Auditor-General wants power to review Thai govt policies

[webfact]

Auditor-General wants power to review govt policies
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE Auditor-General yesterday urged charter drafters to include a provision in the new charter giving his office more authority to scrutinise government policies - populist or otherwise - that damage the country and ask the Senate to halt those policies, impeach the responsible politicians and order them to pay compensation.

Chaiyasit Trachutham, chairman of the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG)'s executive committee, yesterday met with the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) to discuss issues that impede the OAG from doing its job and formulate ways in which the charter can be changed to overcome those difficulties.

Chaiyasit put forward five suggestions to enhance the OAG, the State Audit Commission (SAC) and the Auditor-General (AG), as well as to ensure their independence and neutrality.

The five suggestions are as follows:

 Provisions be added to maintain the independence and neutrality of OAG, SAC and AG;

 Provisions be added governing disciplinary rulings and fines related to budget and finance disciplines such as those in the 2007 Constitution with the Budget and Finance Discipline Commission authorised to investigate and suggest fines to SAC, which would hand down the final judgement. But the judgement could still be appealed by the Administrative Court;

 Provisions be added authorising OAG to scrutinise populist and government policies that cause damage to public finance, economy, society, politics, administration, religions, traditions and national security, as well as fiscal mismanagement that result in debt obligations. When approved by SAC, OAG should then be able to propose that the Senate stop those policies, impeach the politicians and force them to make reparations;

 Provisions be added to authorise OAG to assess the efficiency and worthiness of national budget spending. When approved by SAC, OAG could propose to the government and the Senate to consider proceeding;

 Provisions be added to allow OAG to take action if it finds national budget spending to be inefficient, unworthy or causing damage to the state. That actions would take the form of OAG proposing to the Budget and Finance Discipline Commission to consider investigating and suggesting preliminarily fines to SAC, which could give the final judgement. But the judgement could still be appealed by the Administrative Court. The CDC accepted the OAG's proposals and agreed to consider them while writing the charter.

Until Thursday, more independent agencies, such as the Election Commission, would meet with the CDC to discuss similar issues.

In a related development, CDC spokesman Amorn Wanichwiwatana said the CDC members agreed that "a fresh charter be written short, concise, and inclusive and it should serve to protect to protect the rights and freedoms of the people in line with the universal norms." He said the CDC would use simple language that would be easily read and understood so that interpretations could be correct and clear.

The spokesman also revealed that the CDC has already started looking at the content article by article. So far, they have gone through at least six articles.

Meanwhile, PM Prayut Chan-o-cha said yesterday that he had no intention of overruling anybody and that the proposed National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC) was neither going to dictate the work of the future government nor penalise it. The NSRRC will simply ensure security when he wants to see the country move forward, Prayut said.

On the subject of reconciliation, which will also be the responsibility of the NSRRC, he said [involved bodies] would need to look into cases and determine how to separate the leaders from the common protesters. If the process is not done properly, the same problem will be repeated when it comes time to push an amnesty bill, he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Auditor-General-wants-power-to-review-govt-policie-30270824.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-14

[zaphod reborn]

The OAG should be reviewing every parliamentary act that involves the spending of government funds. However, that should be the limit of their power. In no circumstances should they be recommending impeachment or the payment of reparations or fines. That's the province of the attorney general or parliament.

[halloween]

The OAG should be reviewing every parliamentary act that involves the spending of government funds. However, that should be the limit of their power. In no circumstances should they be recommending impeachment or the payment of reparations or fines. That's the province of the attorney general or parliament.

Riiight! they will come up with some self-serving policy and then impeach themselves out of public interest.

Thinking with your third head?

[optad]

Isn't the problem here that the OAG wants to add a another dimension to its political voice to its role rather than the OAG office's primary judicial one?

Sounds like a comment on the junta's longevity and what happens after.

