The annual budget bill has been a perennial sore point for all administrations and nearly always sees the government and opposition lock horns over how the country's finances should be spent.
The next fiscal year's budget, currently being deliberated by a scrutiny panel, however, carries a strong political undertone that could spell an unlikely alliance in the making.
As the budget bill nears the last lap of the legislative process, all funds allocated to various departments and ministries are being rounded off. The scrutiny frenzy may be over, but talk about a fallout between the two largest opposition parties -- Pheu Thai and Move Forward -- are giving way to analysis of what the future holds for them after the next general election.
The rift first emerged after Pheu Thai MPs voted in support of 16.3 billion baht being cut from proposed spending on many procurement projects, including those for the highly debatable defence budget.
The 16.3-billion-baht cut required a motion to pass and Pheu Thai legislators raised their hands to second it, a move that instantly met with reproach from the Move Forward Party (MFP).
The MFP believed Pheu Thai had wittingly played into the hands of the government by backing a motion which it said had given the administration a blank cheque.
This accusation left Yutthapong Charasathien, a Pheu Thai MP and a budge scrutiny panelist, peeved. He defended the party's decision to support the motion, saying the budget was clearly earmarked for financing campaigns to mitigate the impacts of Covid-19 on people's livelihoods.
He said the country needed every baht it could lay its hands on to alleviate the people's suffering especially when the government's borrowings worth a combined 1.5 trillion baht -- one trillion obtained last year at the onset of the pandemic and 500 billion at the start of the third outbreak in April -- may not be sufficient to sustain relief and aid schemes.
Mr Yutthapong explained the law only allowed the opposition to cut, not add, to the national budget plan during the scrutiny stage. The party has done its job and all the trimmed-down funds have been rounded off.
The MP said he did not hold grudges against the MFP for holding a differing view on the issue. But he insisted the party should not put on a self-aggrandisement act and "demonise others".
He also dismissed any insinuation that Pheu Thai was cosying up to the ruling Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) so as to forge a future political alliance. Pheu Thai has not changed its stance and is committed to pushing for a no-confidence vote against the government most probably after the final reading of the budget bill later this month.
Chonlanan Srikaew, a Pheu Thai MP for Nan, said the party would like the no-confidence debate to take place from Aug 18-19 and plans to lodge this motion with House Speaker Chuan Leekpai a week before the budget bill debate.
However, a political observer said it might be too early to be dismissive about a possible hook-up between the two largest parties.
For many politicians, being in a longstanding rivalry in politics is something impermanent. In the PPRP's case, several of its MPs are no strangers to Pheu Thai as they had been either members or MPs of the main opposition party before the last election in 2019.
Also, the observer said a revised electoral method set to be introduced by the impending constitutional amendments is expected to bring about significant changes to the political landscape.
Both the PPRP and Pheu Thai support the two-ballot system being reinstated in place of the current single-ballot method where every vote cast, even for defeated candidates, is counted toward the popular votes for the respective parties.
The single-ballot system, where people choose a political party, enables parties that did not win big in constituencies to gather votes from their defeated candidates. The votes are then compiled and used to work out how many list MPs each party gets.
The system has thus allowed many small parties to be represented in parliament.
If the country reverted to the two-ballot method, where one ballot is for selecting a party and another for a candidate, the big parties which secured many constituency seats also tend to gain many MPs from their party lists as well. This is because many voters tend to choose both the candidates and the parties under whose banners they run.
The observer said if the one-ballot system was scrapped, the MFP could become smaller as there will be no more "loser" votes going into its popular vote pool. A large pool of popular votes is one of the reasons the Future Forward Party, the MFP's predecessor, won 80 parliamentary seats in the last poll.
If the MFP is reduced in size at the next poll, it would also lose negotiating power with Pheu Thai. At the same time, the small-sized parties in the current opposition line-up would also shrink under the two-ballot system.
