Anger at new junta law banning populist policy

[rooster59]

Anger at new junta law banning populist policy

By WICHIT CHAITRONG, 
KAS CHANWANPEN 
THE NATION

 

Former finance minister Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala

 

POLITICIANS yesterday lashed out at the junta’s latest move to block populist policy with a new law.

 

The law prohibits Cabinet members from attempting to boost their support with budget spending that may damage the economy.

 

The law adds more difficulties to the already-troubled party policy formulation, they said. 

 

The State Financial and Fiscal Discipline Act of 2018 requires that members of the Cabinet strictly comply with financial and fiscal disciplines of the state.

Article 9 of the law states that in preparing annual state budgets, managing the country’s monetary and fiscal affairs, and creating public debt, Cabinet members have to carefully take into consideration such factors as the benefit to the country and the people, worthiness, financial burden, risks and possible damage to state finances. 

 

“The Cabinet shall not run the state’s affairs with a goal of creating political popularity that may cause damage to the country’s economy and people in the long run,” the clause states.

 

The new law requires that in preparing annual budget bills, the Cabinet must show the sources of revenues and estimated revenues, expected outcome or output from payments, and conformity with national development plans.

 

Published in the Royal Gazette on Thursday, the new legislation is required by the Constitution, which has been in effect since April last year.

 

The new law drew mixed reactions. One observer urged the military government to look at its current policy of cash handout programmes to see whether they violate the law. 

 

 Wirat Kalayasiri, a member of Democrat Party, said that with the new Constitution, parties already have to strictly follow the 20-year national strategy. That made it difficult for parties to create their own policies to respond to voters’ demands.

 

The new legislation made the situation more difficult than it already was, Wirat said.

 

Nikorn Chamnong from Chart Thai Pattana Party said that the law may solve one problem of populism but it also created another.

 

“It is true that populist policies are not healthy. But we cannot deny that this legislation will also complicate policy formulation,” he said.

“The most worrisome part about it is who will tell which policy is populist or not. What’s the definition exactly? Will we have to take the matter to the court if we cannot reach an agreement?”

 

However, government officials agreed with the junta’s move. The law has been pushed for many years by the Finance Ministry’s Fiscal Policy Office, said Soraphol Tulayasathien, the Finance Ministry’s director of Economic Stability Analysis Division at the Fiscal Policy Office.

 

Previously, fiscal discipline was a set of guidelines stipulating public debt should be capped at no more than 60 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Now it is upgraded to a legislation.

 

Under the new legislation, the committee chaired by Prayut will decide what economic policy would be defined as “populist policy” that could have a serious negative impact on government finances.

 

The law also requires that the government lay out a midterm budget or a three to five-year budget plan, along with an annual budget formation, said Soraphol. 

 

Political scientist Somchai Pakkapaswiwat said that the new law’s interpretation will depend on the discretionary power of the committee and its interpretation of what is or is not populist policy. 

 

He said he preferred that parliament scrutinises the government’s spending plan or there should be an independent budgetary organisation, such as a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in the United States, that looks at the government budget.

 

Meanwhile, Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala, a former Finance Minister supported the law but said the government should also look at policies which may run counter the law, such as cash handouts to the 11.4 million poor people under the welfare card programme.

 

Since the 1997 financial crisis, the Thai government has run fiscal deficits almost every year to boost the economy, which has been affected by the country’s declining competitiveness and political instability. 

 

Over-spending to boost political support, notably from voters in rural areas, which was done by governments under Thaksin Shinawatra and his associates, was deemed politically incorrect. 

 

The military government plans to spend Bt3 trillion for the 2019 fiscal year starting this October and plans to borrow Bt 445 billion to finance the budget deficit, estimated to be equivalent to 2.6 per cent of GDP. It also expects to have a current account surplus of 6.1 per cent of GDP due to an increase in exports and tourism. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30343636

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-04-21

[YetAnother]

4 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

That made it difficult for parties to create their own policies to respond to voters’ demands.

exactly the intention

[cornishcarlos]

Really is no point having an election anymore, they've stacked the deck so much in their favour... 

But the sheep just go along with it, getting rammed...

