Lawmakers: Cut Aide Quota Now

Call for Austerity: Thai Pakdee Party Proposes Significant Reduction in Parliamentary Staffing

The Thai Pakdee Party has issued a strong appeal to both Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators, urging them to drastically cut the number of personal assistants each legislator can employ. The party contends that reducing the current quota of eight assistants per individual to just three could unlock substantial annual savings for the nation, potentially amounting to as much as 3 billion baht.

Warong Dechgitvigrom, the leader of the Thai Pakdee Party and its sole party-list MP, articulated this proposal during a session at parliament. He described the existing system of parliamentary staffing as “excessive” and out of sync with the prevailing sentiments and expectations of the general public.

During his address on Wednesday, Dr. Warong made a symbolic gesture, tearing up five assistant application forms. This action underscored his conviction that three aides are more than sufficient for an MP to effectively discharge their parliamentary duties. Currently, MPs are permitted to appoint up to eight assistants. The majority of these assistants are remunerated at a monthly rate of 15,000 baht, with one designated assistant receiving a higher salary of 24,000 baht.

The party leader elaborated on the potential financial implications of his proposal. He estimated that a reduction to three assistants for MPs alone could yield annual savings of approximately 540 million baht. When extended to include Senators, who operate under similar staffing structures, the cumulative savings could indeed reach the ambitious figure of 3 billion baht each year.

“In a time of rising living costs and fuel prices, the country must cut unnecessary spending and respond to public expectations,” Dr. Warong stated, emphasizing the critical need for fiscal prudence. He further added that lawmakers have a responsibility to play a role in restoring public trust and confidence in the political system.

Dr. Warong highlighted his personal commitment to this principle by stating that he has already voluntarily limited his own parliamentary team to three assistants. This initiative, he explained, was intended to serve as a tangible demonstration that operational efficiency and productivity are not intrinsically linked to large staffing numbers. He actively encouraged his fellow MPs and Senators to embrace a similar approach, framing it as a pivotal step in a broader movement towards what he termed “new politics.”

Beyond Staffing: Addressing Parliamentary Perks and Public Finances

The Thai Pakdee Party’s call for reform extends beyond the issue of personal assistant numbers. Dr. Warong also voiced concerns regarding additional benefits afforded to parliamentarians, specifically pointing to a parliamentary welfare fund. This fund, which requires monthly contributions of 3,500 baht from members, was flagged as a potential long-term burden on public finances if not carefully managed.

In a separate, yet related development, Dr. Warong acknowledged and praised recent shifts in parliamentary practice. He highlighted a particularly positive trend: the increasing number of MPs opting to purchase their own meals rather than relying on state-funded lunches.

He calculated that the discontinuation of subsidised lunches for MPs could result in annual savings of around 72 million baht. Dr. Warong lauded this move as a significant “victory of the people,” noting that parliamentarians from both governing and opposition parties had responded positively to public pressure on this matter.

Observations from within parliament have corroborated this shift, with MPs from various political parties recently being seen patronizing the parliamentary canteen. They were observed purchasing their own meals and dining alongside officials and staff in a more relaxed and informal atmosphere, signaling a departure from previous practices. This move towards greater fiscal responsibility within the parliamentary system appears to be gaining traction, driven by both internal initiatives and external public scrutiny.