In terms of numbers, Pheu Thai and the PPRP might find it less of a hassle banding together as a two-party government than having many small parties as coalition partners.
A decree of suspicion
Adraft executive decree, which is supposedly intended to provide medical workers with legal immunity from liability, is on the cards although there are questions about other likely beneficiaries of the proposed law, according to political observers.
To government critics, the draft executive decree on limiting liability for public health workers handling Covid-19 patients looks more like some politicians attempting to save their own skin than offering legal safeguards for healthcare workers.
Many have pointed out that there are currently sufficient laws to ensure legal protection for healthcare workers in both state-run and private-run hospitals. One law expert says they are protected under, for instance, Section 29(1) of the 2016 Emergency Medicine Act, when working during a crisis or in an emergency situation.
The controversial draft decree, sponsored by the Public Health Ministry, came to public attention last weekend after Move Forward Party MP Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn wrote about the proposed law on his Facebook page.
According to the opposition MP, the Public Health Ministry's Covid-19 centre resolved on July 26 to have the Department of Health Service Support (DHSS) draw up the executive decree.
While Mr Wiroj has no issue with healthcare professionals being provided with immunity from liability, he questions if it is appropriate to grant such a "semi-blanket amnesty" to those responsible for the procurement and management of Covid-19 vaccines.
Sutin: Immunity move not needed
The DDHS was quick to respond to his concerns, saying while the draft decree covers individuals working with Covid-19 patients, it will not cover those who commit gross negligence, and will not deprive damaged parties of the right to compensation.
Front-line medics, village health volunteers, those involved in procuring medical equipment, medicines and vaccines, employees of state, private, and field hospitals, as well as ambulance drivers will all be covered, according to DDHS director-general Tares Krassanairawiwong.
However, the department's clarification is inadequate and has not dispelled doubts, according to political observers.
The timing of the proposed law could not be worse -- the government has been under heavy fire for its past decision in choosing only Sinovac and AstraZeneca as the two main vaccines and it stands accused of mishandling Covid-19 vaccine procurement.
The draft decree is therefore seen by some as a bid to protect policymakers who are involved in vaccine procurement and the issue is likely to be the highlight of a planned censure motion, according to political observers.
The main opposition Pheu Thai Party has been drafting a censure motion and plans to launch the no-confidence debate against the government in the third week of this month.
Pheu Thai MP and chief opposition whip Sutin Klungsang says providing medical personnel with immunity from legal liability is acceptable albeit unnecessary.
Healthcare workers have won the hearts of Thai people for their dedication during the pandemic which has persisted for one and a half years. The public call for the government to find them "good quality" vaccines underlines how their hard work is appreciated, according to Mr Sutin.
The Pheu Thai MP for Maha Sarakham questions the motive behind the Public Health Ministry's move. He suspects that healthcare professionals are being used as a shield by those responsible for the alleged botched management of Covid-19 medicines and vaccines.
"No one will sue doctors or nurses, so there are questions surrounding the intention of the draft decree which covers those who procure medicines and vaccines," he said. "It is possible that the decree is being introduced to provide legal immunity to people tasked with managing Covid-19 medicines and vaccines using medical workers as a front."
Following criticism, the government, via its spokesman Anucha Burapachaisri, said the decree is not being rushed and it is still under review by all parties concerned including medical workers and members of the public.
Some political watchers see Mr Anucha's statement as a possible sign of the government backing down, at least for the time being, in the face of the forthcoming no-confidence debate.
However, Mr Sutin insists the draft decree will certainly be targeted for scrutiny by the opposition in the planned censure debate.
He also believes the government will dig its heels in and push ahead with the draft decree despite mounting criticism.
"I believe they are concerned more about criminal liability than criticism. That's why it is being introduced," said the veteran politician.
Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul reiterated that the planned decree, which as he points out is not an amnesty, is intended to protect healthcare professionals as the pandemic roars across the country and as medical resources run short.
