The Kingdom of Thailand 56094 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Public Financial Management Assessment October 2009 The World Bank Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit East Asia and Pacific Region The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Public Financial Management Assessment October 2009 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit East Asia and Pacific Region Document of the World Bank CURRENCY AND EQUIVALENT UNITS Currency Unit = Thai Baht US$ = 33.2 ABBREVIATIONS BOB Bureau of the Budget BOT Bank of Thailand CGD Comptroller-Generals Department COA Chat of Account COC Thai Chamber of Commerce FDI Foreign Direct Investment FPO Fiscal Policy Office GAP Government Administrative Plan GDP Gross Domestic Product GFMIS Government Fiscal Management Information System GFS Government Finance Statistics GoT Government of Thailand IFRS International Financial Reporting Standard IMF International Monetary Fund KPIs Key Performance Indicators MOF Ministry of Finance MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework NAP National Administrative Plan NESDB National Economic and Social Development Board OAG Office of the Auditor-General OCSC Office of the Civil Service Commission OPDC Office of Public Sector Development Commission PDMO Public Debt Management Office PEFA Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability PFM Public Financial Management PFMPR Public Financial Management Performance Report PSO Public Service Obligation RBM Results Based Management RD Revenue Department SEPO State Enterprise Policy Office SPBB Strategic Performance Based Budgeting SOEs State-owned Enterprises TRA Treasury Reserve Account VAT Value Added Tax WB World Bank ii CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Objective of the PFM-PR........................................................................................ 1 Process of preparing the PFM-PR........................................................................... 1 Methodology for the Preparation of the PFM-PR................................................... 1 2. Country Background Information .................................................................................. 3 A. CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC SITUATION ..................................................................... 3 B. OVERALL GOVERNMENT REFORM PROGRAM .......................................................... 4 C. DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PFM ................. 5 Fiscal Performance............................................................................................ 5 Allocation of Resources .................................................................................... 5 D. DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PFM ............... 6 Key actors in Thailands PFM process: roles and responsibilities ................... 6 Budget process and budget calendar ................................................................. 7 3. Assessment of the PFM systems, processes and institutions ......................................... 9 SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK .......................................... 9 A. BUDGET CREDIBILITY ............................................................................................ 10 PI 1: Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget . 10 PI 2: Composition of expenditure out-turn to original approved budget ......... 10 PI 3: Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original approved budget ....... 11 PI 4: Stock and monitoring of expenditure payment arrears ............................ 12 B. COMPREHENSIVENESS AND TRANSPARENCY .......................................................... 13 PI 5: Classification of the budget ..................................................................... 13 PI 6: Comprehensiveness of information included in budget documentation . 14 PI 7: Extent of unreported government operations .......................................... 15 PI 8: Transparency of Inter-Governmental Fiscal Relations............................ 16 PI 9: Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other public sector entities ........ 17 PI 10: Public access to key fiscal information ................................................. 18 C. BUDGET CYCLE ..................................................................................................... 19 C (I). POLICY-BASED BUDGETING .......................................................................... 19 PI 11: Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process .................. 19 PI 12: Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning, expenditure policy and budgeting .......................................................................................................... 21 C (II). PREDICTABILITY AND CONTROL IN BUDGET EXECUTION* ............................ 22 PI 13: Transparency of taxpayer obligations and liabilities ............................. 22 PI 15: Effectiveness in collection of tax payments .......................................... 25 PI 16: Predictability in the availability of funds for commitment of expenditures ..................................................................................................... 26 PI 17: Recording and management of cash balances, debt and guarantees ..... 27 PI 19: Competition, value for money and controls in procurement ................. 30 PI 20: Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure ............... 31 PI 21: Effectiveness of Internal audit ............................................................... 32 C (III). ACCOUNTING, RECORDING AND REPORTING .............................................. 33 PI 22: Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation ............................ 33 PI 23: Availability of information on resources received by service delivery units .................................................................................................................. 34 PI 24: Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports .................................. 35 PI 25: Quality and timeliness of annual financial statements .......................... 35 C (IV). EXTERNAL SCRUTINY AND AUDIT .............................................................. 36 PI 26: Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit....................................... 36 PI 27: Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law ....................................... 38 PI 28: Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports ........................................ 40 4. Government Reform Process ............................................................ 41 iv The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background 1. The Kingdom of Thailand (current population 64 million) is a middle income country, with average income per head about US$4,450 in 2008. The economy has grown rapidly in recent years; GDP grew by 5.0 percent a year on average over the period 1998-2007. However economic growth decelerated to 2.6 percent in 2008 as the real sector experienced a slow-down in wake of the global financial crisis. Development of the economy has depended particularly on the growth of manufactured exports, facilitated by the movement of labor from agriculture to more productive manufacturing and services. About 40 percent of the population is still engaged in agriculture. Thailand is a relatively open economy, with much of the growth in manufactured exports resulting from foreign investment. Although most utility services are provided by state- owned enterprises (SOEs), most economic activity is in the private sector. 2. The Government of Thailand has been undertaking wide ranging public financial management reforms since 1999 across the six core dimensions of PFM performance identified in the Performance Measurement Framework. Key reforms include: (i) the deployment of an integrated Government Fiscal Management Information System (GFMIS) for budget execution and reporting; (ii) implementation of Strategic Performance Based Budgeting (SPBB) framework; (iii) implementing the International Public Sector Accounting Standards for reporting; (iv) conducting financial, procurement, performance, and risk based audits; and (v) putting in place a system of key performance indicators (KPIs) to foster greater service delivery responsiveness by government agencies. 3. This Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) report aims to assess the status of the PFM system in Thailand across the six core dimensions of PFM performance using the standard PEFA methodology of 28 high level indicators1, excluding the donor practices indicators2. Integrated assessment of PFM performance 4. The summary of the assessment across the six core dimensions of the PFM performance identified in the Performance Measurement Framework is presented below: (i) Credibility of the Budget 5. The PFM system in Thailand performs well overall on credibility of the budget. The budget is realistic and is implemented as intended. Actual expenditure deviated from the initially approved amount by more than 10 percent in only one of the last three years. At the same time, the variance in expenditure composition exceeded the overall deviation in expenditure by no more than 2.5 percent in any of the last three years. Actual domestic revenue collection exceeded the budgeted amount in each of the last three years and the stock of arrears of central government expenditure (including expenditure from revolving funds) has been negligible throughout the period under review. There are no records of any arrears. 1 (i) Credibility of the budget; (ii) Comprehensiveness and transparency; (iii) Policy based budgeting; (iv) Predictability and control in budget execution; (v) Accounting, recording and reporting; and (vi) External scrutiny and audit. 2 Donor practice indicators are not relevant for Thailand, as ODA is not a significant financing source for the Budget. The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. However arrangements governing execution of the Central Fund allow significant flexibility. Approximately 14 percent of total budget is put in a Central Fund. Nearly five-sixth of this Central Fund is predetermined for statutory expenditures, while the remaining is put in a pure contingency. Detailed allocations to the Central Fund are clearly and transparently presented in the Budget documents. However, during implementation, the Prime Ministers Office has the ability to reallocate funds from assigned expenditures within the Central Fund to contingency, and in case the predetermined expenditures need to be met, these can be drawn down from the Treasury Reserve, and replenished the following fiscal year. Whereas the Central Fund provides significant flexibility to respond to in-year contingencies, this could be subject to misuse. (ii) Comprehensiveness and Transparency 7. The budget and fiscal risk oversight are generally comprehensive; however transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations is weak. The Budget documentation includes sufficient information covering macroeconomic outlook, fiscal deficit and its financing, financial assets held by the government as well as the summarized budget for both revenue and expenditure. There seems to be appropriate control over fiscal risks from activities of local authorities and state-owned enterprises by the central government. State-owned enterprises report regularly to their supervising units at the relevant level of government, and are expected to meet financial targets set by the State Enterprise Policy Office (SEPO) at MOF. Guaranteed borrowing requires MOF approval. The general public has full access to information covering budget documentation, budget execution reports and external audit reports. A key area of weakness is transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations. Local governments receive approximately 25 percent of total revenues but there is little systematic reporting/consolidation of their operations and financial performance. This is because the oversight over local government is fragmented across different agencies. However, local authority accounts are audited by the Office of the Auditor General at least once every three years, their accounts are not consistently presented to central government, and no comprehensive information has been produced about the functional distribution of their expenditure since 1996. In recent times local authorities have been running overall budget surpluses with their accumulated cash reserves in recent years, and part of the surplus has been put into a fund that is controlled by the Ministry of Interior, within the Treasury Reserve Accounts. 8. Even though the budget classification is consistent with international standards, the lack of unified chart of accounts and provisions of expenditure carry-over make comparison between budgets and out-turn difficult. Preparation of budget-to-actual reports is hampered by the fact that: (i) the Budget, which is cash based, is formulated using functional and economic classifications consistent with COFOG and GFS 1986, while its execution (including the income and expenditure of the revolving extra-budgetary funds) is recorded in GFMIS on an accrual accounting basis reflecting IPSAS standards. Because Thailand does not have a unified chart of accounts, it becomes difficult to ,,step down the accrual reporting to conform with the cash budget; (ii) unspent budgetary allocations can be carried over from the previous fiscal year without further Parliamentary approval, making it difficult to compare budget-to-actual. ii The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (iii) Policy-based Budgeting 9. The Budget calendar is clear and linked to the Government's policies as set out in the Government Administrative Plan. Preparation of the Budget takes place within a framework set by the Government Administrative Plan (GAP) and the top-down Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Each Ministry/agency translates the GAP into 4-years and annual Operating Plans, which incorporates the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as targets to achieve. Although budget ceilings are not set for each Ministry at the beginning of the process, collective government decisions at a relatively early stage give Bureau of the Budget (BOB) a clear basis for reaching agreement with spending Ministries/agencies. The following years draft Budget is submitted to the National Assembly each year in time for the Assembly to have the 125 days required by the Constitution for its consideration, and approve it before the beginning of the next fiscal year. 10. Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning, expenditure policy and budgeting are presented, however outer year estimates remain indicative. BOB prepares the 4-year Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) consistent with the GAP. The outer year projections are indicative and not binding. Despite the emphasis on 4-years Operating Plan, with KPIs set for the whole period, it does not appear that general medium-term planning objectives have yet been translated into costed strategies at the sector level. Investment planning hitherto has focused mainly on identifying and specifying a series of priority projects to be implemented as budgetary headroom and external borrowing permits. (iv) Predictability and Control 11. The budget is implemented in an orderly and predictable manner and the arrangements for exercise of control and stewardship in the use of public funds is robust. The budget is implemented as planned. The Comptroller Generals Department (CGD) at the Ministry of Finance (MOF) manages budget execution through the consolidated Treasury Reserve Accounts. Cash flow management through cash reserve system and T-Bill issuance ensures that the executing agencies will have cash available to meet their payments, within their appropriated budget throughout the fiscal year. 12. Internal controls and audits are consistent with international standards, but the systematic process to review the audit findings as well as the follow-up action from management levels has been lack. Internal control standards are based on the international benchmark of COSOs five components including (i) environment of the control entity; (ii) risk assessment; (iii) control activities; (iv) information technology and communications; and (v) assessment. The CGD has issued internal audit standards that are consistent with the International Institute of Internal Auditors Standards. There is no systematic process to submit the internal audit reports to the CGD in order for them to evaluate whether there is a need to amend or modify the internal audit standards. No evidence is available about management responses to internal audit reports. 13. Controls over civil service pay and numbers appear to have worked satisfactorily, while controls over procurement can be further strengthened. Although personnel and payroll records are not directly linked, the payroll is supported by full documentation of changes to the personnel records and payroll. Established procedures ensure that the payroll is revised each month to reflect changes in personnel records. Payroll payments have been regularly examined by OAG on a test basis as part of the regular financial audit of expenditure. With regards to procurement, about two thirds of contracts (by value) are procured using competitive methods. iii The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ However, the joint WB/CGD study showed that there are a number of areas where the competitive process could be strengthened, concerning for example arrangements for the pre- qualification of bidders, the extent of preferences for public sector suppliers and the transparency of arrangements for tender specifications. Complaints may be made directly to the head of tendering authority, to CGD, and to the courts. The CGD is aware of instances of complaints going to the courts, but there is a lack of systematic record of the numbers, the reasons for the complaints, or the outcomes. (v) Accounting, Recording and Reporting 14. Consolidated central government financial statements cover revenue, expenditure and financial assets and liabilities, but since the introduction of GFMIS in 2005, it has been difficult to reconcile inconsistencies between data entered into different parts of the system. Most receipts and expenditure passing through GFMIS are automatically reflected in movements in the TRA at BOT, and reconciliation is straightforward provided sufficient information is included about the characteristics of individual payments and receipts. Statements are intended to be presented on a modified accruals basis which generally reflects IPSAS. The consolidated financial statements are submitted for external audit within 10 months of the end of the fiscal year, however because of reconciliation difficulties the consolidated financial statements have been not certified by OAG since 2005. The authorities are working on ensuring these data inconsistencies are effectively addressed and reconciled so that FY2009/10 and preceding years consolidated report can be certified appropriately by the OAG. (vi) External Scrutiny and Audit 15. Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit are well established, while there is a lack in the legislative scrutiny of external audit reports. The OAG performs audits in the areas of financial, performance, procurement, subsidy use, tax collection and other specific audits, covering all central government revenue and expenditure, including revolving funds together with financial statement from SOEs as well as local authorities. The OAG presents the annual report to the Parliament and findings debated. There is little evidence, however, of systematic follow up by Ministries/agencies in response to its findings and recommendations. The Auditor-generals annual report is presented to a plenary session of the National Assembly, but there are no established arrangements for its subsequent detailed consideration by a specialised committee. There is no evidence of any recommendations being issued by the National Assembly in response to the OAG annual report. Assessment of the PFM Framework 16. This section considers the impact of the findings summarised above on the maintenance of macro-fiscal discipline, the strategic allocation of resources and the efficiency of service delivery. (a) Macro-fiscal discipline 17. The PFM system described above has effective in maintaining macro-fiscal discipline. The Ministry of Finance (MOF), Bureau of the Budget (BOB), the Bank of Thailand (BOT), and the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) have appropriate capacity and established coordination mechanisms for formulating internally consistent medium term iv The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ macroeconomic projections. The BOB, MOF and NESDB formulate and execute the budget. Budget formulation and execution are orderly and well coordinated. On aggregate Thailand has managed to maintain stable macroeconomic framework characterized by stable and low inflation, average per capita growth rate of about 5 percent over the past decade, and stable exchange rate. On the fiscal side, the budget deficit has been in the range of 2-3 percent of GDP on the average, and debt indicators have been in sustainable levels. Budget appropriations are fully funded, and cash management framework allows for appropriate levels of cash holding to execute expenditures in a timely manner. (b) Strategic Allocation of Resources 18. The resource allocation framework is systematic. Thailand has a system of implementing 5-year development plans, currently in its eleventh cycle. The NESDB prepares this 5-year National Economic and Social Development Plan in consultation with civil society, private sector organizations, government agencies, and citizens. Since 2003, the Government has been mandated under the Royal Decree on Good Governance (2003) to prepare a 4-year Government Administrative Plan (GAP). The GAP translates the incumbent governments policies into an administrative plan. The GAP is prepared by the NESDB in consultation with the BOB, the Secretariat of the State Council, and the Secretariat of the Prime Minister. The NESDB ensures that the GAP is consistent with the National Economic and Social Development Plan. Once the 4- year GAP is approved by the NESDB, all ministries and agencies prepare their corresponding 4- year and annual operational plans. These operational plans essentially cascade down from the GAP to ensure that each agency delivers on the GAP. 19. Since 2005 the BOB has been implementing the bottom-up and top-down MTEF. The bottom-up MTEF is essentially constructed by costing the ministerial action plans and aggregating them. The top-down MTEF is prepared based on the agreed macroeconomic framework and considering the momentum of expenditures and essentially defines the fiscal space for new policies. As in all countries, the bottom up resource needs exceed the top-down resource availability. The BOB is responsible for intersectoral allocation of the fiscal space annually. The BOB presents the annual budget to the Cabinet, where strategic resource allocations decisions are undertaken and ministries are able to re-prioritize resources within their respective agencies. 20. Overall, the process of resource allocation is clearly articulated and understood. After taking into account the resource availability from the top down MTEF, and the requirements by ministries from the bottom-up MTEF, BOB allocates resources to the highest priority expenditures, and the Cabinet makes the final decision on these allocations. This process has meant that overall fiscal discipline is maintained. However, the intersectoral allocations process is very centralized, with the authority to make the allocations residing with the BOB. In this system, the ministries are ,,resource takers and have to adjust their plans based on the resource allocated. (c) Efficient Service Delivery 21. Since 2003, Thailand has successfully implemented a system of Key Performance Indicators led by the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC). In this system, a combination of quantitative and qualitative service delivery indicators is agreed to between the OPDC and respective department/agency on an annual basis. These KPIs are measured on an annual basis by an independent entity and are used to demonstrate how agencies v The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ preformed in terms of efficiency of service delivery. At this time all agencies are covered under the KPI framework. The focus on service delivery in operational plans and performance agreements coordinated and reviewed by OPDC has already seen big improvements in some areas of service delivery, notably in the sector supporting business. 22. Although the KPI system is functioning well, its link to budget appropriations is weak. The Bureau of the Budget monitors efficiency of use of budgetary resources in terms of agencies achieving stated outputs through the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), but does not take into account performance of agencies on their KPIs. Linking the KPIs explicitly with the budget appropriation process will complete the Results Based Management (RBM) framework, and BOB and OPDC are working on this issue. Recommended Areas of Reform Focus 23. Considering the status of the PFM framework and the strengths and weaknesses therein, the recommended areas of reform focus are: (a) Unification of the Chart of Accounts (COA) to ensure budget to actual reporting: The budget codes used by the BOB are different to the accounting codes used by the CGD. This makes budget-to-actual reporting cumbersome with possibilities of errors and omissions. Unification of the COA will allow for more comprehensive and timely financial reporting, and allow for real time budget-to-actual monitoring of the budget. (b) Enhancing operational effectiveness of GFMIS: The deployment of GFMIS is commendable. However since its deployment in 2005, OAG has not certified the consolidated financial reports due to errors and omissions. There is need for ensuring that GFMIS has the operational capability to produce reliable consolidated reports. This requires: (i) targeted staff training; (ii) deployment of unified chart of accounts into GFMIS; (iii) building capacity for systems audit for GFMIS; and (iv) integrating GFMIS with e-Budget system being prepared by the BOB. (c) Operationalizing the internal control and internal audit regulations: Thailand has adopted the COSO framework for internal control, and has put in an elaborate internal audit mechanism. However, internal control and internal audit system has not yet been internalized by departments into their core business processes. Therefore, the focus of the reform ought to be on heads of departments being mandated to proactively internalize reports of internal audit divisions and ensuring that the internal control systems function as they have been designed to. vi The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION Objective of the PFM-PR 1.1 Thailand has been implementing wide ranging PFM reforms since 1999. The purpose of the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment is to provide the central government with an objective, indicator-led assessment of the countrys public financial management (PFM) systems in a concise and standardized manner to assist in identifying those parts of the PFM systems with the greatest scope for reform and to form an updated understanding of the overall fiduciary environment of the PFM system. This is the first comprehensive diagnosis covering the overall PFM system in Thailand. 1.2 This Public Financial Management Performance Report (PFMPR) has been prepared in close consultation with representatives of the Thai Ministries and Agencies concerned; the arrangements have been coordinated on behalf of Government of Thailand (GoT) by the Public Debt Management Office (PDMO) at the Ministry of Finance (MOF). Process of preparing the PFM-PR 1.3 The preparation of the PFMPR started in November 2008, when the PEFA team3 organized a launching workshop with Thai counterparts and main stakeholders with the primary objective of clarifying the methodology for assessment, and the issues to be addressed during the assessment. Following this initial presentation, the team conducted discussions with representatives of a wide range of GoT Ministries and Agencies in order to collect the documentary and other evidence needed to make a well-informed assessment. This stage of the work involved detailed discussions with many stakeholders, including representatives of the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) which is under the direct responsibility of the Prime Ministers Office, and the following different Offices and Departments of MOF: Comptroller-Generals Department (CGD), Fiscal Policy Office (FPO), Revenue Department (RD), State Enterprise Policy Office (SEPO) and Public Debt Management Office (PDMO). Discussions were also held with representatives of the Ministries of the Interior (Department of Local Administration), Education, Public Health and Transport, Office of Auditor General (OAG), the Bank of Thailand (BOT), the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC), the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA), the Thai Chamber of Commerce (COC) and tax consultant from KPMG (Thailand). Methodology for the Preparation of the PFM-PR 1.4 The PEFA methodology is set out in the Public Finance Management Performance Measurement Framework (available at www.pefa.org). It is based on 28 Indicators covering all aspects of a countrys PFM system. It should be emphasised that PEFA is essentially a backward- looking process, based on evidence about actual public sector financial management over the last 2-3 years. Each Indicator is scored on a scale from A to D. The basis for these ratings is the minimum requirements set out in the methodology. Many Indicators include two or more 3 The team comprised Shabih Ali Mohib (Task Team Leader, EASPR), Kirida Bhaopichitr (Country Economist for Thailand, EASPR), Nattaporn Triratanasirikul (Economist, EASPR), John Wiggins (International Consultant, EASPR), and Dr. Nitinai Sirismatthakarn (National Consultant Expert, EASPR). The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ dimensions, which are "added" up using PEFA-specific methods M1 or M2. For method M1 the weakest link is decisive, i.e., the overall rating is based on the lowest score. For M2 the average of the sub-ratings is used to arrive at the score for the overall Indicator (see the PEFA Framework, "Scoring Methodology"). 1.5 The main sources of information that have been used for this PFMR are: (a) official GoT documents and statistics; (b) external evaluations and reports (WB, IMF); and (c) interviews with users and providers of PFM information (including government officials, representatives of development partner organisations, and professional advisers on aspects of the tax and legal systems). To the limited extent possible the review team have sought to triangulate information. Scope of the Assessment 1.6 The PEFA assessment focuses on the central governments PFM system. At the national level it seeks to cover the entire PFM system, including cross-cutting and overall issues, the revenue side, and the Budget cycle from planning through execution to control, reporting and audit. A number of the Indicators are designed to probe into how the national level interacts with sub-national governments and with public service providers at local level. Thailand has a centralized administrative setup. The central government is responsible for provision of public services at national and sub-national levels. However twenty five percent of revenues are ear- marked for local governments, which are supervised by the Ministry of Interior. These local governments utilize expend their resources on provision of municipal services, and those services determined as priority by the local government, after seeking approval from the Ministry of Interior and the respective central agency responsible at the central level for that service. 1.7 In addition to the central government revenue and expenditure included in the Budget (which in turn includes revenue and grants transferred to local authorities), there are about ninety- five (as of May 2009) revolving funds directed towards particular purposes (e.g. student loans, health insurance) which are managed by dedicated agencies and in many cases financed by specific revenues (e.g. loan repayments and social security contributions). The Budget contains only the annual grants to these extra-budgetary funds, but a complete picture of central government revenue and expenditure such as is required to determine the governments overall financing needs can only be given if the extra-budgetary funds are included as well. This assessment accordingly takes account of all central government revenue and expenditure, and also net borrowing by state-owned enterprises (SOEs), in order to cover the financing needs of the public sector as a whole. It is based on information relating to the last three fiscal years, i.e. 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 (the fiscal year in Thailand runs from 1 October to 30 September). Institutions # of entities % of total public expenditure* Central government 328 60.4 Autonomous public agencies 54 5.9 Sub-national governments 7,853* 22.7 State Enterprises 24 3.4 Others (i.e. 43 revolving funds) 7.6 *Source: BOB as of FY2008 ** Source: Department of Local Administration as of Aug 2008 2 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. COUNTRY BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 This section provides information on country and economic context of the Kingdom of Thailand, to allow sufficient understanding of the core characteristics of the PFM system and the wider context in which PFM changes would take place. A. CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC SITUATION 2.2 Thailand has a total surface area of 513,000 square kilometres and a population of 64 million, of which about a third live in urban areas. The main land borders are with Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia, countries at a much lower level of economic and social development than Thailand. Among the middle income countries in the South East Asia region, Thailand is somewhat behind Malaysia, but well ahead of Indonesia and the Philippines in terms of income per head. Economic growth has been rapid over the last twenty five years, based particularly on manufacturing and tourism, but Thailand remains to a great extent an agricultural country; nearly 40 percent of the labour force is engaged in agriculture, while 15 percent are in each of manufacturing and distribution, 10 percent in transport and tourism, and 7 percent in government service. 2.3 Poverty has been falling rapidly, however income distribution remains unequal ­ slightly less unequal than Malaysia and the Philippines, but significantly more unequal than India, Indonesia, Singapore and Korea. Although Thailands overall economic performance has been relatively good since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, some of its neighbours (China, Malaysia, Vietnam) have been growing relatively faster. Thailand now faces the challenge of developing its economy and society so as to make the further transition from a middle income to a high income country. 2.4 Thailands growth since the mid 1980s has mainly been sustained by the growth of manufactured exports, facilitated by the opening up of the country to foreign direct investment. Labor moved from low productivity agriculture into manufacturing and services; the overall growth was further stimulated by rapid productivity growth in manufacturing, which was, however, not matched in the services sector4. The country recovered well from the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, mainly through private sector industry and services. But public investment was cut back in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and has recovered only slowly as successive governments have maintained a prudent fiscal stance. In the most recent years, Thailands growth has slowed down from an average of nearly 6 percent in the period 1985-2005 to 4.9 percent in 2007 and 4.0 percent in 2008, as private sector investment has been held back by political uncertainty. The outlook now is for a sharp deceleration in 2009 as a consequence of the global financial crisis and the internal political uncertainties, although Thailand should to some extent be shielded by the diversification of its exports away from the US market, by its strong external position (international reserves four times short term external debt), and by the relatively small exposure of the Thai banking system to doubtful foreign assets, combined with strong capitalization of the sector and a 90 percent ratio of deposits to lending. 