CDC party fee unfair

- +

The constitution writers have set off yet another dispute with their new order for political parties to collect annual membership fees. Some see the Constitution Drafting Committee's measure as yet another way to obstruct parties. The CDC claims rather implausibly that it will encourage more thoughtful politics at the grassroots. Yet the outlines of the proposal deserve a thoughtful response.

That is not what the parties think. Leaders of virtually every political group oppose the 100-baht annual fee. And they have good reason. The bureaucracy of such a requirement is extensive. Parties would have to maintain full staff -- year-round at the larger political parties -- simply to track, re-register, collect and provide receipts.

This is the basis of their claim that the CDC is attempting to harass and tie up parties with meaningless paperwork. Their argument is that parties would be so busy collecting tiny amounts of money from members that there would be far less time available for the business of parties -- which is politics.

We tend to agree with the parties on this exact objection. For one thing, the 100-baht fee should not be written into law. Money always changes value over time. If there is to be a fee, it should be governed by a regulation that can be easily changed, and not a law. We also agree with the basic premise that requiring parties to collect 100 baht from every member, every year, is make-work bureaucracy without real or statistical value.

But this is not an idea that deserves to be simply tossed aside, as party leaders say. On the contrary, there is more than a germ of useful regulation in this proposal by the CDC. It could easily be adapted into Thailand's first, and badly needed law on the funding of political parties. This is a scandalously secret weapon of every party. The public has the right to know who is funding parties, because that tells who and what politicians are actually working for.

The former politician and street protester Suthep Thaugsuban last week backed the idea of mandatory dues by party members. He said 100 baht is too cheap, because parties should be forced to fund themselves from membership fees. That is a little rich, coming from the leader of the secretively funded Bangkok Shutdown movement. Still, Mr Suthep's support for transparency is certainly welcome.

The CDC's proposed membership fee is unfair in many ways. One of them -- and it would be far worse if Mr Suthep's proposal were adopted -- is that many interested people cannot afford a membership fee, even 100 baht. If membership fees are to be imposed at all, they must take account of this. There must be subsidies or exceptions to allow low-income citizens to be party members. It is a shame chairman Meechai Ruchupan and his CDC failed to realise this.

It seems it's now up to the National Legislative Assembly to make something good from an unrealistic proposal. Everyone claims to be working under a deadline, but there is plenty of time to consider this properly. With thought and good intentions, the NLA can still turn a hasty and ill-considered CDC proposal into a truly useful law.

Making political party finances transparent is an excellent idea. Credit Mr Meechai and colleagues with a decent outline. But it needs amendment and fleshing out. The NLA has not been known as a great achiever so far, but this is a true chance for the legislature to bring about needed and useful reform in politics.