Thailand desperately needs to upgrade its rail system. Nobody can refute that. Yet public opinion is mixed on parliament's endorsement of the government's mammoth borrowing plan.
The plan aims to borrow and invest 2 trillion baht over the next seven years to overhaul the railway system.
However, it's also undeniable that our country has a poor record of planning and implementing major projects.
For example, the initiative to build Suvarnabhumi International Airport can be traced back 56 years, but it was shelved until 1991 when the government finally decided to start building it. And then it took another 15 years to complete it, finally opening in 2006.
Suvarnabhumi is one of the country's most scandalous investments. Allegations against it include a lack of transparency in the bidding process, the controversial design of the terminal lounge, runway construction, dubious procurement of suspected interior equipment, and the CTX bomb scanner scandal. Nobody was held to account on any of those fronts.
Despite the huge investment, it took six years for Suvarnabhumi, the country's gateway airport, to sort out a plethora of problems such as overcrowding, long immigration queues and delayed departures and arrivals. A new runway for the airport is now also overdue.
The railway system, meanwhile, has been overlooked by all previous governments despite the demands for upgrades by exporters and those who want to make the country a regional commerce and manufacturing hub.
We perform poorly when it comes to planning for the future.
A more efficient rail system could significantly reduce business and logistics costs within Asean. Probably more importantly, better transportation networks between provinces would improve business and lifestyle opportunities for people.
The government's tentative investment plan says around 80% of the 2-trillion-baht loan would be earmarked for the rail sector. Half of that would be for building the country's first-ever high-speed train network _ 23% on dual-track railway and 30% on two more Bangkok mass transit routes.
This is the first long-term policy attempt to strengthen the country's foundations. It marks a departure from short-term policies aimed at winning an election, that bog the country down.
I want to fully support this attempt. But, like many others, I can't.
The massive debt aside, we know little about who decided on the budget allocations for each type of transport, the routes and the costs. The only explanation the government has given is the projects are from past schemes that were never implemented. But we must know who made the choices, why the choices were made and what other options we have.
I have no problem with the dual-track railway. It's necessary to improve logistics efficiency. What is problematic is the four high-speed trains which receive the highest investment budget. How much will it cost to operate those four routes?
The high-speed routes will surely boost tourism and travel in the provinces, but are they worth it? Are there more cost-effective ways to attain the same goals?
The opposition Democrat Party's key argument is that the 2-trillion-baht sum is an unnecessary, extra-budgetary loan. They say parliament won't be allowed to vet the investments. The opposition has also argued for private-public joint ventures to offset the borrowing costs.
Some academics have also pointed out the lack of feasibility studies for the projects under the scheme, meaning the public will be unable to know their financial burden or consequences. The new rail system must benefit everybody, not just a handful of business groups.
The government, however, refuses to say if it will collect a capital gains tax from the property developers and landlords who will benefit from the increase in the value of their land due to the train networks.
The government insists the extra-budgetary loan will help centralise the management of construction contracts, making the whole process more efficient.
But this centralisation of decision-making also denies the public the ability to keep tabs on the projects to prevent corruption _ a valid concern given the government's poor track record in the rice pledging scheme and the 350-billion-baht water system management project.
The 2-trillion-baht borrowing bill has won parliamentary approval, but it has not gained the public's trust.
The taxpayers have a duty to monitor the procurement and bidding process to ensure the money goes into the badly needed rail upgrades, and doesn't end up in politicians' pockets.
Parista Yuthamanop is Senior Economics Reporter, Bangkok Post.