4 See, for example NESDB/WB study Measuring Output and Productivity in Thailands Service-producing Industries, page 19 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 2.1: Thailand: Selected Economic Indicators, 2005-2008 ­ CHECK FOR UPDATE 2005 2006 2007 2008 GDP (nominal, US$ billion) 176.2 206.4 245.5 285.1 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,753 3,225 3,738 4,450 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,700 2,990 3,400 n.a. % changes over the previous year 9.3 10.7 13.7 n.a. Real GDP 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.0 Consumer Prices 4.5 4.7 2.3 4.0 % of GDP General Government Balance 0.3 0.9 0.3 -0.3 Central Government balance -0.6 0.5 -1.9 -0.8 Current account balance -4.5 1.1 5.7 -0.7 Gross Domestic Investment 23.4 23.3 22.4 21.7 FDI, net 3.7 5.1 4.1 3.6 Public Sector Domestic Debt 39.0 36.1 33.8 32.1 Public Sector External Debt 8.8 6.7 5.0 4.1 Unemployment rate, % 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 Poverty incidence (national definition) 11.2* 9.5 8.5 n.a. Sources: WB Economic Monitors, IMF, MOF (CGD) Note: *2004 figure, Until 2006 Social Economic Surveys by NSO were undertaken once every two years. Annual surveys began in 2007 B. OVERALL GOVERNMENT REFORM PROGRAM 2.5 Thailand has been undertaking PFM reforms since 1999. The trust of the reforms have been to: (i) improve the fiduciary systems and controls on budget processes; (ii) transform the incremental budget formulation system into a dynamic strategic based budgeting one; and (iii) develop a results based management system for improving efficiency of service delivery. The key reforms undertaken have been: (a) Implementation of Key Performance Indicators across all government agencies by the OPDC. This has led to significant improvement in the quality and timeliness of service delivery by government agencies. However, this system is not yet linked appropriately to the budget appropriations process. This is the focus of the reform looking ahead. (b) Deployment of the Government Fiscal Management Information System (GFMIS) to execute the budget real-time across the country. This has put in internal system controls and reduced fiduciary risks. However, GFMIS has encountered operational problems which have meant that the OAG has not certified the financial statements since 2005. The MOF is now working on resolving these operational issues. (c) The BOB has introduced the medium term expenditure framework (MTEF), in conjunction with the 4-year ministerial action plans which cascade from the overall Government Administrative Plan. The MTEF has improved the strategic context and content to the budget and the BOB is now working to support agencies and departments improved their respective sector level MTEFs. 4 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.6 Some of the key building blocks necessary for supporting a performance based PFM system have been put in place by the Government. The focus now it to refine and integrate these different systems and frameworks to ensure synergies within the system are appropriately captured. C. DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PFM Fiscal Performance 2.7 Over the period 2006-08 the Thailand central governments overall income and expenditure have been close to balance, taking into account total revenue receipts, total budget expenditure including carry-overs from the previous year, and net movements in the revolving funds. With local authorities running an aggregate surplus until recently, general government remained in overall surplus until 2007-08 when there appears to have been a small deficit. There may be some upward bias in estimates of the governments deficit in the context of budgetary planning, since the expenditure taken into account is based on full execution of the amounts authorized by Parliament, while in practice there is generally some under-execution, particularly on investment projects. Table 2.2: Thailand: Consolidated Budget Indicators 2006-08, in percent of GDP 2006 2007 2008 Total Revenue 17.1 17.1 16.5 Tax revenue 16.0 16.0 15.5 Total Expenditure 17.8 18.6 17.4 Current expenditure 14.1 15.2 14.4 Capital expenditure 3.7 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Balance (Cash) -0.7 -1.5 -0.9 Source: MOF (CGD). Allocation of Resources Table 2.3: Actual Expenditure by Sector (percent of total consolidated central government expenditures excluding debt interest) 2006 2007 2008 General Public Services 5.4 4.8 5.4 National Defence 6.5 6.3 7.6 Public Order and Safety 5.8 5.5 5.7 Education 21.6 22.2 21.8 Health 8.0 9.9 9.7 Social Security and Welfare Services 8.4 7.8 7.7 Housing and Community Amenities 2.9 1.4 2.1 Recreation, Culture, and Religion 0.7 0.8 0.8 Economic Affairs 21.9 21.7 20.1 Others 18.8 19.6 19.0 Sources: MOF 5 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ D. DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PFM Key actors in Thailand's PFM process: roles and responsibilities 2.8 The main responsibility for PFM rests with the four key economic agencies, consisting of the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), Ministry of Finance (MOF), National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) and the Bank of Thailand (BOT). BOB, which is directly under the authority of the Prime Ministers Office, is responsible for preparation of the budget: budget calendar, preparation of decisions by the Council of Ministers on the overall size and shape of the Budget, negotiations with Ministries and agencies on the detailed content of the Budget, and management of the passage of the Budget through the National Assembly. MOF is responsible for preparation of the budget arithmetic (Fiscal Policy Office (FPO), which integrates information about revenue, expenditure and financing), the collection of revenue (the Revenue, Excise and Customs Departments), execution of the Budget through the Treasury Reserve Account (Comptroller-Generals Department (CGD)), and debt management and financing operations (Public Debt Management Office (PDMO)). NESDB is responsible for the setting of priorities in the framework of medium-term plans, including investment planning covering SOEs as well as Ministries and agencies. BOT is responsible for operating the Treasury Reserve Accounts, which receive the bulk of all central government revenue and from which most payments are made (covering both the Budget as defined and much of the activity of the 95 revolving extra-budgetary funds, as well as some other transactions). Actual budget execution, and accounting for revenue and expenditure, takes place through the recently (2005) established Government Fiscal Management Information System (GFMIS) which is the responsibility of CGD. All four institutions are involved in the preparation of the macro-economic forecasts and medium-term projections which form the starting point for the budgeting process. 2.9 Line Ministries and agencies prepare their detailed budgets within the approved frameworks of the GAP, NESDBs plans for medium-term social and economic development and the specific budget instructions prepared by BOB. Budget submissions are made in two stages: in the first round BOB collects their ambitions for the development of the services they administer, in advance of the key line agencies consideration of the desirable and feasible fiscal envelope. These submissions are then revised once decisions by the Council of Ministers have settled the overall fiscal envelope and the broad allocation of resources within it. 2.10 There remains a degree of separation between the budget preparation and execution processes, which results from specific features of the relevant legislation and institutional set-up. BOB prepares the Budget in a different framework from that underlying the GFMIS through which it is executed, and neither BOB nor CGD focus particularly on the comparison between budget provision and actual out-turn. Such a comparison is further complicated by two elements of flexibility in actual expenditure. First, about 14.5 percent of total budget provision is presented as a "Central Fund" to meet payments considered not to be precisely allocable in advance (e.g. pensions and medical costs of civil servants); of this about a sixth is a pure contingency provision. Since all these payments are allocated functionally in execution statements, they cannot easily be compared with the Budget as approved. The Central Fund has the further characteristic that it can be reallocated to any purpose at the discretion of the Prime Minister, without any need to report ex ante to the National Assembly; if it then becomes essential to meet other expenditure which would have fallen originally on the Central Fund, this can be authorized as a charge on the balance in the Treasury Reserve Account (which then has to be reimbursed through provision in the following years Budget). It is understood, however, that no use was made of this power in the period 2005-08. The other divergence between the Budget presentation and the expenditure out-turn arises from the operation of the system of carry-over from one 6 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ financial year to the next. Where a Ministry has provision left over in one of its budget lines, it is entitled to carry this over to be spent for the same purpose in the following year, subject only to notifying CGD. 2.11 The large majority of central government revenue is collected by the Revenue, Excise and Customs Departments of MOF. The Revenue Department, responsible for personal and corporate income taxes and VAT, collects nearly 70 percent of total revenue; Excise and Customs are responsible respectively for 15 and 5 percent of revenue, with SOEs profits and other sources each contributing about 5 percent. As already noted, local authorities are entitled to receive about 25 percent of total general government revenue, more than 90 percent of which comes from central government either in the form of grants or of shares in revenues collected by central government. Local authorities collect directly a small proportion of total general government revenues, notably taxes on property, but have little incentive under current arrangements to increase their own revenue-gathering effort. No comprehensive information has been collected in recent years about the functional or economic allocation of expenditure by local authorities. SOEs are supervised by the State Enterprise Policy Office (SEPO) of MOF, which is responsible for the general oversight of their finances, and for supervising their investment plans. SOEs have recently been required to split their accounts into two parts, so as to identify separately those activities which are carried on in the public interest at prices set by the government (the Public Service Obligation), and the remainder of their activities which are subject to normal commercial disciplines. In addition to all central government bodies, both local authorities and SOEs are subject to audit by the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG). 2.12 Each Ministry and agency is responsible for its own internal controls over expenditure and commitments, and for the establishment of an internal audit unit reporting to its administrative head. The development of internal audit has been encouraged by the OAG, which is able to draw on the findings of these units, but there has not so far been any central co- ordination of their activities or other arrangement to ensure that generally applicable lessons are notified to all the agencies concerned. Civil servant numbers and grading have been the subject of tight control by the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC), which has been somewhat relaxed by the Civil Service Act 2008. This Act mandates a more flexible regrading of civil servants to make it easier to retain talented officials who would otherwise have been driven by relatively poor pay and promotion prospects to seek other employment. CGD is responsible for the rules applicable to central government procurement, which are promulgated in Regulations by the Prime Minister; but there are no arrangements in force to police observance of the Regulations, or to see that they are also applied by local authorities and SOEs. Budget process and budget calendar 2.13 The 2007 Constitution contains provisions requiring the House of Representatives to have 105 days, and the Senate 20 days, to consider the draft Budget, while preventing the consideration of any proposal for increased expenditure. The Constitution also provides for the continuation of the Central Fund arrangements, and for the making of payments in advance of Parliamentary approval. In other respects the 1959 Budget Procedures Act, as amended in 2000, remains for the time being in force. The timetable for each years Budget (for the fiscal year running from 1 October to 30 September) starts in the fourth quarter of previous calendar year with preparation of the guidelines for the Government Administrative Plan (see paragraph 2.5 above) for the next four years, and with rolling forward the top-down Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Thereafter Ministries and agencies prepare draft 4 year and annual Operating Plans (including the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be achieved) consistent 7 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ with the overall GAP framework, and initial budget submissions for the following year in line with these Plans. Meanwhile the four key economic agencies prepare a revised economic forecast, and proposals for the strategic goals and the annual strategic budget allocation for the following year for decision by the Council of Ministers at the end of December. Revised Budget proposals are then prepared by mid-February, always consistently with the GAP and the Operating Plans, and BOB then prepares consolidated proposals to put to the Council of Ministers by the end of March. Any necessary revisions are then made to reflect Ministers decisions in time for submission of the Budget to the National Assembly in mid-May. This leaves time for Parliamentary discussion to be completed, and final approval to be given before mid-September. Box 2.1: The PFM Legislation Thailands main PFM legislation at present consists of The key primary documents include: o Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, especially Chapter VIII (sections 166-170) and Chapter XI (sections 252-254) o The Budget Procedures Act, 1959 (as amended time to time, with the latest update in 2000) o The Royal Decree on Good Governance, 2003 o The Public Debt Management Act, 2005 o The Treasury Reserve Act, 1948 o Determining Plans and Process of Decentralization to Local Government Organization (1999) 8 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. ASSESSMENT OF THE PFM SYSTEMS, PROCESSES AND INSTITUTIONS SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK Tentative score A. Credibility of the Budget PI-1 Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget B PI-2 Composition of expenditure out-turn to original approved budget A PI-3 Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original approved budget A PI-4 Stock and monitoring of expenditure payment arrears A B. Comprehensiveness and Transparency PI-5 Classification of the budget B PI-6 Comprehensiveness of information included in budget documentation B PI-7 Extent of unreported government operations B+ PI-8 Transparency of Inter-Governmental Fiscal Relations D+ PI-9 Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other public sector entities A PI-10 Public Access to key fiscal information B C(i) Policy-Based Budgeting PI-11 Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process A PI-12 Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning, expenditure policy and C budgeting C (ii) Predictability and Control in Budget Execution PI-13 Transparency of taxpayer obligations and liabilities A PI-14 Effectiveness of measures for taxpayer registration and tax assessment B PI-15 Effectiveness in collection of tax payments A PI-16 Predictability in the availability of funds for commitment of expenditures A PI-17 Recording and management of cash balances, debt and guarantees B+ PI-18 Effectiveness of payroll controls B PI-19 Competition, value for money and controls in procurement B PI-20 Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure C+ PI-21 Effectiveness of internal audit C+ C (iii) Accounting, Recording and Reporting PI-22 Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation C+ PI-23 Availability of information on resources received by service delivery B units PI-24 Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports B+ PI-25 Quality and timeliness of annual financial statements C+ C (iv) External Scrutiny and Audit PI-26 Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit B PI-27 Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law B+ PI-28 Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports D 9 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ A. BUDGET CREDIBILITY The credibility of the budget matters to citizens, investors, and all those who will implement the Budget. The difference between the initially approved budget and the actual expenditures and revenues measures the budget deviation, which provides a measure of the overall performance of the PFM system at a high level. PI 1: Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-1 Aggregate Actual expenditure (annual budget plus approved carry-overs), B expenditure out-turn deviated by more than 10 percent from budget for only one of compared to original the last three years (Table 3.1) approved budget (Scoring method M1) Aggregate expenditure outturn compared to the original approved budget for 2006-08 is shown in Table 3.1 below. The approved budget is taken to be the Budget as approved by the National Assembly excluding capital repayments, plus the amount of approved carry-overs. Actual expenditure figures include budgetary appropriations made to revolving funds. Table 3.1: Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget in Baht millions Total actual Total Deviation from Original Approved Revolving expenditure approved approved total Year Budget Carry-overs Funds (inc Revolving expenditure (%) Funds) 2006 1,360,000 15,395 1,375,395 90,095 1,360,968 1.1 2007 1,566,200 29,660 1,595,860 132,108 1,607,008 -0.7 2008 1,799,946 140,000 1,939,945 124,829 1,709,708 11.9 Sources: BOB, MOF (CGD) Note: figures exclude debt repayment. PI 2: Composition of expenditure out-turn to original approved budget Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-2 Composition of The variance in expenditure composition exceeded the overall A expenditure out-turn deviation in expenditure by no more than 2.5 percent in any of compared to original the last three years. approved budget (Scoring method M1) 10 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3.2: Variance in expenditure composition of the Budget (budget plus approved carry-overs) (in Baht millions) 2006 2007 2008 Approved Executed Deviation Approved Executed Deviation Approved Executed Deviation General Public 80,885.88 68,954.07 -14.8 84,887.33 70,172.73 -17.3 102,121.2 85,419.0 -16.4 Services Defence Affairs 88,072.08 81,974.76 -6.9 118,160.21 92,892.21 -21.4 175,880.8 119,822.2 -31.9 Public Order and 80,583.18 74,302.85 -7.8 91,796.36 81,537.67 -11.2 103,919.5 90,956.0 -12.5 Safety Education 279,589.50 274,866.82 -1.7 333,163.37 327,922.87 -1.6 363,999.4 345,209.5 -5.2 Health Services 102,840.36 101,846.83 -1.0 149,498.62 145,907.83 -2.4 159,018.0 153,790.1 -3.3 Social security 95,559.51 106,935.59 11.9 112,410.37 115,604.12 2.8 117,813.6 122,584.4 4.0 and welfare Housing, Community 41,532.69 36,858.12 -11.3 27,484.32 20,109.13 -26.8 48,969.5 33,666.2 -31.3 development, environment