Budget malpractice will lead to lifetime ban

The resolution, which is seen as unprecedented, is intended to prevent malpractice in connection with state budgets among parliamentarians as well as Cabinet members. 

Miscreants would be removed from office and have to repay the money spent in relation to the project or projects they had voted for, said Udom Rathamarit, the CDC spokesman. 

If the malpractice concerned a particular Cabinet member, the whole Cabinet could be subject to removal from office as well.

Udom said the charter drafters had also agreed that any annual state-budget expenditure should be in accordance with relevant laws, to ensure that it would not cause financial damage to the country. 

There would therefore be an organic law on “the principles of financial discipline” to regulate government spending, he added. 

The CDC’s charter draft review ran into a fifth day, which saw the committee considering a crucial section concerning parliamentary elements, as well as other issues regarding independent organisations. 

Regarding the selection of a prime minister under the new charter, the CDC resolved that he or she must win a majority among the House of Representatives’ 500 members, or the caretaker government would continue to be in charge, the spokesman said.

Udom did not confirm when the reselection process could take place in the event of no candidate gaining more than 250 votes in the House. 

Whether or not the caretaker government would have full authority, including that flowing from the enforcement of Article 44 as under the current government, would be stipulated in the provisions, he said.

However, he added: “Would the House members be so divided that they could not choose the PM? In politics, people [politicians] must talk at a certain level.”

Udom said a prime minister must be picked from the three-candidate lists submitted to the Election Commission before a general election.

Political parties that failed to come up with a list in the first place would not be eligible to propose any candidate afterwards, while those that win less than 25 seats – or 5 per cent of the total number of MPs – would not be able to use their lists either, he explained.

The prime minister would be allowed serve no more than eight consecutive years in office, although after a pause, he or she would be eligible to run for the top government job again, he said.

Regarding the Cabinet, if found to be involved in corruption, the member in question would also be banned for life from politics, Udom stressed. 

The CDC agreed that the Cabinet would comprise 36 members, including the prime minister. 

Cabinet members would be subject to the same qualifications as MPs, except that they must not be younger than 35. 

Should they be disqualified, they would not be able resume a Cabinet position for the next two years.

The CDC also resolved that the executive branch’s scrutiny could be done through interpellation, he said. 

Also, a minimum of one-fifth of House members could once a year propose a motion of no confidence against a minister or the whole Cabinet, and such a motion would only be successful if more than half of the overall House members agreed, Udom said.

A minimum of one-fifth of MPs could also open a debate in the House and question one or more members of the Cabinet.

Government policies, meanwhile, must be tabled in the House within 15 days of a Cabinet taking office. 

They must be in accordance with constitutional clauses on state duties, directive principles of fundamental state policies, national strategies, and the state’s financial status, the spokesman said.

Apart from these issues, the drafters resolved that governmental and independent agencies could inspect organic laws related to them before they were enacted, in addition to approval by Parliament and the Constitutional Court.

If the bills could possibly cause difficulties for an agency’s work, it could submit a proposal to the prime minister, who would forward the case to the Constitutional Court for a ruling.