After a nine-year battle to free itself from political interference, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) yesterday waved the white flag, giving the Finance Minister the power to appoint and sack the governor.

BOT Governor Tarisa Watanagase yesterday said she wanted the BOT Act amendment to pass the legal process and be approved by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) as soon as possible.

She conceded that Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkarn had earlier informed her about his intention to drop the earlier draft proposed by the central bank, which transferred the power to appoint or sack the governor from the finance minister to a central committee. However, she did not give any details about her discussions with Chalongphob.

"There are a lot of processes in the legislation, so it would be better if the draft bill were proposed to the NLA quickly. I don't want to waste time on it now," Tarisa

said.

Chalongphob said earlier that the finance minister should be the one to appoint and sack the governor instead of a central committee proposed by the BOT, because the ministry had to be accountable to voters.

Former finance minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula had unhesitatingly approved the Act's amendment, because as a former BOT governor, he wanted the central bank to be independent and free from political intervention. The amendment had already been approved by the Cabinet and was being considered by the Council of State.

However, Chalongphob wanted to rein in the BOT as the ministry has to be accountable to voters for any damage caused by the central bank.

Chanchai Boonritchaisri, senior director of the BOT's Legal and Litigation Department, said in the BOT Act, the governor was accountable for any damage by the central bank.

"It's clear who will take responsibility for any problems. The governor could not be in the position in such a situation," he said.

He said the bill had been drafted under a concept suggested by a panel headed by former finance minister Nukul Prachuabmoh. The commission was appointed in December 1997 to investigate and analyse the causes of the financial crisis. The commission found that any task involving many entities could not pin the responsibility for the outcomes on any one of them. It suggested that responsible parties in any case be limited to only a few persons.

"In 1997, there was a policy disagreement, as the government addressed only short-term problems and was advised to take long-term problems into account more," he said.

Anoma Srisukkasem

The Nation