As the Constitutional Court yesterday accepted a request by House Speaker Chuan Leekpai to rule on the validity of the 2020 budget bill, the fate of public spending and investment now hang in the balance, thanks to proxy voting by government coalition MPs which has put the legality of the bill in question.
When the bill was passed on Jan 11, two Bhumjaithai MPs -- Chalong Therdwiraong and Natee Ratchakitprakarn -- voted in favour of the bill without being present in the House. Video footage showed their fellow MPs, Prim Pooncharoen of the Palang Pracharath Party and Somboon Zarum of Bhumjaithai, using their electronic voting cards to vote on their behalf.
Such proxy voting displayed their completely irresponsible behaviour. Instead of understanding their responsibility in voting for this important 3.2-trillion-baht bill -- which includes a sum of more than 600 billion baht for public investment aimed at stimulating domestic economic growth -- two MPs chose to be absent during the vote, while the other two engaged in proxy voting. Their actions could result in a delay in the disbursement of funds for the 2020 fiscal year. It could even result in the nullification of the bill, if the court rules that the proxy votes render the process invalid. Either outcome will worsen the country's already sluggish economy.
Ordinary people have felt the pinch of the economic slowdown during the past year. Many have complained about the bad economy and having less money in their wallets. The National Economic and Social Development Council said that Thailand's real economic growth last year was only 2.6%, which is lower than its previous estimation. A key factor is the 2% contraction in the export sector last year compared to the year before.
The export sector is the lifeblood of Thai economy. It accounts for 70% of the country's GDP. A contraction will thus result in a reduction in investment and domestic consumption.
During such a period of export contraction, the only measure typically available to a government is the disbursement of public investment budgets -- another lifeline for the Thai economy. If the 600-billion-baht investment budget cannot be disbursed, this lifeline is clogged and the economy becomes partially paralysed. Without financial injection, small and major contractors will not have the money to buy raw materials and hire workers. This will reduce household consumption.
Didn't the "honourable" absent and proxy-voting MPs realise that the budget bill is important for the country's economy, especially during a time of economic slowdown? Didn't they know the bill was due to come into effect on Oct 1 last year, but was hampered by the lengthy government installation and legislative process and thus has been delayed for over four months? Under these circumstances, even a delay of one more week should not be accepted, especially if it is caused by such irresponsible actions.
The MPs failed to realise that this bill is placed high on the government's and the country's priority lists.
They should have been aware that there was a precedent set by the Constitutional Court on proxy voting in the case of the 2.2-trillion-baht loan bill for infrastructure development projects sponsored by the Yingluck Shinawatra government in 2014. The court ruled that the bill was unconstitutional due to proxy voting by a government party MP and that the content of the bill violated the charter's provisions on fiscal and budget affairs.
While the Constitutional Court is yet to rule on the validity of the 2020 budget bill, a delay has already taken place. Earlier, the Finance Ministry had anticipated to have the bill come into effect next month, even though this means a five-month delay, which is a rare incident over the past decades. Many are now holding their breath, wondering whether this bill will suffer the same fate as the loan bill submitted by the Yingluck government.
If the 2020 budget bill is ruled invalid, it is uncertain whether the entire process will have to be reset to square one or whether this government can maintain its legitimacy to stay in office.
How about those absent MPs and those MPs who voted on their behalf? Given that they are regarded as state officials, does this not mean Section 157 of the Criminal Code on malfeasance by state officials can be applied to them?
House Speaker Chuan Leekpai once said: "Once a democracy becomes inefficient, people will have the tendency to prefer a dictatorship, which can get things done quickly. That will be a disaster. We must make this [democratic] rule as efficient as possible."
I would like to add that if a democracy becomes inefficient, the economy will also suffer. As a result, the Thai economy will go through the same old vicious cycle of widespread poverty in rural areas, widening inequality, rampant corruption and military coups.
With the persistence of such vicious cycles, Thailand's economy will continue to take a backward step. And unfortunately, we simply cannot predict just how big the backward step will be.