Bangkok: Sirikanya Tansakul, a Member of Parliament and Deputy Leader of the People's Party, has filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, urging an investigation into what she claims is the illegal use of 18.8 billion baht from the energy crisis loan to subsidize welfare cards for low-income individuals. She argues that this action violates fiscal discipline and could set a concerning precedent, potentially leading to increased public debt.
According to Thai News Agency, Sirikanya submitted a letter to the Ombudsman requesting the Administrative Court to examine whether the projects funded under the 400 billion baht loan decree, specifically the 18.8 billion baht project for supporting low-income earners through the state welfare card, are legally compliant. She contends that the use of borrowed funds for this purpose is unlawful, as these funds were intended to address the energy crisis and not for regular budget expenditures.
Sirikanya clarifies that the project is distinct from the "Thai Helps Thai Plus" initiative, which includes a new 700 baht top-up during the energy crisis. She asserts that the 18.8 billion baht allocated is for existing welfare benefits that the state welfare cardholders are already entitled to, highlighting that the government could use the normal budget, which is deemed insufficient, rather than resorting to borrowed funds intended for crisis alleviation.
Section 5 of the Emergency Decree, Sirikanya notes, specifies that borrowed funds should be used to assist those affected by the energy crisis, not for routine circumstances. The Emergency Decree's rationale insists that borrowed funds are only appropriate when regular budget allocations are unavailable and there is an urgent need, a condition not met in this situation according to the Ministry of Finance's statements.
Sirikanya also mentions that the opposition coalition has approached the Constitutional Court to determine whether the Emergency Decree was properly issued under the Constitution, with the court accepting the case. The Cabinet has submitted a clarification, which the opposition plans to counter.
The complaint seeks to ensure the loan money isn't used for public welfare programs, asserting that the investigation won't halt payments already made under the welfare card scheme. Sirikanya suggests alternative funding options, such as the Budget Transfer Act or emergency reserve funds, to maintain the project's continuation without violating fiscal discipline.
Emphasizing the risks of setting a dangerous precedent, Sirikanya warns that using borrowed money for regular expenditures can lead to excessive borrowing and increased public debt. She argues that the annual budget often exceeds parliamentary approvals, and misuse of borrowed funds could cause unnecessary financial burdens on the nation.
Sirikanya concludes that while the government argues that welfare card recipients are affected by the energy crisis, the benefits provided are not new and thus don't meet the criteria for using borrowed funds under the Emergency Decree. Without explicit provisions for using borrowed funds in normal budget scenarios, such use remains unjustified.