[YetAnother]

9 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

“The most worrisome part about it is who will tell which policy is populist or not. What’s the definition exactly? Will we have to take the matter to the court if we cannot reach an agreement?”

what a great mechanism to enable hiding behind the law; most populist policies seem to be birthed along an election campaign as promises; then after elected, the winning party simply says; 'by law, we can't do it, sorry'

[BobBKK]

I agree with this!  let's have 'Un-Populist Policies'  no more 'Happiness'  Here's a few to start:

 

Increase tax on Alcohol 

Ban Facebook and all Social Media

Everyone must listen to Prayut's songs for 6 hours every Friday

 

[Samui Bodoh]

There are soooooo many things wrong in this story that it is difficult to know what to comment on. Let me focus on one small but important area; bad governance and third-world law making.

 

This is yet another example of Third-World law-making as it loosely defines a criminal/wrongful act but fails to provide a clear definition as to what precisely constitutes a violation of the act. What is the significance of this? It creates a situation whereby a well-meaning party can fall foul of the law because the definition of the law isn't clear. Put another way, the body tasked with deciding whether an offence has been committed has a 'carte-blanche' in deciding guilt or innocence based on... whether they are in a good mood or not.

 

What will happen under this law?

 

It is worth remembering the adage of Thai politics; "Yellows and Greens cheat. They cheat often. They cheat always. They cheat under any circumstances. They are cheating cheaters who cheat."

 

Yellow and/or Green governments will not have to worry as the law will not be applied to them. 'Red' governments or any other government not aligned with the PTB will be prosecuted. It is that simple.

 

Did anyone notice that Yingluck was prosecuted for her cabinet member's transgressions, yet Prayut isn't charged for his Cabinet members transgressions (think Prawit's watches)? It is just like that, except it'll apply across the entire budget and thus the entire government.

 

Third-world law for a third-world country.

 

Thais are nice people; they don't deserve stupid crap like this...

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee and general anger

[ThreeEyedRaven]

19 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

Article 9 of the law states that in preparing annual state budgets, managing the country’s monetary and fiscal affairs, and creating public debt, Cabinet members have to carefully take into consideration such factors as the benefit to the country and the people, worthiness, financial burden, risks and possible damage to state finances. 

I wonder how the purchase of completely unneeded Submarines fits into this one.

[worgeordie]

It was Thaksin that started populist policies,when he realized

that it was better spending taxpayers money to buy votes,than

use your own,which up till then was how politics was done

and once started none of the political parties could stop as it 

won them votes and elections.

 

The current Government has used populist policies,in the hope 

that they can still form a Government when / if elections are held.

populist policies are very bad,as can seen from what has gone on with

massive corruption,and wastage ,while the people that these schemes

were supposed to help,are no better off in the end.

 

Now the current Government wants to prevent populist policies in the future !

regards worgeordie

[robblok]

I agree popular policies should be checked. Something as damaging to the country as the rice program would have been stopped. Those tablets that broke down all the time would probably be stopped too.

 

I think this is a good step will make it harder for parties to bribe the populace. They will have to have clear normal policies to benefit the country.

 

Its also good that fiscal discipline is now law, the debt from the rice program is huge 2x times the health budget in a year. So yea its good they cap popular policies.

 

So now the bad part, the junta as usual has copied the PTP with popular policies and are as guilty as the Shins so the should have led by example they did not.

Also of course who is going to determine what is popular policy and what is not.. that is bad too.

 

But I 100% agree with that they are trying to prevent this as they are bad and it is damaging to the country. 

[humbug]

neo facist chinese to say policies to help the general public should have a profit to be unpopulist.

 

just another way to control all elections.

 

20 years ago the military and big business indebted this country to the world bank with their handling of state funds. It was the elected government of Taksin that corrected those wrongs and released the country from those debts with forward thinking policies.

[Eligius]

1 hour ago, cornishcarlos said:

Really is no point having an election anymore, they've stacked the deck so much in their favour... 

But the sheep just go along with it, getting rammed...

Yes, you said it (above). Totally pointless having an 'election' in the given circumstances. It's all a con and a contrivance. No honesty or justice will be found in a junta 'election'.

 

So it's up to the Thais to find some other way to get their country and their liberty back. 

 

Will they do it? What do you think??

 

 

[baboon]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Thais are nice people; they don't deserve stupid crap like this...

 

The students and others who put themselves at risk by raising their voices don't. However I am afraid the rest of the sheeple do. And the politicians - Why won't they simply refuse to contest this 'election' where they lose even if they win?

As for the sheeple, watch them bitch and moan, then toady and fawn whenever an NCPO notable comes to their neighbourhood. No, I am afraid this is exactly what most of them deserve even though I too love them to bits...

[Eligius]

7 minutes ago, baboon said:

The students and others who put themselves at risk by raising their voices don't. However I am afraid the rest of the sheeple do. And the politicians - Why won't they simply refuse to contest this 'election' where they lose even if they win?

