Auditor general to play key role in preventing govt spending sprees, populist policies: Meechai

[snoop1130]

Auditor general to play key role in  preventing govt spending sprees, populist policies: Meechai

By The Nation

 

 

The new organic law on the role and responsibilities of the auditor general would see the office acquiring new authority in preventing excessive government spending and populist policies, a Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) seminar on the law heard on Tuesday.

 

Meechai Ruchupan, head of the CDC, said that if the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) were not strict about the spending of the government budget, taxpayers’ money would be exploited in the wrong way and yield no benefit for the people.

 

If any agents are found committing such a crime, they should face the consequences, he said. On the other hand, those who pursue policies properly, but with unexpected, costly mistakes made in the process, should be immune, Meechai said.

 

The CDC, he told the seminar, was trying to make the law serve the purpose of preventing the exploitation of public funds, so it needed to give an assurance to people who worked hard and honestly that they would not have to face the consequences if they did not deserve such treatment.

 

The CDC would write into the law that the OAG should at the initial stage be responsible for scrutinising spending in governmental agencies to see whether it is lawful, Meechai said. 

 

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) would then take the baton by investigating on the basis of financial reports provided by the OAG, he explained.

 

The CDC is seeking to ensure that the OAG’s work does not overlap that of the NACC, otherwise the bureaucratic system might be in danger, the veteran law-writer stressed.

 

Pisit Leelawachiropas, the incumbent auditor general, added that the current Constitution also prescribed that the OAG could report to the State Audit Commission if it found evidence of any excessive spending in government policies in an attempt to win public popularity. 

 

In addition, the same report could be submitted to the NACC and the Election Commission, so as to hold the violator or violators accountable, he told the seminar.

The OAG also had the authority to recall financial damages from violators even if no victims came forward, he added.

 

Moreover, Pisit proposed that the OAG should have the authority to bring cases to court, and that crime related to excessive and unnecessary government spending should be punishable also by administrative penalties – in addition to civil and criminal penalties.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/breakingnews/30314742

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-5-9

[debate101]

Submarines? Tanks? Propaganda budget? Rubber subsidies? Here's a crazy idea. How about having parties make their spending policies part of their campaign platform, and then people can vote for the party whose plans they like best? A rhetorical question, I know, but how many of these people who are going to be deciding what spending is appropriate and what isn't were voted into office and represent the public and its interests (rather than unaccountable interests)?

Edited May 9, 2017 by debate101

[Dap]

Too late!

[Srikcir]

21 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The new organic law on the role and responsibilities of the auditor general would see the office acquiring new authority in preventing excessive government spending and populist policies

So basically have the authority to unilaterally overrule both the executive and legislative branches of government on budgetary legislation. This isn't a democratic check & balance - it's checkmate.

[halloween]

22 hours ago, debate101 said:

Submarines? Tanks? Propaganda budget? Rubber subsidies? Here's a crazy idea. How about having parties make their spending policies part of their campaign platform, and then people can vote for the party whose plans they like best? A rhetorical question, I know, but how many of these people who are going to be deciding what spending is appropriate and what isn't were voted into office and represent the public and its interests (rather than unaccountable interests)?

What makes you think the last elected government was representing the public's interest? They were willing to promise unsustainable policies to get themselves elected, and then acted in the interest of the criminal that paid, directed and owned them. 

[debate101]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

What makes you think the last elected government was representing the public's interest? They were willing to promise unsustainable policies to get themselves elected, and then acted in the interest of the criminal that paid, directed and owned them. 

That was their campaign promise. The electorate never agreed with Thaksin's removal, regardless of his corruption and abuse of power, and wanted to express that at the ballot box. That's essentially why they had to be disenfranchised.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

What makes you think the last elected government was representing the public's interest? They were willing to promise unsustainable policies to get themselves elected, and then acted in the interest of the criminal that paid, directed and owned them. 

They were elected and could be removed by the voters if they were not happy. The junta can only be removed by force.

Tell me; whose interests do you think the junta represent?

[halloween]

12 hours ago, Becker said:

They were elected and could be removed by the voters if they were not happy. The junta can only be removed by force.

Tell me; whose interests do you think the junta represent?

They were elected by offering unsustainable electoral bribes, just what this measure is intended to stop. You don't deny that they were acting in the interest of their owner, you can only make false claim - the junta will remove themselves.

[halloween]

12 hours ago, debate101 said:

That was their campaign promise. The electorate never agreed with Thaksin's removal, regardless of his corruption and abuse of power, and wanted to express that at the ballot box. That's essentially why they had to be disenfranchised.

