The gov't should think before it opens its mouth

The questions that have arisen following the government's announcement that it will raise the cost-of-living allowance for civil servants marks another example of the Yingluck administration not thinking through its policy platform. The Pheu Thai Party made so many promises during the election campaign but is now finding it difficult to actually implement them.

The government has again ended up assigning the ministry in charge to evaluate the practicality of actually putting pledges into action. They will now have to study details of the new salary structure for state officials before the plan is implemented early next year.

The Pheu Thai Party has also promised to raise the minimum salary for new graduates to Bt15,000 - another campaign ploy to score points among voters. However, raising the basic salary for graduates will not be that simple because it will certainly affect the entire payroll structure of the civil service.

To find a way out, the government has yet again adjusted its message. The Cabinet on Tuesday said that it had approved an increase in the monthly cost-of-living allowance for civil servants and state employees, not their actual salaries. The Cabinet did not mention what it would do about the entire salary structure for state employees. Instead, it would wait for the results of a study by the Finance Ministry before deciding on the issue.

The latest announcement is another example of how the Pheu Thai Party has not thought about the reality of making such promises to voters. Its election pledges were apparently meant only to outsmart its political opponents, and there was obviously no thorough study on how to implement them, their impact on the government's fiscal stance and inflation in the longer term.

Earlier, the government had already caused confusion regarding the reduction of the Oil Fund levy because it contradicts the country's campaign to promote energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. This is not to mention the question of whether these populist policies are even necessary. In fact, Energy Minister Pichai Nariptapand conceded that the policy has been carried out simply to fulfil the promises the Pheu Thai Party made to voters during the election campaign.

The promise of a Bt300 daily minimum wage is another example of how hastily announced populist policies can create confusion. Even now, it remains unclear how, or even if, this policy will be implemented. The Pheu Thai Party said earlier that it wanted to bridge the wealth gap between urban and rural areas. But as things have turned out, the Bt300 minimum wage will likely only be implemented in Bangkok and six other provinces with a similar level of industrial development to Bangkok. Labour unions meanwhile have said that they cannot accept this selective approach, adding that people voted for the party because of its pledge that all workers in all provinces would receive the Bt300 daily wage.

The consequences of these hastily announced policy platforms should serve as a lesson on how irresponsible promises can have a longer-term impact. And let's hope that the Pheu Thai Party's success in the election will not set an example for other political parties to follow the same trend.

The government has made all these promises on the back of taxpayers' money, even though some ministers have acknowledged that these populist schemes are neither necessary nor urgent. They will also wreak havoc on the country's fiscal position.

Worse still, these policies will undermine the nation's competitiveness because they will distort the market. Instead of creating more jobs, private-sector employers and even some state agencies will now feel reluctant to hire new employees while it remains unclear how these plans will be implemented. For example, will the government help employers with subsidies to make up the minimum wage for new graduates?

Our election process should be about the future direction of the country. It should not be about which party offers the highest bid to voters in order to win power regardless of the cost to the wellbeing of the people and the competitiveness of the country in the long term.