CONSTITUTION WATCH
New charter provision to curb spending on populist schemes
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- The members of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) yesterday wrote an article into the charter providing strict regulations governing the national budget and finances, aimed at preventing excessive populist spending by future governments.

The clause on state spending stipulates "financial boundaries that will not affect the country's fiscal discipline, and must consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the spending, and the necessity of the government agencies' spending".

The clause conforms to Article 35 of the 2014 interim constitution implemented by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), which clearly states that the new constitution must provide a mechanism to curb populism or populist policies. They are defined as policies that damage the country's financial health in the long term.

The successes over the last decade of political parties loyal to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra - Thai Rak Thai, People's Power Party and Pheu Thai - in consecutive general elections have been attributed to their populist policies such as the Bt30 universal healthcare programme, financing for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the first-car-buyer and rice-pledging schemes.

The new clause also offers a clear definition of "state's money", which includes "borrowed money". Future governments must include the amount of "money borrowed" as "government spending" or "annual budget".

This is the first time in the country's history that a universal definition of "state's money" will be clearly written into the constitution.

The article on administration spending stipulates that all government spending must be accounted for in the "annual budget" or "additional annual budget".

CDC spokesman Kamnoon Sidhisamarn claimed that the measures were designed to prevent conflicts and problems created by past government such as excessive spending.

"The governments in 2009 and 2011 [led by the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties respectively] passed special bills to borrow money, and spent the money under a special law without accounting for it in the annual budget bill. The issue was widely debated from legal and academic viewpoints, as the governments claimed that money borrowed under such special bills shouldn't be categorised as 'state's money', and hence should not be included in the annual budget. To resolve this problem, the definition of 'state's money' is being clearly stated."

Kamnoon pointed to the Democrat-led government's "Thai Khem Khaeng" project in 2009 and Pheu Thai's "Two Trillion Baht" project as scenarios when previous governments passed "special bills" to borrow money, which was not accounted for in the annual budget.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/New-charter-provision-to-curb-spending-on-populist-30252983.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-30

There's not that can be said for Populist schemes, generally called Pork Barrelling , a nice polite way of saying pigs snouts in the trough, the states budget should be worked out with the sitting Government programmes outlined and for treasury to come up with a list of options , just because a certain party promises it not necessary means that the state has the money to carry out all programmes a compromise has to be worked out , it is indeed disappointing to see former governments circumventing policy and heavy borrowings under special laws, possibly the worst was the 2 trillion loans scam ,a good way for the country to go bankrupt , about time Thailand got its house of the people in order.

No populist spending? than what the PM will do from now on? his bread and butter governing

has to do with populist schemes and freebees....

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/458917/ncpo-orders-banks-to-give-soft-loans-to-rubber-buyers

Unless its one they like..

So lets see.. Paying farmers 33% over the market price, with the idea they can drive up the international price later.. And wont lose money..

This is now a good idea.. Sounds similar to a previous proposal they didnt like so much..

Good luck in coming up with that charter provision--one that will really work.

Numerous governments around the world (like the U.S. and I'm a U.S. citizen) have used "off budget" and "pork barrel" funding methods since like forever. What the current govt puts into stone charter/constitution/law-wise can be re-engraved by the next govt. Whatever provision they come up with will most likely be a facade.

And just a few bicycle lanes and extra holidays later it looks like the dear leader's present shelf is empty already.

From a bunch who have done nothing more that throw out populist schemes one after the other!

Hmmm a cunning new strategy... let's promote UNPOPULAR schemes!

• No more Premier League
• No more Lottery
• No more Mia Noi's and Gik's
• Responsibility for children you father
• 500% tax on Chang and 100 Pipers
• Ban tobacco sales

that should be a good start to their new found enthusiasm to destroy popularity

Proposed Article 3,14.a4: "All government expenditures shall be remitted to only select group of Bangkok elite, as defined in updated status list provided by PM each month"

Funny how they claim to ban populist schemes and focus on the rice scheme on one side, but on the other they heavily subsidize southern rubber farmers.

This clause is utter bull feces. Anytime the opposition with court connections wants to stop legislation, they can define it as being under this clause. This clause is SHEER CRAP.

If they made a supermajority approve the legislation, I would believe in such legislation because it fosters reconciliation. Instead, they made it so one side has too much power, forever. This isn't about reconciliation. Thjis about about grabbing power, solidifying a power base, and making such changes permanent.

Idiots. No one should smoke cigars, blow smoke up my anus, and then pretend it is okay -- since we are all standing inside a room full of gunpowder.

Funny how they claim to ban populist schemes and focus on the rice scheme on one side, but on the other they heavily subsidize southern rubber farmers.

It seems to me that the populists are in the majority and thus play a major role in the voting process. Are the Thai Elite populists? Are there enough of them here to carry the majority of votes. I guess the populists must be reeducated.

Political realists are laughing their asses off.