The case of a deputy House speaker using the entertainment budget to treat parliament maids to moo krata (barbecued pork buffet) throws much-needed light on how elected lawmakers and officials spend position perks financed by taxpayers. The case is a reminder that a better mechanism is needed to monitor how these lawmakers spend taxpayers' money.
Deputy House speaker Padipat Suntiphada, a Move Forward Party MP from Phitsanulok, is in hot water after reportedly forking out over 90,000 baht from the entertainment budget agreed by parliament to treat 370 maids to an all-you-can-eat buffet last Friday.
Mr Padipat denied accusations that he had used the cash to promote his own popularity. He proudly explained that he just wanted to listen to the opinions of the maids and promote equality.
While the deputy House speaker's explanation sounds righteous, political observers have nevertheless wondered aloud whether the spending was consistent with the purposes of "receiving parliamentary guests" and "promoting politics and upholding the dignified image of parliament".
Some observers, such as former election commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, went so far as to urge Mr Padipat to return the money right away or risk a criminal charge of "misuse", which carries a hefty penalty.
Activist Srisuwan Janya didn't waste a second either as he launched a petition of his own with the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission to look into the case. While the moo krata partygate can be treated as a political faux pas, it is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is an open secret that high-ranking elected politicians -- presidents and deputies of the lower and upper Houses, MPs and senators, and executives of independent bodies such as the Constitutional Court, Election Commission and National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission receive lavish perks. These can include generous allowances that are able to cover the costs of multiple social events in the name of their work.
Evidently, these people work to serve the public, and they represent the country. Therefore, it is justifiable that they should receive comfortable travel packages and a budget to impress work-related guests.
Nevertheless, there are numerous reports of generals in the armed forces receiving transport costs and enjoying the use of chauffeur-driven luxury vehicles, apparently without a suitably worthy list of achievements to warrant such perks.
The Anti-Corruption Organization of Thailand's secretary-general, Mana Nimitmongkol, lamented that agencies often hide budgetary spending details and refuse to comply when the ACT asks them to itemise spending.
Parliament itself is a glaring example. The lower House in 2020 refused to reveal the names of 113 former MPs from the previous government who took Nok Air flights worth 3.5 million baht over a 10-year period but had yet to pay for them. Instead, the airline was told to tackle the former lawmakers individually to get the money.
It can only be hoped that new House speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha and Mr Padipat, who both promised to uphold and promote transparency in the lower House when they accepted their positions, can create a mechanism to let the public keep track of how taxpayers' money is spent. Let's hope that in the end, we will be able to look back on "moo krata partygate" as the start of a new era of transparency.