• 
• 

The Cabinet will have to carefully consider the proposal of giving Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) employees making less than Bt50,000 a month an additional Bt2,000 living allowance for a year.|Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat, who oversees state enterprises, plans to put this proposal forward for Cabinet approval next week. He agrees with the MEA's union that 6,071 of the employees are eligible for the allowance.

Boonjong said the scheme would not increase the cost of electricity, because the money would be coming from MEA revenues. However, this argument is not sound, considering that the MEA is a state enterprise, not a profit-making one. The MEA's main focus should not be making money, but serving society.

The very idea of handing out allowances at a time when the government is facing financial constraints might set a wrong example for other state enterprises that are probably waiting to ask for similar deals should the MEA proposal get approved.

As for the condition for the allowance, do people really need an additional Bt2,000 if they are already making about Bt50,000? The average salary of an MEA worker is higher than Bt40,000.

The government earlier provided a one-time allowance to those making less than Bt15,000 in order to increase their purchasing power during this time of crisis. However, the MEA is offering a package that is going to last for a whole year and to those who are being paid a lot more.

Besides, workers at state enterprises enjoy better working conditions, such as subsidised public utilities. Their jobs are more secure because they are offering services that the public has no choice but to pay for.

Most citizens, working a lot less and in worse conditions, still have to pay full rates for utilities to state enterprises, most of which are operated on a monopoly basis.

The government should think about the priority mission of state enterprises and about the signals that the approval of this allowance would send to society.

First of all, the decision should not be aimed at short-term political benefits. Ministers should not aim to score more points by giving away public money to people under their supervision.

Secondly, the MEA allowance would prompt other state enterprises to demand the same benefits. The argument that MEA workers deserve the allowance because the agency makes more revenue than others just cannot be justified. They should not cite profits as a reason to receive additional benefits because the goal of most state enterprises is to offer services and security to citizens.

Moreover, the proposed MEA allowance comes with bad timing. With the government facing financial constraints, a profitable state enterprise should not be squandering much-needed cash. If the MEA is indeed making lots of money, then it should return it to the public by, for instance, reducing the price of electricity. Once the public knows that state enterprises are willing to assist them during difficult times, faith in the government will be restored.