Budget Bill passes as Democrats cry foul

He said the Opposition wanted to know if the government spent that massive amount of money efficiently and with transparency, but the Pheu Thai Party spokesman showed an “intelligence shortfall” by saying the House was looking at fiscal budget bills for 2013, so why were they scrutinising the 2012 budget?

Chavanond said the government sought additional funds for flood rehabilitation and prevention in the 2013 budget but refused to give details in documents to show if this year’s budget was spent efficiently. 

“I believe this is to open loopholes for corruption in flood prevention projects. The government is planning to seek an additional Bt350 billion for the [same] purpose.”

The spokesman said Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had assigned a minister with a tainted record to be in charge of the Bt350 billion in loans for flood projects. He said the National Counter Corruption Commission had accused Science Minister Plodprasob Surassawadee of graft, and public prosecutors had decided to prosecute him over irregularities that took place when he served as Natural Resources and Environment Minister. 

“The PM must change the person who handles this huge fund. Actually, there should not be ministers facing corruption charges in the Cabinet at all,” he said.

Chavanond also questioned Deputy Agriculture Minister Natthawut Saikua over his plan to shore up rubber prices by reducing rubber plantations and exports. “If 100,000 rai of rubber plantation has to be felled, what can rubber farmers live on? It takes seven years for rubber to mature. What would the minister do with the rubber which does not get to export if he wants to reduce exports by 150,000 tonnes?” 

He also asked Natthawut why he asked for an additional Bt1.5 billion in funds when he wants farmers to fell their rubber trees and reduce exports. “More funds would mean a loophole for corruption by politicians and traders, who store rubber with their go-downs.”

In regard to the rice-pledging scheme, Chavanond said the public and private sectors and academics believed the scheme created corruption, but the government tried to claim that growers, sellers or millers were involved, not authorities or politicians. 

The Thailand Development Research Institute had estimated that only 17-20 per cent of Bt260 billion the government requested would reach farmers and that 80 per cent or Bt200 billion would fall into the hands of politicians and those involved in the rice scheme. 

The project would destroy the country’s economic and agricultural structure.

“If this project is really good for farmers, why have farmers’ debts risen by 5 per cent even though the government also issued a debt moratorium?” he asked.

Statistics by the University of the Thai Chamber Of Commerce showed that farmers’ household debts rose by 3-5 per cent from Bt103,000 to Bt110,000, he said.

Meanwhile, Bangkok MP Sansern Samalapa  will today call a press conference to reveal figures on the Oil Fund. 

Chavanond said whenever the Oil Fund was in the red, it meant the government used the fund to support fuel prices domestically. That was why LPG and NGV prices were not high and the public could enjoy relatively cheap fuel prices. But under the current government the Oil Fund was in the red and both LPG and NGV were expensive. 

“If they float LPG, the Oil Fund will also be in the red, so does that mean the government sought Bt20 billion in loans to support the private sector?’’ he asked.

Meanwhile, Senator Suradej Jiratticharoen (Prachin Buri), secretary to the House Special Committee on the Budget Bill, said the Senate was likely to meet on Sept 3-4 to debate the bill. He said the Senate, which has held parallel meetings to scrutinise the Budget Bill, found that the allocations were not transparent.