Article 44 to be used to spur high-speed rail project

[pookiki]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

If you can't argue the topic, change it. Firstly, purchase of military weapons isn't corruption in itself - if you have proof there is corruption involved please present it. Secondly, Thailand's military spending as of 2016 was 1.45% of GDP, lower than the world average of 2.2%. Would you like to nominate your home country for a comparison, or would that be uncomfortable for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

Mr. Halloween,

 

Let me address a number of points:

 

1. You argued for this project by raising a completely non-related issue of 'electoral bribes'.  How that fits in with public spending for infrastructure projects is a bit beyond me.

2. As I noted on a post about the purchase of the APCs, I believe that excessive spending on military weapons is the highest form of corruption - irrespective of the country.  The junta is in charge and their spending on these items is not subject to any meaningful discussion or objection. The have an obvious conflict of interest and bias.  Making it a GDP issue is irrelevant when Thailand's need for such armaments, especially submarines, is not warranted as a matter of national security. And if you think such purchases will occur with out any money passing under the table, I think you are quite naive of Thailand or any other country for that matter.

3. If you were observant of my original post and my second post, there was nothing in either that could be construed as an objection to the project, per se.  In my first post, I objected to the use of Article 44 and said that the issues raised by the project should be raised by passing legislation. I am sure you are aware of the existence of the NLA.  While it is an obvious junta puppet organization, it does provide a bit more political space in discussing issues than does the mysterious inner workings of Prayuth's cranial synapses.  In the second post, I though the post was good because it pointed out that there had been no effort to perform a cost/benefit analysis for the Thai people to consider.  I certainly realize that many infrastructure projects run on a deficit but should such information be withheld from the Thai people.

 

So let me run it down for you based on each point raised in the news article.

 

A) Chinese engineers and architects - This issue should be raised and debated in the NLA with respect to the specific expertise needed to work on such projects.  If, in fact, Thai engineers and architects lack the expertise, then there should be a provision to see that an adequate number of Thai architects and engineers are allowed to train on the project.

Forest and farm lands - If Thai laws governing the use of eminent domain are lacking to address such infrastructure projects, the law should be amended and debated with sufficient protection to see that those adversely affected are properly compensated at fair market value.  I was under the impression, maybe mistakenly,  that national parks were crown lands.  If so, then this issue could be resolved by Royal decree.

C) Government to government agreements on projects or the use of FDI should be exempt from the normal 'bidding' and 'pricing' process.  Amend the law, debate it and ensure transparency in the allocation of public funds for the project. Require a cost/benefit analysis.

D) Procurement - amend the law to exempt government to government agreements on projects or the use of FDI but insure transparency.

 

All of the above would be much preferable, in my view, than the ad hoc use of Article 44 which only exacerbates any nuance of democracy or participation by Thai citizens. 

 

If you still think this is irrational, throw your best pumpkin.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, pookiki said:

Mr. Halloween,

 

Let me address a number of points:

 

1. You argued for this project by raising a completely non-related issue of 'electoral bribes'.  How that fits in with public spending for infrastructure projects is a bit beyond me.

2. As I noted on a post about the purchase of the APCs, I believe that excessive spending on military weapons is the highest form of corruption - irrespective of the country.  The junta is in charge and their spending on these items is not subject to any meaningful discussion or objection. The have an obvious conflict of interest and bias.  Making it a GDP issue is irrelevant when Thailand's need for such armaments, especially submarines, is not warranted as a matter of national security. And if you think such purchases will occur with out any money passing under the table, I think you are quite naive of Thailand or any other country for that matter.

3. If you were observant of my original post and my second post, there was nothing in either that could be construed as an objection to the project, per se.  In my first post, I objected to the use of Article 44 and said that the issues raised by the project should be raised by passing legislation. I am sure you are aware of the existence of the NLA.  While it is an obvious junta puppet organization, it does provide a bit more political space in discussing issues than does the mysterious inner workings of Prayuth's cranial synapses.  In the second post, I though the post was good because it pointed out that there had been no effort to perform a cost/benefit analysis for the Thai people to consider.  I certainly realize that many infrastructure projects run on a deficit but should such information be withheld from the Thai people.

 

So let me run it down for you based on each point raised in the news article.

 

A) Chinese engineers and architects - This issue should be raised and debated in the NLA with respect to the specific expertise needed to work on such projects.  If, in fact, Thai engineers and architects lack the expertise, then there should be a provision to see that an adequate number of Thai architects and engineers are allowed to train on the project.

Forest and farm lands - If Thai laws governing the use of eminent domain are lacking to address such infrastructure projects, the law should be amended and debated with sufficient protection to see that those adversely affected are properly compensated at fair market value.  I was under the impression, maybe mistakenly,  that national parks were crown lands.  If so, then this issue could be resolved by Royal decree.

C) Government to government agreements on projects or the use of FDI should be exempt from the normal 'bidding' and 'pricing' process.  Amend the law, debate it and ensure transparency in the allocation of public funds for the project. Require a cost/benefit analysis.

D) Procurement - amend the law to exempt government to government agreements on projects or the use of FDI but insure transparency.

 

All of the above would be much preferable, in my view, than the ad hoc use of Article 44 which only exacerbates any nuance of democracy or participation by Thai citizens. 

 

If you still think this is irrational, throw your best pumpkin.

1/ it was argued that this project was a waste of money. My point was it is a much better use of money than electoral bribes.

2/ you don't like military spending, tough TIT. You suspect corruption without proof, but with bias.

3/ you don't object to the project, but don't care if it takes years (it already has) before it gets approval. Others do care, hence S44.

 

They are planning on building a Chinese railway, with experienced Chinese engineers, purchasing materials from the same companies that have supplied the rest of the Chinese railway system. Does that need a ball of red tape? And what leads you to believe that the whole deal won't be transparent, other than your own expressed bias against this government?

[pookiki]

7 hours ago, halloween said:

1/ it was argued that this project was a waste of money. My point was it is a much better use of money than electoral bribes.

2/ you don't like military spending, tough TIT. You suspect corruption without proof, but with bias.

3/ you don't object to the project, but don't care if it takes years (it already has) before it gets approval. Others do care, hence S44.

 

They are planning on building a Chinese railway, with experienced Chinese engineers, purchasing materials from the same companies that have supplied the rest of the Chinese railway system. Does that need a ball of red tape? And what leads you to believe that the whole deal won't be transparent, other than your own expressed bias against this government?

Just as a matter of interest - and for the record, would you support a dictatorial regime in your home country to dispense with all the 'red tape' that serves to protect the interests of the 'people' and their participation in democratic decision making process?  Transparency does not guarantee a process of participatory democracy to which you seem to be unalterably opposed.

[Ricardo]

One should perhaps remember that the previous elected-administration was also in-their-time very keen, to push ahead rapidly with this Chinese rail-project, without full & proper financial-oversight by Parliament, preferring to finance it off-the-books.

 

So participatory democracy does not necessarily guarantee transparency, either.

 

Nothing to do with juntas or dictatorial regimes, more to do with normal Thai political/business practices, and to be questioned on those grounds instead.

[shanesox]

Ah the power of the tank and the soldiers on your side


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect