Cabinet audio system: questions that need answers

Any government, whether it comes to power by elections or by military coup, needs to make its national budget spending accountable to those who foot the bill – taxpayers. All government expenditure must be transparent, reasonable and responsible.

Nobody voted for the government under Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, but that does not mean his administration can escape scrutiny.

Last week, Government House spent Bt69 million on installing an audio system to facilitate Cabinet and other meetings at the Office of the Prime Minister building. The system comprises lots of equipment but the most controversial are its microphones, each of which cost taxpayers a reported Bt145,000.

PM’s Office minister ML Panadda Diskul unveiled the audio system before the media, explaining that it was as high-tech as the one used by the White House in Washington. The Bosch Conference System would modernise Thai Cabinet meetings and secure them from snooping, he said. Members of the media were shown the video screens attached to the Bosch microphones that allow users to monitor closed-circuit video. Panadda said he was proud the rooms’ communication facilities were now state-of-the-art, complementing the newly renovated Naree Samosorn Building, which is ready to welcome foreign dignitaries. He even led senior officials and media representatives on a tour of the building as it stood ready to host the new Cabinet.

However, Panadda did not explain why each minister needed to watch a CCTV monitor while meeting with the prime minister.

Journalists and social media users quickly began asking why the microphone is so expensive. Then a strange thing happened: the market price of the microphone as listed on the maker’s website shot up overnight from Bt99,000 to Bt199,000.

Questioned about the communication system’s cost, Panadda, who has campaigned for anti-corruption and transparency in government procurements, said he was not responsible for the project, which came under the director general of the Department of Public Works and Town and Country Planning. This explanation raised further questions. Rooms in the Government House compound are supposed to be under the supervision of the Prime Minister’s Office minister. Panadda holds that role in tandem with the post of Permanent Secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office. Although the renovation of Government House was outsourced to another agency, the work was supposed to be done under the supervision of the PM’s Office. Why then did the minister and permanent secretary in charge of this office say he knew nothing about it?

Also strange is the Department of Public Work’s claim that the authorities’ had not yet decided to complete the purchase of the communication system and that the price was negotiable. But this explanation was made after the system had been installed and questions raised about its price and procurement. How could the installation take place before the purchase was completed?

Most people would recognise a legitimate need for microphones during Cabinet meetings. The spacious meeting room accommodates 34-35 persons and communicating without the aid of amplification might be difficult. Perhaps Prime Minister Prayuth speaks loud enough to be heard, but others among his ministerial staff might have problems.

 The big question is not whether the Cabinet needs such a system, but why it needs to be so sophisticated and expensive. Why, for instance, do ministers in the same room need the aid of video to communicate with one another?

Other questions that need to be answered by the government, not just Panadda, concern the procurement process. Why was the Cabinet sound system acquired through a special procurement? Why was the price apparently higher than the market price? Who supplied the system, and do they have any links to the protest campaign that backed the coup against the previous government?