Edited October 14, 2015 by optad

[realenglish1]

Hey they have a Auditor General in the United States doing the same thing Also in Canada and Great Britain so I think a good idea Will give the Thai people a better idea of where their

money is goind

[robblok]

This would help for sure to make sure that governments can't come up with crazy expensive vote buying policies like the rice scam.

In my country there is an independent organisation that checks election promises to see if they are financial feasible and if they can be done with the budget there is. This way parties cant promise things that are not possible and it makes for a fair election. Would be good to have here too.

That is democracy, there are rules that need to be followed. Totally different as the Thai style democracy we know where its only about election and no checks and rules after that just the winner takes it all.

[trogers]

Hey they have a Auditor General in the United States doing the same thing Also in Canada and Great Britain so I think a good idea Will give the Thai people a better idea of where their

money is goind

And has this worked for the US and Canada?

[FangFerang]

Auditor General -- a political incumbent to the junta, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.....

First act, "This bidding process needs reviewed. Let's see..no. Instead, six for my friends, and NONE for yours. There. That's better."

[Thian]

This would help for sure to make sure that governments can't come up with crazy expensive vote buying policies like the rice scam.

In my country there is an independent organisation that checks election promises to see if they are financial feasible and if they can be done with the budget there is. This way parties cant promise things that are not possible and it makes for a fair election. Would be good to have here too.

That is democracy, there are rules that need to be followed. Totally different as the Thai style democracy we know where its only about election and no checks and rules after that just the winner takes it all.

So did you get the 1000 euro your MP promised to give?......exactly.....And did he get prosecuted for that?......exactly.....Is he still the MP?.......exactly.

[Srikcir]

Having a nonpartisan (or balanced partisan) government agency that has authority to scrutinise government policies is realistic and necessary to establish independent fact finding. But how those facts are used in a democratically elected government is a function of both the Executive and Legislative branches.

Ultimately, it is for the electorate to decide whether the government fulfilled its responsibility to the Thai people.

[trogers]

Having a nonpartisan (or balanced partisan) government agency that has authority to scrutinise government policies is realistic and necessary to establish independent fact finding. But how those facts are used in a democratically elected government is a function of both the Executive and Legislative branches.

Ultimately, it is for the electorate to decide whether the government fulfilled its responsibility to the Thai people.

Their problem is that a large portion of the electorate are busy praying to carcasses of newly borned deformed buffaloes...for lottery numbers...

[robblok]

This would help for sure to make sure that governments can't come up with crazy expensive vote buying policies like the rice scam.

In my country there is an independent organisation that checks election promises to see if they are financial feasible and if they can be done with the budget there is. This way parties cant promise things that are not possible and it makes for a fair election. Would be good to have here too.

That is democracy, there are rules that need to be followed. Totally different as the Thai style democracy we know where its only about election and no checks and rules after that just the winner takes it all.

So did you get the 1000 euro your MP promised to give?......exactly.....And did he get prosecuted for that?......exactly.....Is he still the MP?.......exactly.

I have no MP, the Dutch have a different system and all election promises are screened for feasibility and calculated with the current economic projections. This way parties can't take an unfair advantage by claiming things they can never deliver.

If a election program fails the test they have to amend it and can't promote it

Sorry but that is just a real good thing to have something like that implemented, it levels the playing field and makes for fair elections.

Edited October 14, 2015 by robblok

[Thian]

This would help for sure to make sure that governments can't come up with crazy expensive vote buying policies like the rice scam.

In my country there is an independent organisation that checks election promises to see if they are financial feasible and if they can be done with the budget there is. This way parties cant promise things that are not possible and it makes for a fair election. Would be good to have here too.

That is democracy, there are rules that need to be followed. Totally different as the Thai style democracy we know where its only about election and no checks and rules after that just the winner takes it all.

So did you get the 1000 euro your MP promised to give?......exactly.....And did he get prosecuted for that?......exactly.....Is he still the MP?.......exactly.