The electorate believed their false campaign promises, that the rice scam was sustainable, that all school children would be given tablets to improve their education, and that they would be better off after the minimum wage was raised, amongst others. Would they have done the same if prior cost/benefit analysis had proved them to be unworkable?

I fully support financial analysis of campaign promises and government policy to prevent this election buying waste of public resources. It happens in Oz and it works well.

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, halloween said:

The electorate believed their false campaign promises, that the rice scam was sustainable, that all school children would be given tablets to improve their education, and that they would be better off after the minimum wage was raised, amongst others. Would they have done the same if prior cost/benefit analysis had proved them to be unworkable?

I fully support financial analysis of campaign promises and government policy to prevent this election buying waste of public resources. It happens in Oz and it works well.

Nothing false about their campaign promises. All delivered. Which governments including the present do cost/benefit analysis that the previous government will have to do because you say so. Probably should start with this junta government analyzing the cost/benefits of buying the submarines and the tanks. 

 

I fully support the electorate deciding if they are better under specific government through the ballot box. Preventing this legitimate democratic way of people's mandate is robbing the people of their rights and wrecking the country economy with wasteful military spending. 

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Nothing false about their campaign promises. All delivered. Which governments including the present do cost/benefit analysis that the previous government will have to do because you say so. Probably should start with this junta government analyzing the cost/benefits of buying the submarines and the tanks. 

 

I fully support the electorate deciding if they are better under specific government through the ballot box. Preventing this legitimate democratic way of people's mandate is robbing the people of their rights and wrecking the country economy with wasteful military spending. 

Nothing false about their campaign promises? Really? Did the country receive huge benefit from forcing the price of rice to rise, or was there just a huge waste of the people's resources? Did every schoolchild receive a tablet of the quality Yingluk displayed, lifting the quality of education, or did a select few get a piece of junk?  Are the poor better off after lifting the minimum wage, or did inflation erode any gains?

Having public service and/or independent auditors analyse campaign promises and policies works. But you would prefer the electorate to remain ignorant when they are being deceived, right?

[Eric Loh]

Just now, halloween said:

Nothing false about their campaign promises? Really? Did the country receive huge benefit from forcing the price of rice to rise, or was there just a huge waste of the people's resources? Did every schoolchild receive a tablet of the quality Yingluk displayed, lifting the quality of education, or did a select few get a piece of junk?  Are the poor better off after lifting the minimum wage, or did inflation erode any gains?

Having public service and/or independent auditors analyse campaign promises and policies works. But you would prefer the electorate to remain ignorant when they are being deceived, right?

You are lumping things together to make the argument. Campaign promises like the rice scheme, tablets and raising the minimum wages were campaign pledges and were executed. That the rice scheme failed due to poor forecasting of price and arrogance in thinking Thailand can control pricing through supply and demand was not campaign promise. The electorate will have to judge them if the tablets given to their children help them or did the minimum wage improve their life in the next election.  The electorate have sufficient intelligence to decide which government give them a better life and in the last decade, they chose Thaksin. A small minority of powerful people has no right to impose their rule over the majority.   

 

 

[jerojero]

The spree is ongoing! Hundreds of billions since May 2014. Speak against it to loudly and Art 44 will crush you.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

You are lumping things together to make the argument. Campaign promises like the rice scheme, tablets and raising the minimum wages were campaign pledges and were executed. That the rice scheme failed due to poor forecasting of price and arrogance in thinking Thailand can control pricing through supply and demand was not campaign promise. The electorate will have to judge them if the tablets given to their children help them or did the minimum wage improve their life in the next election.  The electorate have sufficient intelligence to decide which government give them a better life and in the last decade, they chose Thaksin. A small minority of powerful people has no right to impose their rule over the majority.   

 

 

I know you prefer the mushroom method of conducting elections - keep the voters in the dark and feed them BS. But for true democracy, one of the requirements is an INFORMED, and preferably educated, populace. Nobody deserves 4 years in office thanks to false promises and lies.

Why shouldn't the people know the rice scam would never work, despite PTP's promise it would? Why shouldn't they know that a quality tablet/child was simply unaffordable, or that simply raising wages doesn't increase wealth, BEFORE the election. Why shouldn't they know that the Shinawatras were lying to get elected, not to represent the people, but to enrich themselves? 

And even if they are elected, their criminal behaviour in office, their willful neglect of the interests of the nation in preference to self, fully justified their removal.