Religious affairs, Culture, 10,186.91 8,734.58 -14.3 13,464.65 11,596.87 -13.9 15,375.4 12,846.6 -16.4 Recreation Media Economic 360,864.59 277,768.46 -23.0 372,140.09 319,428.62 -14.2 387,452.3 318,931.4 -17.7 services Others 235,280.53 238,630.92 1.4 292,855.16 289,728.60 -1.1 325,395.8 301,653.2 -7.3 Total Expenditures 1,375,395.22 1,270,873.00 -7.6 1,595,860.48 1,474,900.64 -7.6 1,799,945.55 1,584,878.64 -11.9 (excluding. Debt service) Composition 9.7 8.0 12.5 Variance, % Difference between the variance in 2.1 0.4 0.6 composition and overall deviation Source: Comptroller Generals Department, Ministry of Finance PI 3: Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original approved budget Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-3 Aggregate Actual domestic revenue collection exceeded the budgeted A revenue out-turn amount in each of the last three years. compared to original approved budget (Scoring method M1) 11 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3.3 below shows Budget estimates and out-turns for each major type of revenue accruing to the Budget for the period 2006-08.Actual revenue exceeded the budgeted amount in all three years, by 8.9 percent in 2005-06, and by smaller percentages in the subsequent two years.5 Table 3.3: Revenue out-turn compared to original Budget (in billion Baht) 2006 2007 2008 Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Taxes on incomes and Profits 573,000 601,292 638,900 643,105 679,900 739,530 Taxes on Goods and Services/1 337,683 303,251 781,440 753,318 819,637 802,621 Taxes on Foreign Trade 118,900 200,550 86,450 88,514 76,820 97,445 Other Taxes and Fees 2,117 2,896 2,100 2,626 2,013 2,720 Non-tax Revenues 137,500 153,995 155,200 206,649 183,100 185,633 Total 1,169,200 1,261,984 1,664,090 1,694,212 1,761,470 1,827,949 % Deviation from budget 7.9% 1.8% 3.8% Sources: Fiscal Policy Office Note: 1/ VAT before allocated to local authorities PI 4: Stock and monitoring of expenditure payment arrears Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-4 Stock and (i) The stock of arrears of central government expenditure A monitoring of (including expenditure from revolving funds) has been expenditure payment negligible throughout the period under review. (A). arrears (Scoring method M1) (ii) There are no records of any arrears. (A) Payment of expenditure is for the most part executed by CGD from the Treasury Reserve Account at the BOT and Krung Thai Bank. In order to ensure that payments can be made as they become due, CGDs policy is to keep minimum cash balance of about 25 billion Baht (about 10 days expenditure at current rates) in these accounts. (In practice the cash balance has recently been much higher, and stood at more than 90 billion Baht in November 2008.) The amount of the Treasury Bill issue can be adjusted flexibly to accommodate seasonal and other fluctuations in revenue and/or expenditure. Although there are complaints about administrative delays in tax repayments (e.g. VAT refunds where supply is zero-rated), there was no evidence of Ministries or agencies deliberately delaying giving payment instructions. Payments by CGD are normally effected the same day directly into the recipients bank accounts; where this is not possible, and payment has to be made through an account held by a Ministry or agency (e.g. payments in remote areas to people without bank accounts), this is done within a 2-3 days. Ministries are not permitted to retain unspent advances for more than 15 days. Although there was evidence of some dissatisfaction with delays in tax repayments (e.g. VAT refunds on exports), there was no sign of complaints about delays in the payment of wages and salaries or in 5 According to the PEFA Secretariat Instruction, this indicator is asymmetric: collecting significantly less revenue than the budget estimate results in a lower score, but collecting significantly more revenue than indicated in the budget still scores A. 12 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ payments for goods and services. Meetings with private sector confirmed that arrears on goods and services are not a concern. B. COMPREHENSIVENESS AND TRANSPARENCY PI 5: Classification of the budget Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-5 Classification The cash Budget is formulated using functional and economic B of the budget classifications consistent with COFOG and GFS 1986, while its (Scoring method execution (including the income and expenditure of the M1) revolving extra-budgetary funds) is recorded in GFMIS on an accrual accounting basis, with the economic classification reflecting GFS 2001. The arrangements for the Central Fund and for the carry-over of expenditure make a detailed comparison between budget and out-turn cumbersome, but possible. The accounting is capable of producing cash based information for comparison to the Budget. The intention of this indicator is to assess whether all expenditure is budgeted and reported according all applicable classifications, including a GFS-consistent economic presentation and, where applicable, its place in a programme directed towards a specific policy objective. In Thailand very detailed information is given in the presentation of the cash budget about the economic, functional and administrative classification of most of the expenditure for which the approval of the National Assembly is sought. About 14.5 percent of expenditure (in FY2008/09) was placed in a Central Fund (of which about a sixth is a pure contingency) most of which is intended to meet pension, medical and other civil service costs whose detailed functional allocation is not specified. The presentation of the budget clearly presents the functional classification of the budget. Comparison between budget and outturn is somewhat hampered by the fact that some expenditure may be carried over from the previous year without needing to be authorised afresh in each years budget. Although the Budget does provide information about the amounts of expenditure carried over in previous years, it contains less information about expenditure carried over into the fiscal year to which it relates; this expenditure is not included in the presentation of the expenditure aggregates for the Budget year. Information on expenditure outturn according to functional classification as compared to its approved budget for both the annual budget and carry-over are available upon request at CGD. Overall, the budget formulation and execution is based on administrative, economic, and functional classification using the GFS standard. Dimension: (B) 13 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 6: Comprehensiveness of information included in budget documentation Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-6 Comprehensiveness The Budget documentation includes full information on B of information included in five of the benchmarks specified by the PEFA budget documentation Framework, and partial information on two others. (Scoring method M1) The assessment reviews how information in accordance with each benchmark is incorporated into the budget documentation. 1. Macro-economic assumptions, including at least estimates of aggregate growth, inflation and exchange rate. Information about the outlook for growth and inflation is presented alongside the Budget, but this does not cover the expected exchange rate. The fact that Thailand has adopted the Managed Float Exchange Rate regime at which the rate is determined by the market, then to announce expected exchange rate publicly would mislead the market. (Partially satisfied) 2. Fiscal deficit, defined according to GFS or other internationally recognised standard. Information about the size of the fiscal deficit is not given on a basis consistent with GFS; as well as including capital repayments within the definition of budget expenditure, the Budget documentation does not mention expenditure carried over from the previous year, which also needs to be financed. However, MOF states that the projected fiscal deficit consistent with GFS 2001 is published on MOF and FPO websites at the time of presentation of the Budget to the Parliament. (Satisfied). 3. Deficit financing. The Budget includes information about gross new domestic borrowing, as well as information about interest payments and capital repayments. (Satisfied) 4. Debt stock. Separate sections of the budget documentation describe domestic and external public state debts. (Satisfied) 5. Financial Assets, including at least details for the beginning of the current year. Information is published with the Budget about the stock of financial assets held by the government (including extra-budgetary funds) in the banking sector at the beginning of the current year. (Satisfied) 14 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Prior years budget out-turn, presented in the same format as the budget proposal. This information is not provided. However, the budget out-turn as opposed to its approved budget in functional classification can be provided by CGD upon request, but is not included in the following year budget document. (Not satisfied) 7. Current years budget (either the revised budget or the estimated out-turn) presented in the same format as the budget proposal. This information is not provided. (Not satisfied) 8. Summarised budget data for both revenue and expenditure according to the main heads of the classifications used, including data for the current and previous year. Information is provided about the comparison of the proposed Budget with the Budgets for the current and previous years (with revisions shown where approved budgets have been changed). (Satisfied) 9. Explanation of budget implications of new policy initiatives, with estimates of the budgetary impact of all major revenue policy changes and/or some major changes to expenditure programmes. This information is not given in the context of the presentation of the Budget. But some information is provided through presentations of the GAP, and of the KPIs which each Ministry or agency is asked to achieve. (Partially satisfied) PI 7: Extent of unreported government operations Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-7 Extent of (i) Some of the revolving funds that are not recognized in the TRA B+ unreported are self-funding such as Petroleum Funds and Government government Pension Fund. In principle, revolving funds that their sources of operations fund rely on the government budget will be accounted in TRA and (Scoring method reported in the central government operations. According to the M1) consolidated fiscal reports published by FPO, gross expenditure of this kind corresponds to rather more than 10 percent of total central government expenditure. However, the bulk of the expenditure is funded through central government grants, so that the net additional expenditure is less than 2 percent of the total. Dimension score: (B) (ii)Externally funded expenditure (through grants and loans) outside the Budget has in recent years been very small (in total around 0.5 percent of budget expenditure). Although the funds do not pass through the Thai budgetary system, assistance in the form of scholarships, technical assistance, etc is reported in arrears alongside the budget presentation. (A). 15 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) The consolidated reports cover all expenditures incurred by central government agencies and departments. Significant expenditure takes place outside the Budget through the 95 "Revolving Funds" and through the limited coverage social security system. However reports on revolving funds are consolidated by the CGD and audited by the OAG. The auditor general also presents audit findings on government, revolving funds, and semi- autonomous agencies to the Parliament. Some spending agencies like schools and hospitals retain revenues and these are not systematically reported. However the volume of these retained revenues are less than 5 percent of total expenditure. Dimension score: (B) Dimension score: (B) (ii) There are some small amounts of expenditure on projects financed through external loans which do not pass through GFMIS. Thailand also receives some direct external assistance (scholarships, technical assistance, etc.) outside the Budget, which is reported in arrears alongside the Budget. The total amounts in recent years have been around 0.5 percent of total budget expenditure. Dimension score: (A) PI 8: Transparency of Inter-Governmental Fiscal Relations Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-8 Transparency (i) The allocation of spending power (grants plus shared taxes) D+ of Inter-Government is partly based on the rules. (C) Fiscal Reform (Scoring method (ii)While local authorities are informed during the preparation M2) of the central government budget of the grants to be paid to them, and of their estimated share in receipts from national taxes, their actual receipts may fall short of earlier indications as a result of tax reductions decided by the government for conjunctural reasons. (D) (iii) No data are collected about the functional breakdown of local authority expenditure (which corresponds to more than 20 percent of total general government expenditure). (D) (i) Transparency of the allocation of resources to local authorities In Thailand local authorities at different levels of government (Bangkok Metropolitan Authority and Pattaya City as special type of local government, provinces, municipalities and sub-districts) are guaranteed a total income (taking shared tax receipts and central government grants together) not lower than 25 percent of total general government revenue as well as the amount of allocated subsidy should not less than what they received in FY2006 (Bt126,013 million) from FY2007 onwards. Revenue from property taxes, certain excise taxes and 30 percent of the yield of VAT is assigned to local government, with the allocation partly or wholly determined by where revenue is collected. The overall allocation of tax revenues and grants among different authorities is supervised by a Committee established by the Ministry of the Interior, while the rules applicable to different elements of this allocation is reviewed every year with the key determination of numbers of authorities in each level, sizes of population and areas. There is no exclusive 16 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ allocation of responsibilities for the provision of different public services as between central government and local authorities at different levels. Dimension score: (C) (ii) Timeliness of reliable information to lower tier governments on their available resources The arrangements for the preparation of the central government Budget enable local authorities to receive (though the Ministry of the Interior) information about their prospective total receipts (tax revenue and grants together) in the following financial year well in advance of its beginning. But clear general rules for local authority budget-setting have yet to be developed (the administrative competence of authorities at different levels varies very widely), as does their ability to account for their revenue and expenditure (OAG, which is responsible for auditing their accounts often has in effect to prepare them). The local authority budgeting process is further undermined by the fact that they may face uncompensated losses of revenue resulting from tax changes decided by central government for economic management reasons. Thus in 2007-08 changes in tax rates after the central government Budget had been set reduced total local authority revenues from the taxes by over 16 percent (more than 20 billion Baht), resulting in an overall reduction in local authority revenue of more than 5 percent. Dimension score: (D) (iii) Extent of consolidation of fiscal data for general government according to sectoral categories No comprehensive data have been collected about the functional distribution of local authority expenditure (which corresponds to more than 20 percent of general government expenditure) since 1996. Dimension score: (D) PI 9: Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other public sector entities Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-9 Oversight of (i) State-owned enterprises report regularly to their supervising A aggregate fiscal risk units at the relevant level of government, and are expected to from other public meet financial targets set by the State Enterprise Policy Office sector entities (SEPO) at MOF. Guaranteed borrowing requires MOF (Scoring method approval. (A) M1) (ii) Local government are under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Interior and have been running budget surpluses over the past few years. Their cash position is continuously monitored by the Ministry and the BOT. They effectively cannot borrow, because they cannot offer collateral to lenders. (A) (i) Extent of central government monitoring of autonomous government agencies and state- owned enterprises; In Thailand all SOEs are subject to an element of financial supervision by SEPO, which is represented on all their Boards, and sets financial targets for each. SEPO is thus able to take a continuous overview of the fiscal risks potentially arising from SOE financing; SOE borrowing, including from banks, normally requires a government guarantee from PDMO. In the case of 17 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ profitable enterprises the financial targets take the form of dividends to be paid in addition to the normal operation of corporate profit tax. Where SOEs incur losses as a result of government- imposed public service obligations (PSOs) (see PI-7 above), the targets are in terms of a reduction in losses through cost savings. Separate accounts are to be kept to isolate loss-making activities from other elements of the activities of the SOEs concerned. All SOE investment is subject to SEPO oversight through the monitoring of business plans and the establishment of financial targets; where investments require direct budget funding or government guarantees for any necessary borrowing, specific approval is required from the Council of Ministers on the proposal respectively of BOB or NESDB. The FPO and PDMO consolidate fiscal risks from SOEs and presents to government annually. Dimension score: (A) (ii) Extent of central government monitoring of lower tier governments fiscal position Local authorities are supervised by the Ministry of Interior but does not collect any systematic information about the content of their expenditure, it does collect systematic information about their cash position. According to the Public Debt Management Act (2005), the power to taken on public debt has been placed with the PDMO. Local governments cannot borrow from the banking system, because of their inability to offer collateral, and could not access the financial markets independently of central government, their activities do not present a significant fiscal risk to the government. Score for this Dimension: (A) PI 10: Public access to key fiscal information Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-10 Public access to The general public has full access to information covering B key fiscal information three of the six PEFA benchmarks. (Scoring method M1) Six elements of information to which the public should have access are considered. (i) Annual budget documentation (as in PI 6): The Budget documentation provided to the National Assembly is accessible to the general public, much of the itemized detailed through the BOB website. (Satisfied) (ii) In-year budget execution reports. The CGD publishes quarterly reports of actual government revenue and expenditure, based on GFMIS, although these are not entirely comparable with the original Budget presentation. The PDMO publishes quarterly information about government and government-guaranteed debt. (Satisfied) (iii) Year-end financial statements. Because of the difficulties of reconciling information from GFMIS with other relevant sources (e.g. bank account information), no certified year-end financial statements have been published since 2005. (Not satisfied) 18 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (iv) External audit reports. The OAG publish their Annual Reports, their Audit Reports on SOEs and also other specific reports, and invite the attention of the media within 6 months of the end of the fiscal year. (Satisfied) (v) Contract awards. There does not appear to be any systematic publication of the awards of contracts. Summary information about the types of contracts awarded is not currently available beyond the first quarter of 2007. (Not Satisfied) (vi) Resources available to primary service units. Information is not published about the costs of operating particular hospitals, clinics or schools, although such information should in principle be provided under the freedom of information provisions of the 2007 Constitution (section 56). (Not Satisfied) Score for this Indicator: (B) C. BUDGET CYCLE C (I) POLICY-BASED BUDGETING PI 11: Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-11 Orderliness and (i) There is a clear Budget Calendar which is generally A participation in the respected. (A) annual budget process (Scoring method M2) (ii) Although ceilings are not set for each Ministry at the beginning of the process, collective government decisions at a relatively early stage give BOB a clear basis for reaching agreement with spending Ministries/agencies. (A) (iii) Except when normal arrangements for the Parliament have been interrupted as a result of political instability, the following years Budget has generally been approved before the start of the fiscal year. (A) Given the main responsibility of BOB in the annual budget formulation process, this indicator seeks to assess whether the political leadership (the Council of Ministers) and the Ministries and other budget organisations participate effectively in the process, thereby having an impact on macro-economic, fiscal and sectoral policies. 19 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) Budget Calendar There is a clear Budget Calendar which is understood and respected. Preparation of the Budget takes place within a framework set by the Government Administrative Plan (GAP) and the top- down Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), with which each Ministry/agencys Annual Operating Plan must comply. The Operating Plans incorporate the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) each Ministry/agency is expected to achieve. The GAP should be consistent with the governments four year Plan, and also with NESDBs current five year Plan for economic development. Preparation of the next Budget starts early in each fiscal year, when the objectives of the four year GAP are updated, and the four key economic agencies (see paragraph 2.8 above) produce new economic projections, while OPDC and BOB jointly suggest the general guidelines and priorities for the new Budget allocations. Meanwhile discussions begin in November between BOB and the spending departments, including the latters initial submissions of their spending needs, given current policies and existing commitments (including previously agreed KPIs). Around the turn of the year the Council of Ministers, informed by revised economic projections, and consistently with the GAP and Operating Plans, decides the overall expenditure envelope and the criteria for its allocation. The BOB then gives each Ministry/agency five weeks to submit detailed Budget proposals within expenditure ceilings set by reference to the criteria approved by the Council of Ministers. Following negotiations with each spending department, BOB then put the complete Budget to the Council of Ministers by the end of March, after which, and subject to the settlement of any outstanding details, the draft Budget is submitted to the National Assembly around mid-May. Score for this Dimension: (A) (ii) Priority setting and political foundation for instructions in the Budget Circular As explained above, preparation of the Budget takes place within a framework in which the governments overall priorities are clearly recognised, and reflects decisions by the Council of Ministers first on the general shape, and then on the more detailed content of the Budget. The rating here is based on the description of the formal process; the impact of the process, from GAP through Operating Plans to the setting of budget allocations and KPIs, in improving service delivery, requires separate examination. Score for this Dimension: (A) (iii) Timely budget approval by the Parliament The draft Budget is submitted to the National Assembly each year in time for the Assembly to have the 125 days required by the Constitution for its consideration, and approve it before the beginning of the next fiscal year. Recent experience has been in accordance with this, and it should present no problem in future unless the Assemblys operations are affected by political instability. Score for this Dimension: (A) 20 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 12: Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning, expenditure policy and budgeting Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-12 Multi-year (i) Although the Budget is in principle prepared within a medium- C perspective in term framework, the realism of the detailed forward projections of fiscal planning revenue and expenditure, their links to the execution of specific expenditure policy initiatives, and their effect in constraining future budget policy and bids and allocations, have yet to be demonstrated. (C) budgeting (Scoring method (ii) Debt sustainability analysis for external and domestic debt is M2) undertaken at least once during the last three years.(B) (iii) Despite the emphasis on four year Operating Plans, with KPIs set for the whole period, it does not appear that general medium- term planning objectives have yet been translated into precise costed strategies for the improvement over time of particular public services which are fully consistent with prospectively available resources. (C) (iv) Investment planning hitherto has focused mainly on identifying and specifying a series of priority projects to be implemented as Budgetary headroom permits. This planning has not yet been fully integrated into overall budgetary planning. (C) The question addressed by this Indicator is whether effective and sufficiently detailed medium- term plans are made to make best use of available resources in the development of the economy and the provision of public services, and whether these plans actually guide the annual budget ceilings and allocations. (i) Multi-year projections of revenue and expenditure It appears that the medium-term elements in the present planning process largely reflect a "top- down" allocation of available resources to different sectors, rather than a detailed assessment (which is nevertheless consistent with the top-down allocation) of the resources required to achieve specific improvements in the delivery of particular public services. There was limited evidence that successive years budget proposals by line Ministries were much influenced by previous detailed costings of policy implementation, although the discipline of current arrangements has curbed their more unrealistic ambitions. Dimension score: (C) (ii) Scope and frequency of debt sustainability analysis In presenting each successive years budget proposals, BOB provides an indication how much of deficit would be financed, through domestic or external borrowing (although the presentation looks at the borrowing requirement gross of scheduled debt repayments). Medium-term fiscal projections consistent with the current GAP have not so far indicated any significant risk of breaching the existing guideline, which requires total public debt to be kept below 50 percent of GDP (As of November 09 38 percent) and debt service (interest plus capital repayments) to be kept within 15 percent of total Budget expenditure (it was 10.4 percent in 2007-08). The fact that 21 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ external public debt amounts to only about 4 percent of GDP further reinforces Thailands debt sustainability position. However formal DSA for external and domestic debt is undertaken at least once during the last three years. Dimension score: (B) (iii) Sector strategies and multi-year costing of recurrent and investment expenditure Despite the emphasis on GAP, Operating Plans and the achievement over time of KPIs, there is little evidence of a top-down medium-term framework having yet been translated into generally accepted detailed and costed plans for the progressive improvement of major public services which are consistent with prospectively available resources, and which serve as the basis for each successive years Budget submissions. The "strategies" within which Budget proposals are presented are in very general terms, and do not indicate which specific actions will be taken over a specified period of time to achieve a given result. The complete absence of the local authority dimension from any public service planning represents a further important weakness. Dimension score: (C) (iv) Linkages between investment budgets and forward expenditure estimates Overall public sector investment planning is part of the general responsibility of NESDB, which has more direct responsibilities where SOE investments require loan (or PPP) financing. In the case of SOEs, investment planning is clearly anchored in business plans for the future activities of the enterprises in question, which naturally extend into the medium-term. But investment in the development of public services is more directly the responsibility of the line Ministries concerned, which appear not yet to have formulated articulated plans for the development of their services for periods of at least four years ahead, covering Both current and investment expenditures. The main focus of attention at present in public investment is on the execution of a few "mega projects" which could be used as a short-term stimulus to the level of economic activity, as well as providing future amenities whose desirability is generally recognised. While this may be entirely appropriate in the current conjuncture, it will be important to ensure that haste does not get in the way of efficient and economical execution of these projects, and that other elements of policy are tailored so as to secure maximum benefits from newly created facilities. Dimension score: (C) C (II). PREDICTABILITY AND CONTROL IN BUDGET EXECUTION* PI 13: Transparency of taxpayer obligations and liabilities Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-13 Transparency (i) Legislation and procedures for major taxes are generally A of taxpayer comprehensive and clear. There were indications that obligations and interpretations were not always consistent in the application of liabilities (Scoring the Special Business Tax to the financial sector. (B) method M2) (ii) Legal texts are readily available from the tax authorities, and on their websites. The Revenue Department has a body of officials engaged in supervision visits to ensure that taxpayers are aware of their obligations. (A) 22 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (iii)Disagreed assessments can be taken initially to the Commission of Appeals, and if the taxpayer is unsuccessful, to the tax court. A small number of such appeals are made each year to this court, with decisions frequently in favour of the taxpayer. (A) This Indicator seeks to assess the operation of the tax system from the standpoint of the taxpayer, i.e. whether businesses and individuals can readily understand how tax liabilities are determined, whether they can be confident that all taxpayers are treated equally, and whether they have access to impartial appeals procedures in the event of disagreement with the tax authorities. Thailand is a relatively low tax country, with total general government tax receipts (including social security contributions and local authorities tax revenue) amounting to less than 18 percent of GDP. The bulk of tax revenue comes from corporate and personal income taxes, VAT and excise duties. (i) Clarity and comprehensiveness of tax liabilities Tax liabilities as defined by law are essentially based on generally accepted principles concerning the definition of "income" or "profits. Concern was expressed about the way the Special Business Tax impacts on the financial sector. There are a variety of allowances and deductions against tax liability which take the vast bulk of small income earners outside the tax net, while there are some specific concessions to small and medium-sized enterprises, to businesses engaging in research and development, and to investors in particular localities. The Constitution (section 167) mandates the quantification of "tax expenditures", but this has not yet been done. Significant personal income tax-payers represent a very small minority (0.5 million out of 64 million) of the total population, and about 2,500 (mainly corporate) large taxpayers (under the responsibility of the Large Business Tax Administration Office (LTO)) account for nearly 50 percent of Revenue Department (RD) receipts (or about 38 percent of total tax receipts including excise taxes and customs duties). RD has invested heavily in IT applications to tax filing and tax collection ("e-Revenue"), and its operating costs are only about one percent of the revenue collected. No evidence was found of dissatisfaction on the part of taxpayers with the way in which tax liabilities are established, but there was criticism of delays in VAT repayments on zero-rated goods and exports. Dimension score: (B) (ii) Taxpayers access to information on tax liabilities and administrative procedures Information about tax liabilities is readily available from the tax authorities, and on their websites. RD has a substantial number of staff engaged in supervision visits to taxpayers, to encourage compliance with VAT and personal and corporate income taxes. There was no evidence of any significant level of complaints about the accessibility of information. The point was made that decisions on the application of taxes (e.g. the customs classification of new types of imports) were sometimes subject to delays during which taxpayers have to give security which may exceed any eventual tax liability. However the private tax consultants met by the team confirmed that tax payers have easy access to comprehensive, user friendly and up-to-date information on tax liabilities and administrative procedures for all major taxes, and that the RD has a proactive taxpayer education campaign for enhanced compliance. Dimension score: (A) (iii) Existence and functioning of a tax appeal machinery Disagreed assessments are taken in the first instance to the Appeals Commission. If the taxpayer wishes to contest the Commissions decision, he must appeal to the tax court within 30 days. 23 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Security must be provided if a taxpayer wishes to suspend payment of tax pending the results of an appeal. There are a small number of appeals to the courts every year (39 in 2008 concerning RD, with a total amount in dispute of 1,377m Baht, of which 22 were decided in favour of the taxpayer). Independent private sector tax consultants expressed satisfaction with the tax appeals machinery. Dimension score: (A) PI 14: Effectiveness of measures for taxpayer registration and tax assessment Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-14 Effectiveness (i) All-purpose civil registration numbers (PIN) are also used B of measures for for personal income tax. Business taxpayers must obtain a taxpayer registration Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) which covers all taxes. and tax assessment But these registration systems are not directly linked to other (Scoring method systems recording the registration of business activities or the M2) incorporation of companies. (B) (ii) RD devotes much effort to "supervision visits" to ensure taxpayer registration and compliance. These result in the imposition of very numerous small penalties. Overall the enforcement of registration and declaration obligations appears fully effective once taxpayers have been identified. But it appears that there may be considerable numbers of small entrepreneurs with operations above tax thresholds who escape notice. (B) (iii) Automated systems based on risk factors identify taxpayers to be subject to detailed inspection by RD usually by way of business visits. The main purpose of these visits is to advise taxpayers, and encourage them to pay the correct amount of tax. (B) This Indicator seeks to assess the functioning of the tax system from the standpoint of the authorities, i.e. whether the authorities are well informed about the identity and character of taxpayers, whether they are able to enforce compliance with obligations, and whether they have effective arrangements for countering tax fraud. (i) Controls in the taxpayer registration system All-purpose civil registration (PIN) provides the basis for identifying taxpayers liable to personal income tax (except foreigners not subject to civil registration, who must register for tax purposes in the same way as businesses). Businesses must obtain a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) which covers all taxes, and provides a basis for the exchange of information between RD and the Excise and Customs Departments. However, separate registrations are required to carry on a business activity and to confirm its location. Altogether, according to the WB Doing Business 2009 survey, eight different procedures are required to start a business. It appears that there is scope for rationalising these procedures and further facilitating communication between the different databases. Dimension score: (B) 24 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (ii) Effectiveness of penalties for non-compliance with registration