Politics in the pipeline?

Aruckus over the bidding concession for a 25.6-billion-baht water pipeline project in the eastern region has become the latest setback for the government. Yet, the issue needs a clear mind for it to be best resolved. The Treasury Department decided to call off a contract signing, planned earlier this week, with Vongsayam Korsang Co, which won the bid for the pipeline project on March 14 with a tendered quote of 25.6 billion baht.

Vongsayam is to take over the operation and management of the pipeline from the incumbent Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co, or East Water, which offered 24.2 billion baht.

East Water — once a state enterprise which later became a public company — enjoyed the quasimonopoly concession from 1994 before it lost the recent bid due to it offering lower revenue.

However, the contract signing has been suspended following complaints made by the opposition leader Pheu Thai Party about what it claims to be “irregularities” and accusations that the bidding’s terms of reference were tweaked in favour of Vongsayam.

Pheu Thai’s deputy party leader Yuttapong Charasathien questioned why large construction firms such as Sino-Thai or Italian-Thai were missing from the March 14 bidding. Mr Yuttapong believed the state could gain more revenue if big companies took part in the bidding.

Nevertheless, he failed to provide proof that the absence of those big contractors from the bid was a matter of foul play.

Now, Mr Yuttapong is threatening to grill Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and cabinet ministers concerned in the forthcoming no-confidence debate this July. The party also plans to petition the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The threats prompted the prime minister to order an investigation into the concession.

While the opposition should be praised for trying to make state bidding transparent, it’s regrettable that it failed to address how it was caused by a long-term monopoly of water management in the eastern region.

Over the years, there have been concerns that East Water may have underpaid the state by only paying 600 million baht for the entire period. As the Treasury Department and the Finance Ministry wanted to break up the monopoly, inviting a competitor, East Water raised its offer to 24.2 billion baht in the March 14 bidding but still lost.

Pheu Thai failed to pay attention to complaints from the private sector about the high water fares they had to pay — about 20 baht per cubic metre. It did not listen to allegations made by conservationists that the water firm drew water from state reservoirs at a cheap price to sell to local water utilities for treatment before selling to buyers. It’s reported that in calling the new bid, the Treasury Department set a new water rate at 10.98 baht per cubic metre per unit for a 39-year contract.

Instead of focusing on trying to derail the bidding and attacking the government, Pheu Thai will do the country a great service if it can look into the real cost of water management and find out whether the current concession really benefits the country and is fair to consumers.

There are questions whether the opposition leader’s move is politically motivated. These have firmed up given that a faction in the Palang Pracharath Party, led by veteran Pichet Sathirachawal, jumped on the bandwagon, a move criticised as bargaining during the crucial House session. If true, this is not acceptable.

The opposition party and other factions must realise they have to prioritise the national interest before themselves and keep the water concession clear of politics.