BUDGET DEBATE
Democrats push for 20% cut in funds for tunnel project
The Nation


Democrat MP Vilas Chanpitaksa said in his capacity as the chair of the House panel on anti-corruption, he will summon officials from various agencies next Friday to testify about alleged budget irregularities. He threatened to lodge a police complaint

BANGKOK: -- The opposition Democrat Party yesterday demanded that the budget earmarked for the construction of a tunnel between the Mae Kuang and Mae Nguad dams be cut by 20 per cent as neither dam has any water that can flow through the tunnel.

The project had been proposed by the previous Democrat government to generate water in the area in Chiang Mai, Democrat Bangkok MP Vilas Chanpitaksa said.

The initial budget for the project was Bt15 billion, but the current government increased it to Bt17 billion for the next four years, he said. The Agriculture Ministry then proposed another Bt6 billion for this year for the project, which the Democrats think is unreasonable, he added.

The two dams have only 10-20 per cent of water left in their reservoirs, which is not enough for the project, hence the budget should be cut, he said.

Meanwhile, Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Yukol Limlamthong defended the ministry's request for Bt77.2 billion, saying it was needed for different projects, notably the rubber and rice schemes, which are currently under attack by the opposition.

The government has tried to solve the problem of declining rubber prices but the measures have not yielded any results yet, he said.

Deputy Agriculture Minister Varathep Ratanakorn said the government had maintained the Bt15,000 per tonne price under the rice-pledging scheme, adding that the new price announced earlier had yet to be fixed.

After a five-hour-long debate, the House of Representatives approved a budget of Bt76.8 billion for the Agriculture Ministry.

Meanwhile, the Bt10.3 billion proposed budget for the Social Development and Human Security Ministry was cut by Bt60 million, and passed yesterday.


-- The Nation 2013-08-17

The government has to increase the budget, to build the tunnel. By doing they will ensure the correct people receive their portion of the money.

So there is low rain for a spell,

so don't build the tunnel for when there is more rain and the dams fill up again?

Idiotic argument.

On the other hand the increases being added to an already moving project,

are no more than graft oriented slush, to help buy the next election and pay for the last.

So the Dems are right to want it cut back significantly. But the argument chosen is poor.

Edited August 17, 201312 yr by animatic

Wonder who the politicians & well-connected construction-companies might be, who can swing this B8-billion budget-increase, here in Chiang Mai ?

I'd also question the need for a direct dam-to-dam tunnel, when it should be perfectly possibly to send water the longer-way down the river or existing irrigation-canals towards Chiang Mai, which would be a much cheaper project, generating fewer & smaller brown-envelopes ... oh, wait a minute, I believe I've spotted the flaw in my logic.

So there is low rain for a spell,

so don't build the tunnel for when there is more rain and the dams fill up again?

Idiotic argument.

On the other hand the increases being added to an already moving project,

are no more than graft oriented slush, to help buy the next election and pay for the last.

So the Dems are right to want it cut back significantly. But the argument chosen is poor.

So funny hand shakes all round?

Edited August 17, 201312 yr by Calimotty

.........and a tunnel too.....???

.........seems like some kid's birthday present list.........

.....just have to sell out the country to pay for all this..........

....shameful.....

So there is low rain for a spell,

so don't build the tunnel for when there is more rain and the dams fill up again?

Idiotic argument.

On the other hand the increases being added to an already moving project,

are no more than graft oriented slush, to help buy the next election and pay for the last.

So the Dems are right to want it cut back significantly. But the argument chosen is poor.

Wonder who the politicians & well-connected construction-companies might be, who can swing this B8-billion budget-increase, here in Chiang Mai ?

I'd also question the need for a direct dam-to-dam tunnel, when it should be perfectly possibly to send water the longer-way down the river or existing irrigation-canals towards Chiang Mai, which would be a much cheaper project, generating fewer & smaller brown-envelopes ... oh, wait a minute, I believe I've spotted the flaw in my logic. alt=whistling.gif width=19 height=18>

sounds to me like the PTP is afraid of losing control and are creating more money for them to get their cut from. 30% I understand is the standard kick back.