[Eric Loh]

37 minutes ago, halloween said:

I know you prefer the mushroom method of conducting elections - keep the voters in the dark and feed them BS. But for true democracy, one of the requirements is an INFORMED, and preferably educated, populace. Nobody deserves 4 years in office thanks to false promises and lies.

Why shouldn't the people know the rice scam would never work, despite PTP's promise it would? Why shouldn't they know that a quality tablet/child was simply unaffordable, or that simply raising wages doesn't increase wealth, BEFORE the election. Why shouldn't they know that the Shinawatras were lying to get elected, not to represent the people, but to enrich themselves? 

And even if they are elected, their criminal behaviour in office, their willful neglect of the interests of the nation in preference to self, fully justified their removal.

Spoken like a true bigoted junta apologist. 

[halloween]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Spoken like a true bigoted junta apologist. 

When you can't refute the argument, resort to insult. Policy evaluation is used in Oz, with no junta in sight. It lets us know when politicians are lying.

[debate101]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

The electorate believed their false campaign promises, that the rice scam was sustainable, that all school children would be given tablets to improve their education, and that they would be better off after the minimum wage was raised, amongst others. Would they have done the same if prior cost/benefit analysis had proved them to be unworkable?

I fully support financial analysis of campaign promises and government policy to prevent this election buying waste of public resources. It happens in Oz and it works well.

Yes they did, but they have to learn from their mistakes in order for the system to "grow up." Instead, we're back to its infancy--no rule of law, and power distorts all.

[robblok]

Actually we got a mechanism in our country that sorts out false campaign promises. Nothing undemocratic about it. It actually makes elections far more fair. I guess that is what the PTP lovers are afraid of. 

 

In my country election programs are given to an independent institute that calculates if they can be done in a certain economic situation. It would certainly have stopped the tablets and the rice program before it was even used. That would have meant no PTP in power .. so i get why the PTP supporters would not like this.

 

In my country they would have said that the budget was not big enough for the tablets unless this spec and certainly something as foolhardy as the rice program would have been scrapped. The World bank and others told the PTP it was not feasible  but they promised it anyway.. and we all know the many billions of loss it caused.

 

So there is nothing undemocratic about this (if done fair) to calculate election programs for economical feasibility. 

[candide]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

Actually we got a mechanism in our country that sorts out false campaign promises. Nothing undemocratic about it. It actually makes elections far more fair. I guess that is what the PTP lovers are afraid of. 

 

In my country election programs are given to an independent institute that calculates if they can be done in a certain economic situation. It would certainly have stopped the tablets and the rice program before it was even used. That would have meant no PTP in power .. so i get why the PTP supporters would not like this.

 

In my country they would have said that the budget was not big enough for the tablets unless this spec and certainly something as foolhardy as the rice program would have been scrapped. The World bank and others told the PTP it was not feasible  but they promised it anyway.. and we all know the many billions of loss it caused.

 

So there is nothing undemocratic about this (if done fair) to calculate election programs for economical feasibility. 

Except that there is no objective criteria (ex neoclassical economists and keynesian economists strongly desagree on the role and extent of public spending and budget deficit), and that in Thailand independent auditors are not independent, it depends on which political faction appoints them- same for the other so-called independent organisations.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

Except that there is no objective criteria (ex neoclassical economists and keynesian economists strongly desagree on the role and extent of public spending and budget deficit), and that in Thailand independent auditors are not independent, it depends on which political faction appoints them- same for the other so-called independent organisations.

It works in the Netherlands.. set agreed rules.. and it weeds out things like the PTP did.. I guess that is your problem, because in general they PTP wins because of outbidding the Democrats in what presents they give because the democrats are a bit more economically sound. 

 

In the Netherlands its done by  "centraal planbureau"  and has worked great.. its a great way to see if things that are promised are feasable. For sure the rice program would not have been that.. tablets would have shown it would not be high quality ones.. and tell me how well did those tablets work.. an other failure. 

 

So even if it works a bit less here it would still weed out all those fake promises.. and that would level the playing field and give rise to more quality in election programs. 

[candide]

37 minutes ago, robblok said:

It works in the Netherlands.. set agreed rules.. and it weeds out things like the PTP did.. I guess that is your problem, because in general they PTP wins because of outbidding the Democrats in what presents they give because the democrats are a bit more economically sound. 

 

In the Netherlands its done by  "centraal planbureau"  and has worked great.. its a great way to see if things that are promised are feasable. For sure the rice program would not have been that.. tablets would have shown it would not be high quality ones.. and tell me how well did those tablets work.. an other failure. 

 

So even if it works a bit less here it would still weed out all those fake promises.. and that would level the playing field and give rise to more quality in election programs. 