As for the sheeple, watch them bitch and moan, then toady and fawn whenever an NCPO notable comes to their neighbourhood. No, I am afraid this is exactly what most of them deserve even though I too love them to bits...

Could not have said it better myself. I find most Thais to be pleasant and extremely helpful. BUT as a nation, as a people en masse, the Thais really do need to start saying (in their MILLIONS) 'NO! We have had ENOUGH of this oppression and servitude!'

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Eligius

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Could not have said it better myself. I find most Thais to be pleasant and extremely helpful. BUT as a nation, as a people en masse, the Thais really do need to start saying (in their MILLIONS) 'NO! We have had ENOUGH of this oppression and servitude!'

 

They will only say that once there is a good alternative maybe the new party Thanathorn. 

 

I mean how can you say enough if the only difference between the parties is that one just throws a few more scraps to you then the other. So far no party really serves the people. They all do USE the people to get in power. 

 

To revolt or to protest there must be an alternative that is substantially better than the current situation if that is not available why risk yourself for a meager change. 

[jerojero]

Pot, kettle, black! Hypocrisy at its best. Sheesh!

[ramrod711]

2 hours ago, ThreeEyedRaven said:

I wonder how the purchase of completely unneeded Submarines fits into this one.

“The Cabinet shall not run the state’s affairs with a goal of creating political popularity that may cause damage to the country’s economy and people in the long run,” the clause states.

And bullet trains

[JOC]

What an excellent idea...!!......Cut out the middleman

No change for corrupt officials to enrich themselves on the various populist schemes...

Now the money can be transferred directly to the bank accounts of those in power......

 

The poor is getting poorer and the fat cats are laughing all the way to the bank.

The elite must be so satisfied with the good work of their faithful pawn Prayut.

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

One observer urged the military government to look at its current policy of cash handout programmes to see whether they violate the law.

As I say, not as I do!

[holy cow cm]

It is to the point of who cares as the Junta headed by the Prem council has basically slapped everything into their obedient control under the title of forever.. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by holy cow cm

[jayboy]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

I agree popular policies should be checked. Something as damaging to the country as the rice program would have been stopped. Those tablets that broke down all the time would probably be stopped too.

 

I think this is a good step will make it harder for parties to bribe the populace. They will have to have clear normal policies to benefit the country.

 

Its also good that fiscal discipline is now law, the debt from the rice program is huge 2x times the health budget in a year. So yea its good they cap popular policies.

 

So now the bad part, the junta as usual has copied the PTP with popular policies and are as guilty as the Shins so the should have led by example they did not.

Also of course who is going to determine what is popular policy and what is not.. that is bad too.

 

But I 100% agree with that they are trying to prevent this as they are bad and it is damaging to the country. 

Hey ten year olds, here's an  analysis of Thai politics for you.

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Hey ten year olds, here's an  analysis of Thai politics for you.

Ok next time i dumb it down for you. 

[Eric Loh]

Article 9 conveniently omitted ‘preparing the Defence budget and military procurement to prevent waste, fraud and corruption. 

 

I hope the various corruption NGO agencies will start getting together and set up an non partisan non profit independent self agency that will act as an oversight for all military military procurement like POGO in USA. 

 

It it is ludicrous to think that this law by the junta government on populist policies are filled with good intention. It is nothing but bobby traps to be use by the junta for their own agenda of dominance. 

[Cadbury]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Anger at new junta law banning populist policy

So the junta's Thai Niyom policy which allows the PM and his army of nomads to wander around the country handing out 100 billion baht of free money to all and sundry is not a populist policy?

For some people in the villages this might be of some benefit but for many, such as devious and unprincipled civil servants and village chiefs it will be more like the Thai Niyom Golden Egg. 

[Anak Nakal]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

The students and others who put themselves at risk by raising their voices don't. However I am afraid the rest of the sheeple do. And the politicians - Why won't they simply refuse to contest this 'election' where they lose even if they win?

As for the sheeple, watch them bitch and moan, then toady and fawn whenever an NCPO notable comes to their neighbourhood. No, I am afraid this is exactly what most of them deserve even though I too love them to bits...

Thai people not deserve. BS.

Many Thai people die. 1973. 1976. 1992 2010. etc.

You wrong.

[stud858]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

There are soooooo many things wrong in this story that it is difficult to know what to comment on. Let me focus on one small but important area; bad governance and third-world law making.