and declaration obligations. RD devotes much effort to "supervision" visits to taxpayers, to inform them of their registration and payment obligations. There were over 2 million such visits in 2007-08, and over 600,000 taxpayers were subjected to penalties with total amount of 236 million Baht or averaging 370 Baht per case. The enforcement of tax registration thus appears to be very effective, once the potential taxpayers have been identified. But it appears that there may be a considerable number of small entrepreneurs whose operations are above tax thresholds who escape notice. The way in which the flat-rate payments system is applied to those who lack the capability to keep the records necessary to comply with the normal system may constitute a disincentive to compliance. Dimension score: (B) (iii) Planning and monitoring of tax audit programmes A separate office (LTO) deals with the affairs of the 2,500 largest taxpayers who account for around 40 percent of all tax receipts (including those collected by Excise and Customs Departments as well as RD). Apart from this, RDs e-Revenue system selects taxpayers for more detailed inspection based on the application of risk factors reflecting the type of business or their previous compliance history. The resulting supervision visits (which cover both registration and compliance obligations) give rise to significant additional receipts (see (ii) above).Dimension score: (B) PI 15: Effectiveness in collection of tax payments Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-15 Effectiveness in (i) Over the last three years RD has been successful in its A collection of tax objective of keeping total outstanding tax arrears within 8 payments (Scoring percent of annual tax receipts. (A) method M1) (ii) All tax revenue is paid into the Treasury Reserve Account (TRA) within a day. (A) (iii) The tax authorities IT systems provide for a running check on the amounts assessed and the amounts actually paid. The latter are regularly reconciled with TRA records of tax receipts. (A) (i) Collection ratio for gross tax arrears Total RD tax arrears at the ends of 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 amounted to 8.1 percent, 6.6 percent and 7.0 percent respectively of total taxes collected in those years. Tax receipts are credited against the aggregate of a taxpayers outstanding obligations, with the result that the oldest debts are extinguished first: a payment in 2008 cannot extinguish a 2008 liability while a 2006 liability remains outstanding. The fact that total arrears were not increasing significantly (arrears are only written off after 10 years) confirms RDs success in collecting almost all the tax it assesses. Dimension score: (A) 25 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (ii) Immediate transfer of tax collections to the Treasury Tax payments to RD in Bangkok are transferred to the TRA within a day. Tax payments in the provinces go directly into bank accounts of CGD, from which they are transferred to TRA. This process takes about 1 day. Dimension score: (A) (iii) Frequency of accounts reconciliation between tax assessments, collections, arrears and transfers to the Treasury The tax authorities IT systems provide for a running check on the amounts assessed and the amounts actually paid. The latter are reconciled with TRA records of tax receipts within one month of the end of month. Dimension: (A) PI 16: Predictability in the availability of funds for commitment of expenditures Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-16 (i) Once budgetary provision has been determined, the timing of A Predictability in the bulk of central government expenditure can be forecast by the availability of CGD with a high degree of precision. The size of the Treasury funds for Bill issue can be varied flexibly to match fluctuations in cash commitment of needs, which are continuously monitored and assessed. (A) expenditures (Scoring method (ii) Ministries and agencies can rely on the availability of cash M1) at all times to meet payments which are within their overall budget allocations. (A) (iii) Budget allocations for particular functions and sub- functions represent ceilings which are rarely changed, and there is very little scope for movement of provision between sub- functions. An overall increase in the Budget for economic management reasons requires the presentation of a revised Budget to the National Assembly. (A) (i) Extent to which cash flows are forecast and monitored A high proportion of central government expenditure is recurrent expenditure whose timing is well known and predictable by CGD on the basis of its experience. In addition, it is understood that Ministries provide a projection of their quarterly cash requirements. The centralisation of the vast bulk of central government payments through the GFMIS controlled by CGD enables the situation to be closely monitored. Dimension score: (A) (ii) Reliability and time horizon of information to spending authorities on cash availability CGD policy is to maintain a cash reserve in TRA of at least 25 billion Baht, sufficient to cover about two weeks government expenditure. In practice the reserve has recently been much larger than this: 90.7 billion Baht in November 2008. In addition, the size of the Treasury Bill issue can be varied flexibly at two weeks notice to meet any unexpected fluctuations of expenditure. Ministries and agencies can be confident that cash will be available at any time in the fiscal year 26 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ to meet payments which are within their budgetary allocations. (CGD would immediately raise questions about sudden changes in expenditures which normally follow regular patterns.) Dimension score: (A) (iii) Frequency and transparency of adjustments to budget allocations notified to spending authorities An overall increase in budget expenditure (for example, for economic management reasons) should normally require the presentation of a revised Budget to the National Assembly. So far as Ministries and agencies are concerned, budget allocations to functions and sub-functions constitute effective ceilings, and there is only limited scope for re-allocation within sub-functions even with the approval of BOB (in particular, no reallocation is possible between current and capital expenditure). Such reallocations as have been made over the 2005-08 period to which this assessment refers have not significantly altered the mix of expenditure within functional and sub- functional headings. There were no centrally-imposed reallocations effectively reducing previously approved Budget allocations. On the basis that this Indicator seeks to measure whether a Ministry can be confident of being able to execute its budget as planned, and that there have been no significant non-transparent reallocations: Dimension score: (A) PI 17: Recording and management of cash balances, debt and guarantees Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-17 Recording (i) Domestic and external public debt data are complete and B+ and management reliable, and are updated monthly, and include unguaranteed of cash balances, borrowing by state enterprises. (A) debt and guarantees (ii) Most of central governments cash balances are consolidated (Scoring method daily in TRA, but the extra-budgetary revolving funds hold M2) significant parts of their cash balances outside it, and Ministries may hold some "non-budgetary" funds in other bank accounts. (C) (iii) All central government borrowings, including guaranteed borrowing by SOEs, is controlled and managed by PDMO at MOF within the approved fiscal framework. (A) (i) Quality of debt data recording and reporting PDMO manages and controls all public debts, domestic and external, including guaranteed borrowing by SOEs. Full details of all public debt, including unguaranteed borrowing by profitable SOEs, are included in reports which are published quarterly. Dimension score: (A) 27 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (ii) Extent of consolidation of government cash balances The bulk of central government cash balances are concentrated in TRA, with payments and receipts tracked through GFMIS. However, the extra-budgetary revolving funds are permitted to keep a proportion of their funds in other accounts. At the end of November 2008 total cash balances amounted to 90.7 billion Baht, of which nearly 7.7 billion Baht were held outside TRA. Ministries are also allowed under some circumstances to hold proportions of "non-budgetary" funds outside TRA. Local authorities accumulated balances are outside TRA, although under some measure of control by the Ministry of the Interior. Dimension score: (C) (iii) Systems for contracting loans and issuing guarantees Under the Public Debt Management Act (2005) PDMO is authorised to borrow domestically on behalf of the government up to 20 percent of approved Budget expenditure for the respective year in order to meet any deficit. With the approval of the Council of Ministers PDMO may guarantee borrowing by SOEs up to the same limits. There is also a power for PDMO to borrow to on-lend to local authorities, but no use has yet been made of this. PDMO also has powers to issue loans for the purpose of market management or debt restructuring even when there is no immediate requirement to borrow. The Act mandates half-yearly publication of information about public debt transactions. In practice full information is published regularly about all domestic and external public debt, including unguaranteed borrowing by SOEs, and the outstanding debts of financial institutions which received government support in the 1998 crisis. At the end of November 2008 total public debt amounted to 38 percent of GDP; of this debt only 11 percent was external. Dimension score: (A) PI 18: Effectiveness of payroll controls Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-18 (i) Although personnel and payroll records are not directly linked, B Effectiveness of the payroll is supported by full documentation of changes to the payroll controls personnel records and payroll. Established procedures ensure that (Scoring method the payroll is revised each month to reflect changes in personnel M1) records. (B) (ii) Personnel and payroll records are linked to ensure data consistency and monthly reconciliation is conducted between Office of the Civil Service Commission, respective agency, and the Comptroller Generals Department. (A) (iii)Responsibilities and authorities for changes to personnel and payroll records are clear, and the audit trail confirming the correctness of records exists and could be further strengthened. (B) (iv)OAG regularly tests payroll payments and the underlying systems as part of regular financial audit, and has not encountered any problems. But there is not the same degree of assurance about police and armed forces pay, where the individual payments are the responsibility of the Ministries concerned. (C) 28 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ The numbers, pay and grading of civil servants and other central government employees have been tightly controlled by the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC) and BOB. Budget funding is allocated by reference to precise calculations about the numbers employed at different levels. A major restructuring of pay and grading is currently in process of implementation, with the objective of making the system more flexible in order to retain the best qualified people who would otherwise move to other employments where pay and promotion prospects are better. The civil service culture is conservative and deeply rooted, which should provide a significant measure of defence against any abuse. (i) Linkages between personnel records and payroll operations Ministries and agencies are responsible for keeping correct and consistent personnel and payroll records, and operate well-established systems for this purpose. The OCSC and the CGD cross- check personnel records and payroll operations with the civil servant database as well as with individual department records. There is no reason to doubt the competence and integrity of those concerned. Dimension score: (B) (ii) Timely updating of personnel and payroll databases Personnel and payroll records are updated by Ministries and agencies monthly in time to ensure that staffs are correctly paid. There was no sign of delays between appointment and first payment of salary. Salary payments are made via bank accounts. Dimension score: (A) (iii) Internal controls of changes to personnel records and payroll There is hierarchical supervision of changes to personnel and payroll records by the personnel and finance functions in each Ministry/agency, but there may be scope for strengthening internal control in this area, particularly in view of the wide potential implications of the current regrading exercise. The fact that all government officials (except the armed forces and police) are paid directly by CGD into their own bank accounts, following a check to ensure that the total of the individual payments corresponds to the authorised pay bill for each department, represents an important element of security in this part of the process. Controls for the armed forces and police are same as that for other agencies.; Dimension score: (B) (iv) Effective operation of payroll audits Payroll payments have been regularly examined by OAG on a test basis as part of the regular financial audit of expenditure. These tests of individual payments against the supporting personnel and other records, which include tests of the functioning of the systems, and confirmation of the identities and circumstances of the individuals selected for testing, have not pointed to any problems. But the same degree of assurance is not available in respect of the pay of the police and armed forces, who are paid by their respective ministries. Dimension score: C 29 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 19: Competition, value for money and controls in procurement Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-19 Competition, (i) About two thirds of contracts (by value) are procured using B value for money competitive methods like e-Auctions, e-Shopping etc. However, and controls in the joint WB/CGD study showed that there are a number of procurement areas where the competitive process could be strengthened, (Scoring method concerning for example arrangements for the pre-qualification M2) of bidders, the extent of preferences for public sector suppliers and the transparency of arrangements for tender specifications. (B) (ii) The applicable legislation provides for the use of less competitive methods in defined circumstances, but there is incomplete assurance that the conditions for this are effectively policed. (C) (iii) Complaints may be made directly to the head of tendering authority, to CGD, and to the courts. CGD is aware of instances of complaints going to the courts, but there is a lack of systematic record of the numbers, the reasons for the complaints, or the outcomes. (B) The applicable legislation takes the form of Prime Ministers Regulations, rather than a generally applicable public procurement law. The Regulations apply directly only to the central government, and neither SOEs nor local authorities are bound by them, although it appears that they aim to follow broadly the same rules. A joint WB/CGD study in 2005 identified a number of areas where practice and procedures could be improved so as to achieve greater transparency and value for money. CGD is responsible for the development of policy and for monitoring its application, but it is not in a position to enforce compliance and transparency throughout central government. The most recent statistical information available about the use of different procurement methods concerns the last quarter of 2006. Particular attention has been paid to the development of procurement by "e-auction" where bidders compete against each other in real time to offer the lowest price; while this method has clear attractions for the purchase of standard goods, it appears much less suitable in the cases of larger building and civil engineering contracts. (i) Use of open competition for the award of contracts above a threshold value CGD data show that in the period 2005-06 about two thirds of central government procurement by value involved some sort of competitive process, with e-auction displacing contracting by reference to price enquiry. The joint WB/CGD study showed that there are a number of areas where the competitive process could be strengthened, concerning for example arrangements for the pre-qualification of bidders, the extent of preferences for public sector suppliers and the transparency of arrangements for tender specifications. The OAG annual report for 2006/07 found errors or irregularities of one sort or another in 15 percent of the tenders and contracts that were audited, involving more than a quarter of the central and local government agencies and SOEs responsible. Dimension score: (B) 30 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (ii) Justification for use of less competitive procurement methods The Regulations provide for contracts worth less than 2 million Baht to be let by simplified methods short of open competition, and for a variety of other exceptions for emergencies and other special circumstances. The absence of an overall procurement regulator reduces the assurance that the derogations are always justified. OAG reports contain numerous issues with the operation of public procurement. Dimension score (C) (iii) Existence and operation of a procurement complaints mechanism The Regulations require the publication of procurement opportunities with sufficient notice to potential bidders, the notice period may be as short as three days. Complaints may be made directly to the head of tendering authority, to CGD, and to the courts. CGD is aware of instances of complaints going to the courts, but information on systematic records of the numbers, the reasons for the complaints, or the outcomes have not been kept. However, CGD has been recently on the process to develop e-Government Procurement system which will facilitate the systematic record of this information. Dimension score: (B) PI 20: Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-20 (i) Expenditure commitment controls are in place and limit C+ Effectiveness commitments to approved budgets, as cash availability is not an of internal issue in Thailand. (B) controls for non-salary (ii) The prescribed internal control standards are based on the expenditure international benchmark of COSOs five components that are (Scoring necessary for an effective internal control framework. The five method M1) components include: (i) environment of the control entity; (ii) risk assessment; (iii) control activities; (iv) information technology and communications; and (v) assessment. (B) (iii) It is not clear that the rules for processing transactions offer sufficient assurance that all