Even Spider-Man can't rescue govt from this mess

Was he talking about Bank of Thailand Governor Tarisa Watanagase - or the government's new chief economic adviser, Virabongsa Ramangkura? Or was he in fact issuing a warning to his new deputy minister, Suchat Tadatamrongvej?

Or was the finance minister in fact reminding himself that he should exercise whatever power he wields over the central bank with great caution to avoid being accused of political interference?

To paraphrase the minister's Spider-Man quote, the higher people go up the power ladder, the more they should demonstrate responsibility - and that includes being responsible for what they say and what they deny having said in public as well.

First, Minister Surapong took on the central bank governor for having raised interest rates, arguing that it was a wrong-headed policy to fight inflation.

Then, Virabongsa - just one week before he agreed to become the prime minister's chief economic adviser - went on the record at various public forums, lambasting the Bank of Thailand for taking the country down a disastrous road.

Virabongsa did not mince his words. He cited how previous central bank governors had "ruined" the country's economy - and how the current law renders the finance minister powerless to remove the central bank governor "even if he or she is bringing down the country".

There was no doubt he was making it clear that unless the current governor of the central bank is removed, the country's economic health is doomed.

Then, a few days later, Suchat was named deputy finance minister. His first public statement upon taking office was no less vehement. Speaking at a seminar in which Deputy Bank of Thailand Governor Atchana Waiquamdee was also present, the new deputy minister left no doubt in the mind of the audience that he too was seeking the replacement of the central bank governor.

He pointedly said: "If there is a difference in the policy positions of the central bank and the government, one of them has to go. Don't forget, the government has to answer to Parliament."

That, of course, left little room for interpretation as to which side he thinks should yield when a showdown takes place between the Finance Ministry and the central bank.

Now, we are suddenly told by the finance minister that there is no "rift" between the two sides - and it's all only about a "difference in opinion".

If that's the case, what's all the fuss about the government's ongoing spat with the central bank, then?

Why is it that Virabongsa is now talking about trying to mediate between the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Thailand when only a few days ago he was still making the rounds, launching attacks on the "catastrophic policy" being adopted by the central bank?

Can things really change so much within a week, so that an almost full-scale war has turned into a mini-rift?

Has the substance of the "difference in opinion" really transformed itself so drastically in such a short span of time that the interest-rate policy isn't an issue any more?

Or is it because, as Virabongsa put it somewhat expediently: "I will be less critical [of the central bank] now that I wear a new hat. My role is just to present proposals to the prime minister."

That may be a politically convenient statement to make from the chief adviser, who has insisted that he won't quit any of the numerous executive posts he still holds while taking up an important, high-profile advisory position in the government.

But deep down, the real issue may be that an independent central bank that doesn't necessarily follow political dictates remains anathema to many politicians with vested interests.

The confusion and sense of uncertainty caused by the public comments from the deputy prime minister, finance minister, chief adviser and the deputy finance minister about the role of the central bank won't go away.

On the contrary, the more the government denies any conflict with the central bank, the less credible it becomes - and the public's perception of misguided mismanagement at the top gets worse day by day.

That's because the finance minister can't even explain what exactly is wrong with the central bank's monetary policy. He did try to impress the public by citing Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, to back up his argument. But then it wasn't clear what the minister was trying to defend or oppose.

What's worse, he can't say what the right policy is and how it's going to be implemented.

(Share your views in my blog at http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ThaiTalk.)