Election Commission caught in a catch-22 situation
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation


Farmers protest in Phichit on Tuesday.

BANGKOK: -- The farmers are out in many provinces, protesting that the government has not paid for their crops at the prices guaranteed under the rice-pledging policy.

This time around, the caretaker government under Premier Yingluck Shinawatra can't say it has been politically exploited by the protesters demanding that the premier quit and the February 2 election be postponed until a broad-ranging reform agenda is agreed.

The farmers are suggesting that the government has failed to keep its word. Somehow, the commerce and finance ministers have given the impression that the "cheques are in the mail" for the angry farmers. But that's not the case. New loans will have to be made to meet the payment deadlines. But then, under the Constitution, a caretaker government can't take certain actions without the approval of the Election Commission (EC).

It may turn out to be a catch-22 situation for the government.

For one thing, problems related to the huge rice stockpile as a result of this highly controversial policy are now thrust upon the EC which, under the charter, has to approve any action of a caretaker government that involves budget spending off the normal budgetary plan.

The Commerce Ministry is now asking the EC to determine whether it is legal to sell rice from this stockpile.

The Finance Ministry also wants to play it safe, despite its earlier tough statements that it had the money to pay farmers for their last crops.

Now, the Finance Ministry is also consulting the EC on whether it can legally borrow more money to pay for the latest crops, bought under the 2013/14 pledging scheme.

The protesting farmers don't want to hear these "legalistic excuses" from the authorities. They simply want to know when the payments will be made. How the necessary funds are made available is the responsibility of those in power.

The EC has found itself in an unenviable position on many counts - all of which are unprecedented. A decision one way or the other is bound to draw screams from one of the contesting factions.

The rice-pledging scheme is one new dilemma for the five-member election panel. Critics say it's a populist policy that is bankrupting the government's coffers. It has also been cited as a politically motivated scheme aimed at winning votes for the ruling party. If it is interpreted along these lines, the EC would have to ask the caretaker government to halt the plan and wait for the new government after the election to decide on how to proceed with the expensive exercise.

But then, the EC has to consider the farmers' plight. They can't be blamed for demanding that the caretaker government live up to its promise, because that was the pledge upon which they had devoted their time, money and energy to produce the new rice crop. They could legitimately argue that political turmoil should not undermine their livelihood.

The EC is also caught between the horns of a dilemma over whether to allow the finance ministry to make new loans to meet its financial obligations to the farmers. It's a politically sensitive issue. Could this be seen as a campaign ploy by the ruling party? Would this be seen as an "unfair advantage" for the caretaker government in a pre-election decision?

Under normal circumstances, the EC could come up with a safe decision by concluding that since the election is less than a month away, any decision on this issue should be made by the new government.

But then, there is no guarantee that the election will actually take place. And even if the ballot casting does happen, there is no assurance that a new parliament will be convened. EC commissioners have admitted they aren't even sure whether the polls will result in at least 95 per cent of the total number of MPs being able to be elected. Without that quorum, the chances of appointing a new prime minister and forming a new Cabinet are very much up in the air.

That's the catch-22 for the EC: A situation where one thing must happen in order to cause another thing to happen. But because the first thing does not happen, the second thing cannot happen.

Worse, nobody knows what will happen in the next few days.

-- The Nation 2014-01-09

Even if the EC agrees to let the caretaker Govt raise loans and sell rice (I see elsewhere they have agreed to let them sell) they still have to do it in only 6 days and get the money transferred to the bank, as they have promised to pay the farmers by the 15th

Cant see that its possible.

They are also trying to get the BAAC to use what they call their own money, which is really depositors money, to pay the farmers.

What that amounts to is using the farmers money, who would be the main depositors in an agricultural bank, to pay the farmers.

And all the while the bank is charging the farmers interest on the loans they have made to tide them over till they get of paid and of course interest on their credit cards.

PT champions of the poor farmers.

The EC needs to use this opportunity to demand from the Government verifiable proof of where did all the money go. And require it to provide proof and receipt as such, of the spending if they receive more funds from either a loan or a sale from the stocks. As I read earlier they had requested and received funds for the new election. It seems to me that those funds need to be used to pay their Bill that is 5 MONTHS OLD, not allow them to borrow more money to just satisfy the rice farmers to cling to power.

More than the EC of Thailand, Thailand in general epitomizes the notion of Joseph Heller's "catch-22." It is an ineptocracy and a kleptocracy operating on the principle that if problems get solved it would signal the end of life as it is known, therefore every effort to subvert constructive development is made by the establishment.

Thailand is in fact the modern day global benchmark for a country trapped in "catch-22" in every aspect of its life. Just ask any Thai working in a government management role - the question "why" or "what to do" and you will see catch-22 at work in Thailand.

Would "caretaker" equate to lame duck?

PTP= please bail us out, take responsibility for the mess we made.

Even if the EC agrees to let the caretaker Govt raise loans and sell rice (I see elsewhere they have agreed to let them sell) they still have to do it in only 6 days and get the money transferred to the bank, as they have promised to pay the farmers by the 15th

Cant see that its possible.

They are also trying to get the BAAC to use what they call their own money, which is really depositors money, to pay the farmers.

What that amounts to is using the farmers money, who would be the main depositors in an agricultural bank, to pay the farmers.

And all the while the bank is charging the farmers interest on the loans they have made to tide them over till they get of paid and of course interest on their credit cards.

PT champions of the poor farmers.

Maybe it's more the case of using money from prudent farmers and farmers not part of the rice-pledging scheme to pay the farmers that are wanting payment. Penalize fiscally responsible farmers. That's a plan all right.

Nothing here. Just more crap.

The EC should insist on a transparent full audited accounting of the rice scheme in order to make payment.

That way any negative information that comes out weighs against the positive of the rice farmers getting paid.

This is also the first step in ending this ill conceived and poorly executed program. Even those who benefit will

realize the program is unsustainable once the true and full accounting is made public.

Some weeks ago, one of the protest leaders offered to cease the protests if the government could provide a full set of figures for the ricre scheme.

Obviously it didn't happen.

Can't find a reference to it now - did anyone bookmark it?

The EC needs to use this opportunity to demand from the Government verifiable proof of where did all the money go. And require it to provide proof and receipt as such, of the spending if they receive more funds from either a loan or a sale from the stocks. As I read earlier they had requested and received funds for the new election. It seems to me that those funds need to be used to pay their Bill that is 5 MONTHS OLD, not allow them to borrow more money to just satisfy the rice farmers to cling to power.

The role of the EC is not to be an accounting agency.

" Could this be seen as a campaign ploy by the ruling party? Would this be seen as an "unfair advantage" for the caretaker government in a pre-election decision? " The answer to these two questions in chronological order is an obvious Yes ! And, yes ! Are you kidding ? That's the only reason why this completely looney and fiscally ruinous scheme exists. The EC can't possibly ignore that. And if they do, it makes all their future rulings really easy, because it is impossible to think of an act of electoral impropriety more obvious than this one. But the writer of the article is quite right. This election will be deemed invalid - not because of an uncertainty that parliament will be able to be 95 % filled, but a certainty that it won't. Of course, that juicy dilemma is still a whole three weeks away, which is why the government hasn't actually thought of it yet.

Isn't the 95 per cent rule history now with at least 5 parties registered?

The EC needs to use this opportunity to demand from the Government verifiable proof of where did all the money go. And require it to provide proof and receipt as such, of the spending if they receive more funds from either a loan or a sale from the stocks. As I read earlier they had requested and received funds for the new election. It seems to me that those funds need to be used to pay their Bill that is 5 MONTHS OLD, not allow them to borrow more money to just satisfy the rice farmers to cling to power.

I agree. Find the money and pay the farmers. Most of it can be found in most corrupted politician hands.

Isn't the 95 per cent rule history now with at least 5 parties registered?

No. There are 28 constituencies that remain unregistered. In the event that the PTP were reelected they would still be caretakers

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The EC needs to use this opportunity to demand from the Government verifiable proof of where did all the money go. And require it to provide proof and receipt as such, of the spending if they receive more funds from either a loan or a sale from the stocks. As I read earlier they had requested and received funds for the new election. It seems to me that those funds need to be used to pay their Bill that is 5 MONTHS OLD, not allow them to borrow more money to just satisfy the rice farmers to cling to power.

The role of the EC is not to be an accounting agency.

That's an interesting point.

If the EC had jumped in at the last election and stated that the rice scheme was effectively vote buying then that would have been overstepping the mark.

Now, with the policy clearly failing (the price of rice on the market did not rice due to Thailand withholding the commodity) and clearly harming the Thai economy, this may not be so black and white.

The policy is not in the best interests of the country

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The EC needs to use this opportunity to demand from the Government verifiable proof of where did all the money go. And require it to provide proof and receipt as such, of the spending if they receive more funds from either a loan or a sale from the stocks. As I read earlier they had requested and received funds for the new election. It seems to me that those funds need to be used to pay their Bill that is 5 MONTHS OLD, not allow them to borrow more money to just satisfy the rice farmers to cling to power.

PTP can claim that there most of the money is tied up in the rice in storage, which they will value (try, anyway) at purchase price. The EC should demand that they sell rice to meet their debts, and when PTP admit that they can't sell sufficient rice fast enough, demand that as they are technically insolvent they should stop buying more. Although this would kill the rice scam, it would prevent any further increase in public debt from this debacle.