I have no MP, the Dutch have a different system and all election promises are screened for feasibility and calculated with the current economic projections. This way parties can't take an unfair advantage by claiming things they can never deliver.

If a election program fails the test they have to amend it and can't promote it

Sorry but that is just a real good thing to have something like that implemented, it levels the playing field and makes for fair elections.

You eat too much cheese man!

Mister Rutte promised you 1000 euro before the elections but he never gave it!

Also he promised no single euro would go to Greece anymore, but he still gave them billions!

So you call that democracy in the 1st world (Holland)? I call it scamming and i can't understand the Dutch accept that and brag about their system being so good on international forums.

[robblok]

This would help for sure to make sure that governments can't come up with crazy expensive vote buying policies like the rice scam.

In my country there is an independent organisation that checks election promises to see if they are financial feasible and if they can be done with the budget there is. This way parties cant promise things that are not possible and it makes for a fair election. Would be good to have here too.

That is democracy, there are rules that need to be followed. Totally different as the Thai style democracy we know where its only about election and no checks and rules after that just the winner takes it all.

So did you get the 1000 euro your MP promised to give?......exactly.....And did he get prosecuted for that?......exactly.....Is he still the MP?.......exactly.

I have no MP, the Dutch have a different system and all election promises are screened for feasibility and calculated with the current economic projections. This way parties can't take an unfair advantage by claiming things they can never deliver.

If a election program fails the test they have to amend it and can't promote it

Sorry but that is just a real good thing to have something like that implemented, it levels the playing field and makes for fair elections.

You eat too much cheese man!

Mister Rutte promised you 1000 euro before the elections but he never gave it!

Also he promised no single euro would go to Greece anymore, but he still gave them billions!

So you call that democracy in the 1st world (Holland)? I call it scamming and i can't understand the Dutch accept that and brag about their system being so good on international forums.

Guess you don't understand Dutch politics. I know its hard for countries to understand coming from a two party system. Whatever they promise they have to be able to deliver. Not actually deliver it because nobody has a majority and so negotiations have to be made. But they could deliver it if they had a majority.

Totally different things but hey i don't mind explaining it to other members who lack the knowledge.

I was talking about promising things that COULD be done if the party had a majority, but in reality Dutch politics is always about compromises because there are so many parties and nobody wins a majority.

Quite a fair and good system unlike the winner takes it all kind of system in the US. I can recall in the US the whole country is paralyzed at times because of budgets and the other party not wanting to agree.

Edited October 14, 2015 by robblok

[elgordo38]

The OAG should be reviewing every parliamentary act that involves the spending of government funds. However, that should be the limit of their power. In no circumstances should they be recommending impeachment or the payment of reparations or fines. That's the province of the attorney general or parliament.

Nobody will want to run for parliament with all these noose's dangling out there. Its like winning the lottery in reverse.

[Thai at Heart]

This would help for sure to make sure that governments can't come up with crazy expensive vote buying policies like the rice scam.

In my country there is an independent organisation that checks election promises to see if they are financial feasible and if they can be done with the budget there is. This way parties cant promise things that are not possible and it makes for a fair election. Would be good to have here too.

That is democracy, there are rules that need to be followed. Totally different as the Thai style democracy we know where its only about election and no checks and rules after that just the winner takes it all.

This for sure would cause complete and utter legislative paralysis. No govt would enact anything at all.

Define damage to the country? Everything a govt does costs money that they don't earn. Might as well appoint the oag office to approve the budget not the parliament.

What the oag can do, is published their independent opinion of the outcome of the policy to the people.

Of course, if they say a policy will cost 100bn and it only costs 50, they should be sued for defaming the party manifesto and costing them votes....

[nidieunimaitre]

Basically, what all those in power are saying is "Thai (voters) are stupid".

Luckily for these hiso, they do not post this slander on Thai Visa forum.

They would be banned for breeching forum rules!