As Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha's government pushes for the Thai-Sino high-speed train project by invoking special powers under Section 44, questions over transparency and possible breaches of ethics have come to the fore.
With the use of this special section under the interim charter, the regime can bypass relevant laws seen as stumbling blocks that hinder the project's progress. Of the total nine laws that will be sidestepped, seven were promulgated to ensure transparency and fairness in state procurement and two others involve the employment of foreigners in the project.
It's ironic that a government that vowed to stick to accountability, transparency and good governance in all state projects from the first day it took office would ignore legislation to accommodate Chinese operators. Let's not forget that this very government suspended several state officials and politicians from duty for failing to comply with those seven laws. If my memory serves me right, Gen Prayut always said everyone in the country falls under the same laws.
Soonruth Bunyamanee is deputy editor, Bangkok Post..
The regime claims this high-speed train project has been developed under government-to-government (G2G) initiatives, for which there is no bidding process, and China is to be granted the train system development.
But the fact is the budget for the Bangkok-Nakhon Ratchasima rail project, which accounts for some 179 billion baht, is tax money. Should tax payers not be guaranteed their money be used transparently? The bypassed laws were the tools to ensure the transparency of expenditure.
We appreciate the regime's assurances that Thai engineers and architects will be allowed to take part in the project development for the sake of technological absorption and transfer.
But the issue of ethics and transparency is equally -- if not more -- important.
The invocation of Section 44 prompts some people to compare the Prayut project to the one proposed by the Yingluck Shinawatra administration.
Like it or not, it's obvious the project proposed under the Yingluck government, which encompassed the same 256-kilometre route, seemed far better in terms of efficiency and transparency.
The Yingluck version, as handled by former transport minister Chadchart Sittipunt, would have cost 140 billion baht, against Hen Prayut's 179 billion. Under the Yingluck administration, the rail track was included in a mega-infrastructure development package and proposed to parliament for consideration.
As the Yingluck government lost the trust of the middle class, its 2-trillion-baht loan bill to finance the package was shot down by the Constitutional Court.
Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand (ACT) director Mana Nimitmongkol questioned through a Facebook post the government's waiving of the anti-hoarding law for this project. He said hoarding activities in state procurements, if allowed to happen, are considered severe corruption.
The difference between the train project of this government and that of Yingluck's is that the previous administration's project was open to all legal examination mechanisms and underwent international bidding, which would provide the country with the best offer.
Mr Mana pointed out that major transport infrastructure projects need thorough study and careful management for the sake of transparency and long-term worthiness.
I have tried to understand why the government decided to use its special powers to overrule nine laws to push the project, and have found the move acceptable in some aspects.
Following the 2014 coup, Thailand found itself isolated by Western countries while China, in an attempt to expand its influence in Asean and fill the gap left by the United States, showed a friendlier response to the political change. As a result, the Prayut government has become more dependent on Beijing.
The Prayut government granted the whole 615-km Bangkok-Nong Khai rail project to China in late 2014.
However, negotiating the project has not been as friendly as expected. The project was delayed by almost three years. Key hurdles included China's demand to hold land rights along the route for commercial purposes, which was rejected by Thailand. China also turned down Thailand's request to bring down the interest rate to help finance the project. Another issue that hindered the project is the issuing of professional licences for 300 Chinese engineers working on the project.
This project was supposed to have been scrapped due to failed negotiations. It was retained only because the regime wants to keep it as a symbol of Thai-Chinese cooperation. The government decided to finance the project using the national budget and to shorten the route to Bangkok-Nakhon Ratchasima during the first stage. China will carry out some construction works, and the selling of equipment, materials, trains and signalling systems for the project.
What is touted as Thai-Sino cooperation exists only in name. In practice, it is tantamount to Thailand hiring Chinese operators to develop a system at a high cost, especially compared to prices international bidding would (and have) yielded.
It is believed the Prayut government has maintained this project in an effort to please China, hoping that Thailand will remain on Beijing's radar and can benefit from China's One Belt, One Road initiative, as well as other regional economic development schemes.
It may seem justifiable for the regime to accelerate the project. But it is necessary that the regime restores trust among citizens, particularly to ensure transparency and accountability when the laws that govern transparency are voided.