is eagerly coining the idea of having an outsider prime minister running the country. Such a contentious plan is anything but a parliamentary coup, which would not be acceptable anyway. That is also the agenda of several political activists, namely Charnchai Issarasenarak, former senator Somchai Sawaengkarn, and Jade Donavanik. The latter figure, a legal expert who served as an adviser to the Constitution Drafting Committee, has filed a series of petitions against Ms Paetongtarn and Srettha Thavisin, her predecessor, alleging they violated Section 144 of the 2017 constitution, which prohibits MPs from using public money for personal or political gain. In this case, the allegation is based on the shifting of a 35-billion-baht budget initially allocated to five state-owned banks, for use in the 10,000-baht digital wallet project, which was Pheu Thai's flagship policy. In addition, Section 144 of the charter prohibits the slashing of budget allocations used to fulfil legal obligations, particularly allocations set aside for debt payment to banks under Section 28 of the Financial and Fiscal Discipline Act. According to the petitioners, this decision affected several state-run banks, including the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, which has lost 31.3 billion baht as a result, the Government Savings Bank (2.68 billion baht) and the Government Housing Bank (592 million baht). These budget allocations were originally intended to compensate those banks for their revenue losses as a result of the implementation of government projects such as a debt suspension scheme for farmers and a crop price guarantee project. This particular petition was filed with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which, if any grounds for action are found, will eventually forward it to the charter court -- much as it did in the case of Pichet Chuamuangphan, the first deputy House speaker. The Chiang Rai politician faced a 10-year ban from contesting in elections and was axed from his prestigious role as deputy House speaker for pushing three projects worth 800-900 million baht that would have benefitted voters in his constituency. Even though all three were cancelled, Pichet could not avoid being penalised. Many see the harsh penalties he faced as setting the standard, meaning they could also be applied to those involved in the digital wallet project, such as Ms Paetongtarn's cabinet and the more than 480 senators and lawmakers who voted for it. Apart from the setbacks over the digital wallet project, Ms Paetongtarn and her father are facing other troubles, including political instability and scant bargaining power due to the coalition's razor-thin majority in parliament -- not to mention other examples of lawfare that could potentially result in their downfall. But there is concern that if such "judicial intervention" were fully pursued, lawmakers in the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), and those senators affiliated with this former coalition party, could also be in trouble. The only party that would remain unscathed from the budgetary blunder is the People's Party -- a new incarnation of the disbanded Move Forward Party (MFP) -- which has no prime ministerial candidate. This is because its sole nominee -- Pita Limjaroenrat -- has been red-carded. In short, there will be a vacuum in parliament. This could be an excuse for the old guard to go to extreme lengths, entirely resetting politics, in what one academic dubbed "a manufactured deadlock". That would pave the way for an outsider prime minister, in line with Section 7 of the junta-sponsored charter. In fact, this almost happened during the extended shutdown of the country by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) under Suthep Thuagsuban when it rallied against former premier Yingluck Shinawatra -- Thaksin's sister -- and the "Thaksin regime", at a time when parliament and other institutions were dysfunctional. The PDRC leaders then campaigned for an outsider prime minister, rejecting the election set for Feb 2, 2014. But the army, led by former prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, took a drastic shortcut by staging a coup that same year. Now that Ms Paetongtarn is in a vulnerable position, some political elements are vocally calling for an outsider PM again. Unsurprisingly, their choice is none other than Gen Prayut, who is now serving the palace as a privy councillor. Some may argue this option complies with the charter, given that the ex-junta leader remains the top prime ministerial candidate for the United Thai Nation Party. Yet this would require the consent of Pheu Thai, which would have to drop Mr Chaikasem as its choice. Thaksin, given the backlash from the 14th floor saga, may find this option inevitable because if he is found guilty, he may have to return to jail. If he attempts to flee, as before, the Pheu Thai-led government would crumble. Some believe Thaksin, whose fate will become clear early next month, will have to make another deal with the old guard to ensure his political survival. Many believe the return of Gen Prayut would intensify political conflict. The old guard must be wary of striking a deal with Thaksin or Gen Prayut, which could plunge the nation into a political abyss.
Bangkok Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Small win for graft fight
The falling from grace of Pichet Chuamuangphan, the First Deputy House Speaker, highlights a lapse in ethical standards among lawmakers. It also raises scrutiny of Section 144 of the 2017 Constitution, written to prevent lawmakers from using public money for personal or political gain, under which he was judged. The Constitutional Court on Friday found Mr Pichet had a role in pushing three projects to influence budget decisions for personal gain. He used his authority as both an MP of the Pheu Thai Party and job as First Deputy House Speaker to favour voters in his constituency, despite trying his best to cover it up. The court ordered Mr Pichet's MP status be terminated from Aug 1, and revoked his right to run in elections for 10 years. As a result, he lost the much coveted First Deputy House Speaker post. For the record, Mr Pichet is the first politician penalised for violating Section 144. But his transgression is not unusual among MPs and ministers. Lawmakers are known for resorting to budget tricks to have money diverted to their constituencies. Coalition governments also tamper with the budget to finance unnecessary election promises. This is what voters almost expect of the political and governing class, but it doesn't make it right. Mr Pichet initiated the projects to promote democracy among the younger generation, improve public participation and empower women's rights. The projects were to be conducted in his constituency in Chiang Rai province. The projects look sound, yet the process for obtaining the money was not. To make sure his proposals evaded tight budget scrutiny and audit compliance, Mr Pichet ordered his adviser to revise the details. Activities under the projects were redeveloped into 2,294 seminars for 124,700 villagers, but still attracted the scrutiny of the opposition. This petition was brought to court by People's Party MP Bhuntin Noumjerm, joined by 120 other lawmakers from his party. Mr Pichet's case is just a start. In the next few months, the court will decide whether the government under PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra violated Section 144 for moving 35 billion baht from state banks to fund the digital wallet handout. Section 144 was written by a coup maker-installed charter panel to prohibit the slashing of budget allocations used to fulfil legal obligations, particularly allocations set aside for debt payment to banks under the Financial and Fiscal Discipline Act. The decision affected several state-run banks, including the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, which lost 31.3 billion baht, the Government Savings Bank (2.68 billion baht) and the Government Housing Bank (592 million baht). The allocations were originally intended to compensate the banks for revenue losses as a result of implementing state projects such as a debt suspension scheme for struggling farmers and a crop price guarantee project.