applicable rules are observed. (C) (i) Effectiveness of expenditure commitment controls The GFMIS (SAP/Oracle system) incorporates commitment control separate from other expenditure controls. Budget allocations serve as effective expenditure ceilings for each budget line, as cash availability is not an issue for Thailand. The GFMIS records budget allocations expenditure made, commitments entered, and available cash, against which additional expenditures can be incurred. Monitoring of actual expenditure ex post against the previously notified in-year profile is the responsibility of BOB. Dimension score: (B) (ii) Comprehensiveness, relevance and understanding of other internal control rules/procedures The State Audit Commission issued Regulation B.E. 2544 (2001) governing the internal control standards that must be adopted by government agencies that are audited by the Office of the 31 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Auditor General. This regulation came into effect on 27 October 2001. The prescribed internal control standards are based on the international benchmark of COSOs five components that are necessary for an effective internal control framework. The five components include: (i) environment of the control entity; (ii) risk assessment; (iii) control activities; (iv) information technology and communications; and (v) assessment. The internal control regulation requires the government agencies to report annually on their internal control system to the State Audit Commission, the agencys senior management and the agencys audit committee if one exist. The report should include comments on whether the agencys internal control system is in compliance with the prescribed regulation; assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the system; and, weaknesses and recommendations for the internal control system. Dimension score: (B) (iii) Compliance with rules for processing and recording transactions Although the regulation was issued in October 2001, there are approximately 25 percent of the agencies in 2008 that have not yet complied with the reporting requirements of the internal control regulation. Most likely this is a result of a lack of understanding by agency staff and an appreciation of the importance of an internal control system. The OAG along with the agencys internal auditor are planning to disseminate more information regarding the importance of internal control systems to agency staff. In addition they aim to provide more hands-on experience to agencies in their implementation of internal control systems. Dimension score: (C) PI 21: Effectiveness of Internal audit Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-21 (i) The CGD has issued internal audit standards that are consistent C+ Effectiveness with the International Institute of Internal Auditors Standards. An of internal internal audit function has been established in each government audit (Scoring agency. The internal audit function reports to the agencys top method M1) management advising them on issues that they need to address. (B) (ii) CGD has improved the process to submit the internal audit report by defining in the Regulation of Ministry of Finance on Government Internal Audit B.E. 2551 (1998). Reports have so far been made to management within each department at least every two months. The Public Sector Audit and Evaluation Committee has been set up in 2005 and is vested with policies and guidelines for auditing and evaluating government agencies in ministerial, departmental and provincial levels. The committee shall report the results of auditing and evaluating on the public sector performance, together with the comments and suggestions to the cabinet at least twice a year.(B) (iii) Internal audit units provide information to the agency head at regularly. However, there is some question as to the value management places on the internal audit function due to the amount of resources they allocate to internal audit and the lack of follow-up action on the audit findings (C) 32 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) Coverage and quality of the internal audit function The CGD has issued internal audit standards that are consistent with the International Institute of Internal Auditors Standards. An internal audit function has been established in each government agency. The internal audit function reports to the agencys top management advising them on issues that they need to address. . Dimension score: (B) (ii) Frequency and distribution of reports CGD has improved the process to submit the internal audit report by defining in the Regulation of Ministry of Finance on Government Internal Audit B.E. 2551 (1998). Reports have so far been made to management within each department at least every two months, with an immediate report has been made when serious irregularities that may cause any losses to the government has been found. To strengthen the internal control, monitoring and evaluation system to ensure good governance, the Public Sector Audit and Evaluation Committee has been set up in 2005 and is vested with policies and guidelines for auditing and evaluating government agencies in ministerial, departmental and provincial levels. The committee shall report the results of auditing and evaluating on the public sector performance, together with the comments and suggestions to the cabinet at least twice a year. In addition, the committee has to follow-up and evaluate whether or not the government agencies implement with the committees suggestions or with the cabinets resolutions. Dimension score: (B) (iii) Extent of management response to internal audit findings Internal audit units provide information to the agency head at regularly. However, there is some question as to the value management places on the internal audit function due to the amount of resources they allocate to internal audit and the lack of follow-up action on the audit findings. Dimension score: (C) C (III). ACCOUNTING, RECORDING AND REPORTING PI 22: Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-22 Timeliness (i) Most receipts and expenditure passing through GFMIS are C+ and regularity of automatically reflected in movements in the TRA at BOT, and accounts reconciliation is straightforward provided sufficient information reconciliation is included about the characteristics of individual payments and (Scoring method receipts. Because of unreconciled differences between different M2) elements of data entered into GFMIS since 2005, it has been of difficulty to produce fully reconciled consolidated central government financial statements since then. (D) (ii)Where advances are made by GFMIS from TRA to provide for budgetary payments through departmental bank accounts, the payments must be made within 15 days, the accounts cleared, and suspense accounts closed. (A) 33 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) Regularity of bank reconciliations As noted in relation to PI-17, the large bulk of central government receipts and payments fall within GFMIS and are executed through TRA at the BOT. Reconciliation should be automatic between GFMIS and TRA, provided that sufficient information is included about the characteristics of individual receipts and payments (this condition was not met in respect of revenue for a considerable period after the introduction of GFMIS in 2005). The migration direct to GFMIS without a period of parallel running with the former manual system resulted in data inconsistencies between different elements in the new system which could not readily be explained. Where funds are held outside TRA, reconciliation is less automatic, and is the responsibility of the departments concerned; OAG has not, however, identified any reconciliation discrepancies in respect of transactions in this category. It has been difficult, since the introduction of GFMIS in 2005, to produce a fully consistent set of consolidated central government financial statements for certification by OAG. However, the recent modification of system procedures related to remittance process has remedied the difficulty of reconciliation between bank statements and entries in the accounts for remittance transactions. Despite that the fully consistent set of consolidated central government financial statements can be hardly produced from the GFMIS, CGD collaborated with government agencies to make manual adjustments to the financial statements released from the system. This attempt allows CGD to be able to submit consolidated financial statement of FY2005 with an ongoing process to produce those of FY2006-2008. The review team understand that CGD expect soon to overcome such problem, but as long as it remains a low rating is unavoidable. Dimension score: (D) (ii) Regularity of reconciliation and clearance of suspense accounts and advances Where advances are made by GFMIS from TRA to provide for budgetary payments through departmental bank accounts, the payments must be made within 15 days, the accounts cleared, and suspense accounts closed. Dimension score: (A) PI 23: Availability of information on resources received by service delivery units Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-23 Availability The BOB publishes detailed budget allocations by service B of information on delivery unit. At the same time the CGD prepares information resources received on actual expenditures by service delivery units, with respective by service delivery departments availing this information to citizens. units (Scoring method M1) The BOB publishes detailed budget allocations by service delivery unit. At the same time the CGD prepares information on actual expenditures by service delivery units, with respective departments availing this information to citizens. . Dimension score: (B) 34 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 24: Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-24 Quality (i) GFMIS provides good information about actual expenditure B+ and timeliness of throughout the year, including functional and economic in-year budget classifications. But separation of BOB and CGD systems, together reports (Scoring with arrangements for carry-over of expenditure, make method M1) comparisons between budget and actual expenditure difficult. There is no generally applicable separate control of commitments. (C) (ii) Line Ministries provide separate and different quarterly reports to BOB and CGD. These are relatively detailed. (A) (iii) The reports are mostly underpinned by the operation of GFMIS and TRA, and should be generally reliable. (A) (i) Scope of Reports in terms of coverage and compatibility with budget estimates According to the Ministries of Education and Public Health, separate quarterly reports (s.301 and s.302) are made to BOB and CGD (reflecting the differences between the economic classifications used in Budget preparation (GFS 1986) and execution through GFMIS (GFS 2001). The arrangements for carry-over of expenditure make tracking of budget execution problematic. There is no separate control of commitments, such as is required to qualify for a higher rating. Dimension score: (C) (ii) Timeliness of the issue of Reports Quarterly reports showing the economic and functional dimensions of expenditure are made by Line Ministries within four weeks of the end of each quarter. Those to BOB reflect the cash basis (GFS 1986) of the Budget, while those to CGD (drawn from a sub-system of GFMIS) reflect accrual accounting concepts (GFS 2001). Dimension score: (A) (iii) Quality of information The operation of GFMIS/TRA provides a cross-check on information coming from spending Ministries/agencies. Monthly information is also provided about the transactions of the extra- budgetary revolving funds. OAG found no problems concerning the quality of this information. Dimension score: (A) PI 25: Quality and timeliness of annual financial statements Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-25 Quality and (i) Consolidated central government financial statements are C+ timeliness of produced covering revenue, expenditure and financial assets and annual financial liabilities. But since the introduction of GFMIS in 2005 it has statements been difficult to reconcile inconsistencies between data entered (Scoring method into different parts of the system. (C) 35 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ M1) (ii) The consolidated financial statements are submitted for external audit within 10 months of the end of the fiscal year, however because of reconciliation difficulties the consolidated financial statements have been not certified by OAG since 2005. (C) (iii) Statements are presented on a modified accruals basis which generally reflects IPSAS. (B) (i) Completeness of the financial statements The CGD prepares consolidated financial statements covering revenue and expenditures but are not reconciled with accounts of financial assets and liabilities because of inconsistencies between data entered into different parts of the GFMIS. Dimension score: (C) (ii) Timeliness of the submission of the financial statements Consolidated financial statements have been prepared and submitted by the OAG within 10 months of the end of the fiscal year, however these have not been certified by the OAG since the introduction of GFMIS in 2005 due to data inconsistencies. With the manual adjustment technique, the consolidated financial statement of FY2005 has been submitted to OAG in late 2008 and being under examination process. CGD is now verifying and compiling the consolidated financial statements for the succeeding years. Moreover, the recent modification of system procedures related to revenue reconciliation will relieve the data inconsistencies. Dimension score: (C) (iii) Accounting standards used The financial statements are based on national accounting standards embodying a modified accruals approach which is broadly consistent with international accounting standards for use in the public sector (IPSAS). The intention is to move progressively to full accrual accounting in accordance with IPSAS, which will require full balance sheets covering all assets. Dimension score: (B) C (IV) EXTERNAL SCRUTINY AND AUDIT PI 26: Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-26 Scope, nature (i) The OAG performs audits in the areas of financial, B and follow-up of performance, procurement, subsidy use, tax collection and external audit other specific audits. The OAG audits all central government (Scoring method revenue and expenditure, including revolving funds together M1) with financial statement from SOEs as well as local authorities. Each SOE is required to submit its financial report, according to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS). However, due to numbers of local authorities, approximately 7,900 across the country, and limited numbers of OAG staff, 36 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ each local authority is audited by OAG at least once every three years. (B) (ii) The OAGs annual reports on its examination of budget execution statements are normally presented to Parliament within four months of their receipt of those statements from MOF. Since 2005 OAGs annual report ­ in the absence of consolidated financial statements ­ has been presented to Parliament 3 months after the end of the fiscal year. (B) (iii) The OAG presents the annual report to the Parliament and findings debated. There is little evidence, however, of systematic follow up. The OAG has a significant out-reach program whereby presentations are made in the print media on procurement issues, and the OAG also actively pursues cases of collusion and/or fraudulent practices with the National Anti- Corruption Commission. This provides for a very potent way of generating public awareness on such issues and thus supporting the demand side for accountability. (B) (i) Scope and nature of audit, and adherence to auditing standards The State Audit Commission, the Auditor General and the Office of Auditor General are three main components of State Audit structure, as mandate by Organic Act on State Audit (1999). The State Audit Commission has powers and duties in formulating the state audit policies, set out the standard rules for state audit, prescribe rules and procedures for budget and financial discipline as well as administrative penalties. The Auditor General is responsible for the administration on related state audit affairs. The OAG was established under the Constitution as an independent agency, which is departmental equivalent under the law of administrative organization of the state. The appointment of members of the Audit Commission and the Auditor General is made by the King with the advice of the Senate. The Auditor General reports to the Parliament and is independent from the executive. The OAG performs audits in the areas of financial, performance, procurement, subsidy use, tax collection and other specific audits. The OAG audits all central government revenue and expenditure, including revolving funds together with financial statement from SOEs as well as local authorities. Each SOE is required to submit its financial report, according to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS). However, due to numbers of local authorities, approximately 7,900 across the country, and limited numbers of OAG staff, each local authority is audited by OAG at least once every three years. The audits are undertaken in accordance with the OAG Auditing Standards, which are mandated in section 333 of Organic Act on State Audit (1999). The audit standards are consistent with international standards (ISA), including the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions audit standards. Dimension score: (B) 37 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (ii) Timeliness of submission of audit reports to the legislature Consolidated financial statement, prepared by CGD is subject to audit by the OAG annually. As presented earlier, due to the transitional issues with GFMIS implementation, it has been difficult to reconcile various general ledger accounts including cash. The OAG has not certified the consolidated accounts since 2005. OAGs annual reports are submitted to the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Council of Minister for their consideration. The reports of the Auditor General are discussed at the Parliament and by the Budget Scrutiny Committee; however there is no specialized body in Parliament that reviews this report findings and solicits response from respective agencies, like a public accounts committee. The OAG has initiated legislation to strength the audit follow-up process. Dimension score: (B) (iii) Evidence of follow-up on audit recommendations Although audited agencies must respond within 60 days to findings of non-compliance with the law, OAG expressed disappointment at the inadequate corrective action taken by Ministries/agencies in response to its findings and recommendations. Its efforts to publicise its findings through the media are a response to this situation. The OAG has a