Bt2-tn loans bill needs real scrutiny

Debate on the so-called Bt2-trilllion loans bill is expected to be heated as neither side will pull any punches during the House meeting.
But the loan bill debate should not become just a political game, with each side trying to seek political advantage and wanting to frame the other.
On the contrary, the debate should focus on checking the scope of the projects and the transparency of their spending requirements in the future – because the bill would allow the government to borrow money for nearly 10 years and the debt liability would be as long as 50 years. So the bill would create long-term debt liability and Bt3 trillion in interest for future Thais to repay.
All sides agree Thailand’s transport infrastructure needs to be developed for the country’s progress. But it’s also vital to challenge the calls for the bill’s passage that don’t question other factors.
The government’s plan to seek the loans will be made through irregular channels because the loans will not be on the government’s budget sheet. This has led to concerns on whether the spending will be effectively monitored. If the loans were presented in the normal budget bill, all projects would be rigorously checked as the budget bill would be scrutinised as per the Constitution.
Article 168 of the Constitution states that MPs, senators and members of budget-bill vetting panels cannot make changes to the bill to give themselves a say in the planned spending.
This is intended to keep MPs and senators from amending budget bills to draw funds to their provinces, as has occurred in the past. Since the Bt2-trillion bill is not a budget bill, MPs may have a chance to channel some of the loans to finance projects in their provinces.
Worse still, enactment of the loans bill would violate a law enacted by the Thaksin Shinawatra government set a cap on public debt at 10 per cent of annual expenditure. So, the Pheu Thai government would destroy a principle created by its own boss.
Moreover, for more than half the projects, the government has simply dreamed them up without any concrete basis – they remain at the conceptual level. Most have not been approved by Cabinet or passed environment impact assessments and health impact checks, and no discussion has been held with people likely to be affected. All these steps are required by the law.
And it’s doubtful whether some of the projects would be worth the investment. Would high-speed trains, for example, attract enough users?
As a result, some observers wonder why the government is rushing to implement these projects. Were these transport infrastructure projects the government’s top priority after it took office?
It is believed that if the government successfully implements the projects, it will receive money and popularity. This is because the lack of an effective check and balance mechanism would allow loans to be siphoned. The government would earn kudos merely for proposing them, even though they’ll take a long time to complete.
Political gain for certain individuals could be the main reason the government is rushing to seek this massive loan and implement these projects.