 

This is yet another example of Third-World law-making as it loosely defines a criminal/wrongful act but fails to provide a clear definition as to what precisely constitutes a violation of the act. What is the significance of this? It creates a situation whereby a well-meaning party can fall foul of the law because the definition of the law isn't clear. Put another way, the body tasked with deciding whether an offence has been committed has a 'carte-blanche' in deciding guilt or innocence based on... whether they are in a good mood or not.

 

What will happen under this law?

 

It is worth remembering the adage of Thai politics; "Yellows and Greens cheat. They cheat often. They cheat always. They cheat under any circumstances. They are cheating cheaters who cheat."

 

Yellow and/or Green governments will not have to worry as the law will not be applied to them. 'Red' governments or any other government not aligned with the PTB will be prosecuted. It is that simple.

 

Did anyone notice that Yingluck was prosecuted for her cabinet member's transgressions, yet Prayut isn't charged for his Cabinet members transgressions (think Prawit's watches)? It is just like that, except it'll apply across the entire budget and thus the entire government.

 

Third-world law for a third-world country.

 

Thais are nice people; they don't deserve stupid crap like this...

 

Well said. I have been told TS is corrupt but have yet to be shown exact evidence myself of what law he broke and how he broke it.  Are there any websites, TV documentaries, evidentary documents to explain clearly. To me, he's just taken things to his advantage like anyone would do. But I'm open to changing my mind one shown the evidence. 

[baboon]

23 minutes ago, Anak Nakal said:

Thai people not deserve. BS.

Many Thai people die. 1973. 1976. 1992 2010. etc.

You wrong.

I right. Those brave people who stood up then and are standing up now to be counted certainly did / do deserve better. The apathetic are harvesting the fruit of their own indolence and don't. 

If the masses want their country and their rights back they are going to have to take them back. Mobilise, not sit on their ar$es and wait for somebody else to do it for them.

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, worgeordie said:

It was Thaksin that started populist policies,whe

You give Thaksin too much credit. Try going back to the 70s. 

 

Here is an interesting graph that may get some discussion going.

 

It shows the effect of government policies on agricultural prices in Thailand. The zero line represents a price neutral outcome. Below the zero line shows that farmers are getting less than they would if the government adopted price neutral policies. Above the line shows the opposite. The most important factor during the 1970s was the so-called “rice premium” which taxed rice exports both to generate government revenue and to reduce domestic rice prices for urban consumers. The premium was abolished in 1986 and in 1987 the government introduced the first “rice mortgage” scheme which had the effect of increasing domestic prices.

(New Mandela)

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You give Thaksin too much credit. Try going back to the 70s. 

 

Here is an interesting graph that may get some discussion going.

 

It shows the effect of government policies on agricultural prices in Thailand. The zero line represents a price neutral outcome. Below the zero line shows that farmers are getting less than they would if the government adopted price neutral policies. Above the line shows the opposite. The most important factor during the 1970s was the so-called “rice premium” which taxed rice exports both to generate government revenue and to reduce domestic rice prices for urban consumers. The premium was abolished in 1986 and in 1987 the government introduced the first “rice mortgage” scheme which had the effect of increasing domestic prices.

(New Mandela)

Nice graph, I don't really get it maybe you can explain further.

 

You said below farmers are getting less than they would if the government adopted a price neutral policy. What exactly is a price neutral policy in this case ? No goverment interference ? 

 

If I read it correctly in the 70s they got less because of the tax.. I get that.. but what drives the price down in 2000s.. If anything the government always helped the farmers not taxed them.

[robblok]

51 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

So the junta's Thai Niyom policy which allows the PM and his army of nomads to wander around the country handing out 100 billion baht of free money to all and sundry is not a populist policy?

For some people in the villages this might be of some benefit but for many, such as devious and unprincipled civil servants and village chiefs it will be more like the Thai Niyom Golden Egg. 

Thai Niyom is 100% popular policy, the junta is again (like int he corruption scandals) a big hypocrite.

I am against popular policies for both junta and others. Putting this in the law levels the playing field at least political parties now can't promise crazy policies aimed at vote buying that are bad for the country.

 

The only problem is of course who judges what is what. But I certainly like the idea of restriction of popular policies and forcing fiscal discipline. 

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

The only problem is of course who judges what is what. But I certainly like the idea of restriction of popular policies and forcing fiscal discipline. 

If you want to know who will be judging what is what, just look for the men standing beside the tanks. Yes, the same folk who say one thing then do the polar opposite. "Hypocrite" doesn't even begin to cover it...

Edited April 21, 2018 by baboon