You assume that it will be done in the same way as in the Netherlands. If so, it may be beneficial for Thailand. I assume it will be done in the Thai way according to the preferences of a particular political faction. And it has to be put into perspective with other institutions in the new constitution: unlected senate, strategic committee, so called independent organisations, etc... all appointed by the same political faction. It is just one piece of a system in which appointed people have more power than elected people.

[scorecard]

16 hours ago, debate101 said:

That was their campaign promise. The electorate never agreed with Thaksin's removal, regardless of his corruption and abuse of power, and wanted to express that at the ballot box. That's essentially why they had to be disenfranchised.

 

Well there's a could of wild twists,

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Spoken like a true bigoted junta apologist. 

 

Well you did it again el; can't respond so you do a personal nasty attach on the poster.

[Eric Loh]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

When you can't refute the argument, resort to insult. Policy evaluation is used in Oz, with no junta in sight. It lets us know when politicians are lying.

I am referring to your insult of people who voted by calling them ignorant. You should have some respect for the common people who may be not as educated as you but they are much more intelligent than you think by voting for the party who brought them benefits and a better standard of living. 

 

I am not Aussie and I don't think policy evaluation used there have brought the desired government that all Aussie want. They wanted for the term to expire to show their displeasure. Do the Aussie politicians lie? You know better.

 

As for the cost benefit analyse, it still based on certain assumptions and when the assumptions go awry, it is just a waste of paper like 5 years or 10 years plan. 

 

If you feel that I insulted you, I apologize. 

[Becker]

6 hours ago, halloween said:

They were elected by offering unsustainable electoral bribes, just what this measure is intended to stop. You don't deny that they were acting in the interest of their owner, you can only make false claim - the junta will remove themselves.

Again:

Whose interests do you think the junta represent.

 

PS. The junta's new constitution (if it's ever completed) aims to keep them in power forever.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Becker

[Smarter Than You]

22 hours ago, halloween said:

What makes you think the last elected government was representing the public's interest? They were willing to promise unsustainable policies to get themselves elected, and then acted in the interest of the criminal that paid, directed and owned them. 

So your point is ..... two wrongs make a right??

[Smarter Than You]

7 hours ago, halloween said:

I know you prefer the mushroom method of conducting elections - keep the voters in the dark and feed them BS. But for true democracy, one of the requirements is an INFORMED, and preferably educated, populace. Nobody deserves 4 years in office thanks to false promises and lies.

Why shouldn't the people know the rice scam would never work, despite PTP's promise it would? Why shouldn't they know that a quality tablet/child was simply unaffordable, or that simply raising wages doesn't increase wealth, BEFORE the election. Why shouldn't they know that the Shinawatras were lying to get elected, not to represent the people, but to enrich themselves? 

And even if they are elected, their criminal behaviour in office, their willful neglect of the interests of the nation in preference to self, fully justified their removal.

Why shouldn't, why shouldn't, why shouldn't ....

 

What exactly is the role of the opposition political parties in elections and in parliament??

Seems to me your problem lies with the performance of Abhisit and the Democrats and not with PTP

 

[Smarter Than You]

6 hours ago, halloween said:

When you can't refute the argument, resort to insult. Policy evaluation is used in Oz, with no junta in sight. It lets us know when politicians are lying.

When you can't refute the argument, start regurgitating anti-PTP and anti-democracy nonsensical propaganda falsehoods.

 

The only reason you know anything about any misdeeds by Australian politicians is because the opposition party does it job, not because of some BS policy evaluation process.

[Smarter Than You]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

It works in the Netherlands.. set agreed rules.. and it weeds out things like the PTP did.. I guess that is your problem, because in general they PTP wins because of outbidding the Democrats in what presents they give because the democrats are a bit more economically sound. 

 

In the Netherlands its done by  "centraal planbureau"  and has worked great.. its a great way to see if things that are promised are feasable. For sure the rice program would not have been that.. tablets would have shown it would not be high quality ones.. and tell me how well did those tablets work.. an other failure. 

 

So even if it works a bit less here it would still weed out all those fake promises.. and that would level the playing field and give rise to more quality in election programs. 

The Junta and its backers are not doing this to "weed out fake promises", they are doing to prevent future governments from being able to spend government revenue on policies that aid the poorest Thais (predominantly in the north), that is all. Submarines good, 30B health care bad - says it all really.

[wakeupplease]

Independent here, you are joking of course nothing is or has been for years.

 

Auditor general

 

One I see still has not done her prison time or ever will because of the P word and that is not buy the Tman is it?