significant out-reach program whereby presentations are made in the print media on procurement issues, and the OAG also actively pursues cases of collusion and/or fraudulent practices with the National Anti- Corruption Commission. This provides for a very potent way of generating public awareness on such issues and thus supporting the demand side for accountability.Dimension score: (B) PI 27: Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-27 (i) The House of Representatives undertakes a detailed line by line B+ Legislative examination of the governments Budget proposals. The House of scrutiny of the Representatives power under the Constitution is restricted to annual budget proposing reductions in individual budget lines. (B) law (Scoring method M1) (ii) The legislatures procedures are firmly established, comprehensive, and well respected. (A) (iii) The legislature has a two months to consider the detailed proposals, although no opportunity to discuss the macro-fiscal aggregates or to influence the overall shape of the Budget. (A) (iv) There are clear rules limiting in-year changes in individual budget lines, but the executive has a wide measure of discretion in overall budget execution through the Central Fund arrangements which enable expenditure to be incurred without reference to the National Assembly. (B) 38 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) Scope of the legislatures scrutiny The Parliaments review covers fiscal policies and aggregates for the coming year as well as detailed estimates of expenditure and revenue. Section 167 of the 2007 Constitution requires the government to provide background information about the prospects for the economy in putting forward its detailed Budget proposals. However, section 168 limits any amendment of the proposals by the House of Representatives (the Senate can only accept or reject the Budget as a whole) to reductions in specific budget lines: no increases anywhere may be proposed. There is thus little scope for the National Assembly to influence the overall shape of the Budget. Nor can the National Assembly influence the activities of the revolving funds except to the extent that this can be done through reducing the annual subventions to be given to each of them. The Parliaments focus is on the details of the Budget for the year immediately ahead, with little attention paid to medium-term fiscal planning. Dimension score: (B) (ii) Extent to which the legislatures procedures are well-established and respected The overall framework for the National Assemblys consideration of the draft budget is set out in the Constitution. The House of Representatives appoints specialised committees to examine each main functional section of the Budget, and there are very detailed negotiations in these committees between the BOB and the Members of the House on specific changes (reductions) in the proposals. Dimension score: (A) (iii) Adequacy of time for the legislature to respond to the budget proposals The Constitution gives the National Assembly 105 days, and the Senate 20 days, to consider the Budget proposals. But there is no scope for them to influence the overall shape of the Budget, or its appropriateness in the current macro-economic conjuncture. Dimension score: (A) (iv) Rules for in-year amendment of the budget without prior approval by the legislature Spending Ministries/agencies have some very limited freedom under current Budget legislation to reallocate provision from one line to another within the same sub-function (e.g. basic education) and broad economic category (e.g. expenditure on goods and services). With the approval of BOB expenditure may be reallocated between sub-functions (e.g. different levels of education), subject to a report being made to the National Assembly. Expenditure cannot be reallocated from capital to current, or vice-versa. In practice most budget lines operate as expenditure ceilings, with little reallocation between them. Any overall increase in expenditure should require the submission of a revised Budget to the National Assembly. However, BOB retain discretion to reallocate provision in the Central Fund (nearly 20 percent of total provision) which normally meets debt service payments and a variety of pension and health costs, to meet any other need without going back to the National Assembly. Dimension score: (B) 39 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 28: Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports Indicator Brief Explanation Score PI-28 Legislative (i) The Auditor-generals annual report is presented to a D scrutiny of plenary session of the National Assembly, but there are no external audit established arrangements for its subsequent detailed reports (Scoring consideration by a specialised committee. (D) method M1) (ii) No hearings are held by the National Assembly on the key findings in the OAG annual report. (D) (iii) There is no evidence of any recommendations being issued by the National Assembly in response to the OAG annual report. (D) (i) Timeliness of Parliamentary examination of audit reports It is understood that the Auditor-General presents the OAG annual report to a plenary session of the National Assembly at the time of its publication. But this presentation is not followed by any further scrutiny of the report, or its findings and recommendations. Dimension score: (D) (ii) Extent of hearings on key findings Although representatives of OAG and the line Ministries concerned are present during Parliamentary scrutiny committees discussions, no hearings are held to consider the OAG report in any detail. Dimension score: (D) (iii) Recommendations by the legislature and response of the government No recommendations are made by the National Assembly to the government in the light of the OAG report. Dimension score: (D) 40 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 4: Government reform process 4.1 As explained in earlier sections of this report, the government of Thailand has taken numerous steps over the last decade to improve different aspects of public financial management. These include: (i) "New Public Management" initiatives in accordance with the 2003 Royal Decree on Good Governance intended to make public expenditure programmes more effective in achieving the declared objectives of the government: the Four Year Government Administrative Plans, incorporating those objectives, and the system of Key Performance Indicators to measure departments progress towards the achievement of those objectives; (ii) New legislation on debt management (2005) and the civil service (2008); (iii) Initiatives, particularly through the application of information technology, to make administrative processes more efficient, and to improve accounting arrangements, including automating the Budget setting process (e-Budget), automating the collection of the bulk of tax revenue (e-Revenue), automating central government receipts and payments (GFMIS), and introducing (modified) accrual accounting for reporting purposes; and (iv) Establishing an internal audit function throughout central government departments. 4.2 But as this report shows, considerable scope remains for further improvements in PFM, based in many cases on the steps already taken, which could yield substantial further benefits in terms of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of government programmes. These include: (i) Action to align the Budget-setting and execution systems (possibly including action to simplify present arrangements for expenditure commitments and for the carry-over of budgetary provision); (ii) Action to strengthen medium-term fiscal planning, by ensuring that the "top down" projection of prospectively available resources for each service is complemented by detailed plans prepared by each department for the achievement of the governments objectives, which are consistent with those resources. Such forward plans, which should to the greatest extent possible include quantified and time-bound KPIs indicating the outcomes to be achieved in terms of improvements in the quality of public services,, could then be rolled forward each year, with the projection of the first forward year serving as the starting point for settling the following years Budget; (iii) Action to ensure that the local government dimension is fully integrated into plans for the development of public services, and that local government bodies are fully accountable, individually and collectively, for the way in which they spend the 20 percent or more of government revenue allocated to them; (iv) Action to make public procurement more transparent and competitive. This requires new legislation, and organisational reforms, to strengthen the enforcement of good procedures, to ensure the availability of information, and to provide effective machinery to deal with complaints; 41 The Kingdom of Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ (v) Action to ensure that the operation of internal audit contributes effectively to the improvement of public service delivery (in accordance with the intentions of the government decision of May 2007); (vi) action to increase the impact of external audit, by ensuring that findings are representative, and wherever possible quantified, and by encouraging greater use by Parliament of audit reports in holding government departments to account for their activities. 4.3 The fact that the momentum of improvements in PFM has so far been maintained despite recent political instability (and the fact that the objectives in the current GAP have been endorsed by successive recent governments despite the sharp political differences between them) augurs well for continued progress, drawing on the lessons of this report. 42 (PEFA) (PEFA) 2552 (Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit) = = 33.2 . . . . . . . . . . GDP GFMIS (Government Fiscal Management Information Management) GFS (Government Finance Statistics) IMF KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) MTEF PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) PFM PFMPR ...............................................................................................................................................i 1. ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 (PFM-PR) ............................ 9 PFM-PR .............................................................................................................. 9 PFM-AR ....................................................................................... 10 2. ........................................................................................................... 12 A. ..................................................................................................... 12 B. ............................................................................................................... 14 C. ............................................................................................................ 14 ..................................................................................................... 14 ................................................................................................................ 15 D. PFM ................................................................................. 16 PFM: ................................................ 16 ........................................................................... 18 3. ........................................ 20 ................................................................................................................................... 20 ......................................................................................................................................... 20 A. ............................................................................................................. 21 PI 1: .......................................................... 21 PI 2: ... 22 PI 3: ............................................................. 23 PI 4: ...................................................................................... 24 B. ..................................................................................... 25 PI 5: ............................................................................................... 25 PI 6: ............................................... 26 PI 7: ........................................................... 28 PI 8: ....................................... 29 PI 9: .. 31 PI10: ....................................................................... 32 C. .................................................................................................................................. 33 C (I) ............................................................................... 33 PI 11 .................................................................................................................................... 33 PI 12: ................................ 35 C (II). .................................. 37 PI 13: ................................................ 37 PI 15: ........................................................................................... 41 PI 16 ..................................... 42 PI 17 ........................ 43 PI 19: ............................................................ 47 PI 20 ................................. 49 PI 21 .................................................................................. 50 C (III). ................................................................ 52 PI 22 .............................................. 52 PI 24: .................... 53 PI 25: ............................................. 54 C (IV) .................................................................. 56 PI 26 ............ 56 PI 27: ............................ 58 PI 28: ...................................... 60 4. ......................................................................................................... 62 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. ( 64 ) .. 2551 4,450 (GDP) 5 .. 2541-2550 (.. 2551) GDP 2.6 40 2. .. 2542 6 (PFM) (1) (GFMIS) (2) (Strategic performance based budgeting) (3) (International Public Sector Accounting Standards) (4) (5) (KPI) 3. (PEFA) 6 28 1 2 PEFA ( ) 1 (1) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) (5) (6) 2 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ µ¦¦³Á¤·µ¦ÎµÁ·µ¦µ¤®¨´µ¦µ¦¦·®µ¦µ¦Á·µ¦¨´µµ¦³ (PFM) 4. ¦»¨µ¦¦³Á¤·µ¤¤··®¨´ 6 ¦³µ¦°®¨´µ¦ PFM µ¤¸É¦³»ÅªoĦ°µ¦¦³Á¤·¨ ´¸Ê (i) ªµ¤nµÁºÉ°º°°¦³¤µ 5. ¦³Á«Å¥¤¸¦³µ¦¦·®µ¦µ¦Á·µ¦¨´µµ¦³¸Éεżnªµ¤nµÁºÉ°º°°¦³¤µ µ¦´Ê ¦³¤µ¤¸ªµ¤¤¦·Â¨³µ¦Á·nµ¥¦³¤µÁ}ŵ¤Ájµ®¤µ¥¸ÉªµÅªo ´Ê¸Ê µµ¦¦³Á¤·¨µ¦ Á·nµ¥Änª 3 e¨nµ» ¤¸ÂnÁ¡¸¥eÁ¸¥ªÁnµ´Ê¸É¨µ¦Á·nµ¥¤¸ªµ¤¨µÁ¨ºÉ°µ¦³¤µ¸É´ÊŪoÁ· ªnµ¦o°¥¨³ 10 ijÁ¸¥ª´ nµªµ¤Â¦¦ª°µ¦Äonµ¥¦³¤µÎµÂµ¤¨´¬³µ (Á¸¥´ µ¦´¦¦µ¤¦³¤µ) ¼ªnµnµªµ¤Â¦¦ª°µ¦Äonµ¥¦³¤µÃ¥¦ª¤Å¤nÁ·¦o°¥¨³ 2.5 Ä´Ê 3 e¨nµ»¸É°¥¼nÄnªµ¦¦³Á¤· µ¦´ÁȦµ¥Åo¦´µ¨¸ÉÁ·¹Ê¦·¼ªnµ¸É¦³¤µµ¦Åªoµ¤Á°µ¦ n ¦³¤µ´Ê 3 e¸É¤¸µ¦¦³Á¤· °µ¸Ê Ä»e¸É°¥¼Äµ¦¦³Á¤·´Ê¦´µ¨Å¤n¤¸¦µ¥nµ¥oµÎµ¦³ÄÇ (¦ª¤´Ê¦µ¥nµ¥µ°»®¤»Áª¸¥) 6. °¥nµÅ¦Èµ¤ ®¨´Árµ¦¦·®µ¦¨µ¤¸ªµ¤¥º®¥»nn°oµ¤µ Ã¥¦³¤µ¦o°¥¨³ 14 ° ¦³¤µ¦³Îµe³¼´¦¦ÅªoĨµ ¹É¦³¤µ®oµÄ®nª°¨µ³Á}¦µ¥µ¦¦µ¥nµ¥¸É Á¸É¥ª´»¨µ¦¸Éε®Ã¥®¤µ¥Â¨³°¸®¹Ä®nª°¨µÁ}Á·Îµ¦°nµ¥Á¡ºÉ°¦¸»Á·®¦º° É ÎµÁ} ´Ê¸Ê µ¦´¦¦Á·¨µ¤¸ªµ¤´Á¨³Ã¦nÄÁ¡µ³ÄÁ°µ¦¦³¤µÁnµ´Ê ªnµ Īµ¤ Á}¦·Â¨oª ε´µ¥¦´¤¦¸¤¸°ÎµµÄµ¦Ã°¦µ¥nµ¥¨µ¦µ¥µ¦Ä¦µ¥µ¦®¹ÉÅÁ¡·É¤Ä¦µ¥µ¦Á· É Îµ¦°nµ¥Á¡º°¦¸»Á·®¦º°ÎµÁ}Åo ¨³Ä¦¸¸É¨µ¦µ¥µ¦°ºÉÇ ¸É´Ê¦³¤µÅªo¤¸Á·Å¤n¡°nµ¥ È µ¤µ¦Á·nµ¥µÁ·¨´Åo ¨oªn°¥´Ê¦µ¥nµ¥ÄoÁ·¨´Äe¦³¤µ´Å °¥nµÅ¦Èµ¤ µ¦¸É ¨µ¤¸ªµ¤¥º®¥»n¼Á¡ºÉ°¦°¦´¦¸¤¸Á®»»Á·®¦º°ÎµÁ}¸É°µÁ·¹Ê¦³®ªnµe´Ê °µÎµÅ¼nµ¦Äo ¦³Ã¥rĵ¸ÉŤnÁ®¤µ³¤Åo (ii) ªµ¤¤¼¦r¨³ªµ¤Ã¦nÄ 7. µ¦´Îµ¦³¤µÂ¨³µ¦ª»¤ªµ¤Á¸É¥µµ¦¨´Ã¥´ÉªÅ °¥¼nĦ³´¸É¤¼¦r¦oª °¥nµÅ¦Èµ¤ ªµ¤´¤¡´rµµ¦¨´¦³®ªnµ¦´µ¨Â¨³ °. ¦³´nµÇ ¥´µªµ¤Ã¦nÄ Á°µ¦ ¦³¤µ¤¸µ¦Âo°¤¼¨¸ÉεÁ}´Ê®¤ ¹É¦ª¤¹o°¤¼¨oµµµ¦rµÁ«¦¬·¤®£µ µ¦µ»¨ É´ µ¦¨´Â¨³µ¦Á¥µ¦µ»¨·¦´¡¥rµµ¦Á·¸¦µ¨º°°¥¼n ¨³¦»¦³¤µ´Êµoµ¦µ¥Åo ¨³¦µ¥nµ¥ °µ¸Ê ¦´µ¨¤¸µ¦ª»¤ªµ¤Á¸É¥µµ¦¨´°´°µÁ·µµ¦ÎµÁ··¦¦¤°°. ¨³¦´ª·µ®·oª¥ ¨nµªº° ¦´ª·µ®·o°¦µ¥µ¨µ¦ÎµÁ·µÁ}¦³Îµn°¦³¦ªÁoµ´´Â¨³³o° εÁ·µ¦Ä®o¦¦¨»Ájµ®¤µ¥µµ¦Á·¸É ¦. (¹ÉÁ}®nª¥µ£µ¥Äo¦³¦ªµ¦¨´) Åo´ÊŪo °¸´Êµ¦Êε ii ii (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . . 25 . . . .. 2549 . . . . 8. (Unified Chart of Account) (i) COFOC GFS 1986 ( ) IPSAS (ii) (iii) 9. 4 (KPIs) 125 iii (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. 4 KPI 4 (iv) 11. 12. 5 COSO (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (International Institute of Internal Auditors Standards) 13. . iv (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ () (Competitive method) (v) 14. GSMIS .. 2548 GFMIS IPSAS . 10 GFMIS . .. 2548 . .. 2553 (vi) 15. . . . . . . . . v (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16. (a) 17. . . . . . 5 2-3 GDP (b) 18. 5 11 . .. 2546 4 . . . 4 vi (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19. .. 2548 (Top-down) (Bottom-up) . (Fiscal space) . 20. . " " (c) 21. .. 2546 (KPIs) . . . 22. KPI (PART) PART vii (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ KPI . 23. (a) (b) GFMIS GFMIS GFMIS . GFMIS (i) (ii) GFMIS (iii) (iv) GFMIS (c) (COSO) viii (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. ε ª´»¦³r°¦µ¥µ¨µ¦ÎµÁ·µµ¦¦·®µ¦µ¦Á·µ¦¨´µµ¦³ (PFM-PR) 1.1 ¦³Á«Å¥ÅoÁ¦·É¤oµ¦·¦¼µ¦¦·®µ¦µ¦Á·µ¦¨´µµ¦³¤µ´ÊÂne ¡.«.2542 ´Ê¸Ê ª´»¦³r°¦°µ¦¦³Á¤·ªµ¤¦´·°µµ¦Á·µ¦¨´£µµµ¦³ (PEFA) º° µ¦Á°Â³ Ájµ®¤µ¥¡¦o°¤´Êªµµ¦¦³Á¤·¨µ¦¦·®µ¦µ¦Á·µ¦¨´£µµµ¦³ (PFM) nµ´ª¸Êª´¸ÉÁ®¤µ³¤ ¨³Åo¤µ¦µÄ®oÂn¦´µ¨Å¥Á¡ºÉ°nª¥Äµ¦¦³»£µnª°¦³ PFM É É ¸ÎµÁ}o°¦´¦» ¨³Á¡º°Ä®o º ÁoµÄµ³°¦³ PFM Ä{»´ °¹É ¦µ¥µ¸Ê°Á}¦´Ê¦ ¸É¤¸µ¦«¹¬µª·Á¦µ³®r¦³ PFM °Å¥ °¥nµ¦oª´Ê¦³ 1.2 ¦µ¥µ PFM-PR ´¸ÊÅo´Îµ¹ÊÃ¥µ¦®µ¦º°°¥nµÄ¨o·´¼oµnª¦µµ¦Â¨³®nª¥µ¸É Á¸É¥ªo° Ã¥¤¸ . Á}®nª¥µ¸Éε®oµ¸É¦³µµÄnª°¦´µ¨Å¥ ´Ê°µ¦´Îµ¦µ¥µ PFM-PR 1.3 µ¦´Îµ¦µ¥µ PFM-PR Á¦·É¤¹ÊÄÁº°¡§«·µ¥ 2551 Ã¥¸¤ PEFA3 µµµ¦Ã¨Åo ´µ¦ ¦³»¤Á··´·µ¦´®nª¥µ¸ÁÉ ¸É¥ªo°Ä¦³Á«Å¥ Ã¥ª´»¦³r°µ¦¦³»¤¦´Ê´Ê º° µ¦Îµ É ªµ¤ÁoµÄÁ¸¥ª´ÂªµÂ¨³ª·¸µ¦Äµ¦¦³Á¤·ªµ¤¦´·°µµ¦Á·µ¦¨´µµ¦³ (PEFA) ¦ª¤ Ź¦³ÁȸÉo°Îµ¤µ¡·µ¦µÄµ¦¦³Á¤· ¹É®¨´µµ¦ÎµÁ°¦´Ê¦¨oª µ¸¤µÅo嵦Áoµ¡ É Â¨³®µ¦º°´nª¦µµ¦Â¨³®nª¥µ¸ÉÁ¸É¥ªo°®¨µ®¨µ¥®nª¥µ Á¡º°¦ª¦ª¤o°¤¼¨Á°µ¦Â¨³®¨´µ¸É εÁ}宦´µ¦¦³Á¤· ´Ê¸Ê Ä´Ê°¸ÊÁ}µ¦®µ¦º° ÄÁ·¨¹´¼o¤¸nªÁ¸¥ªo°´Ê®¤ ¦ª¤´Ê¼oµ É . ¹É´´Îµ´µ¥¦´¤¦¸ ¼oµ®nª¥µÄ´´¦³¦ªµ¦¨´ (¦¤´¸¨µ «. ¦¤¦¦¡µ¦ ¦. ¨³.) ¼oµ¦³¦ª¤®µÅ¥ (¦¤nÁ¦·¤µ¦¦°o°·É) ¼oµ ¦³¦ª«¹¬µ·µ¦ ¦³¦ªµµ¦» ¦³¦ª¤µ¤ . . «. ¡¦. ¦»Á¡¤®µ¦ ®°µ¦oµ Å¥ ¨³¸É¦¹¬µoµ£µ¬¸°µ¦µ¦·¬´ KPMG 3 ¸¤ PEFA ¦³°oª¥ Shabih Ali Mohib (¼oε¸¤, EASPR), ¦. ·¦·µ Á£µ¡··¦ (´Á«¦¬«µ¦r°µª»Ã¦³Îµ¦³Á«Å¥, EASPR), ´¡¦ ¦¸¦´r«·¦·»¨ (´Á«¦¬«µ¦r, EASPR), John Wiggins (¸É¦¹¬µµnµ¦³Á«, EASPR), and ¦. ··´¥ «·¦· ¤¦¦µ¦ (¼oÁ¸É¥ªµ, EASPR) (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PFM-AR 1.4 PEFA ( www.pefa.org) 28 PEFA 2-3 A D 1 PEFA 2 (M1 M2) M1 M2 ( PEFA) 1.5 () () () ( ) 1.6 PEFA PEFA . 25 . . 1.7 ( . ) 95 ( 2552) ( 10 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ) ( ) 3 .. 2549, 2550 2551 ( 1 ­ 30 ) * (%) 328 60.4 54 5.9 7,853** 22.7 24 3.4 ( 43 ) 7.6 * ( .. 2551) ** ( .. 2551) 11 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. 2.1 (PFM) PFM A. 2.2 513,000 64 25 40 15 15 10 7 2.3 .. 2540 ( ) 2.4 80 4 .. 2540 4 NESDB/WB study Measuring Output and Productivity in Thailand's Service-producing Industries, 19 12 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2-3 6 .. 2528-2548 4.9 4.0 .. 2550 2551 .. 2552 4 90 2.1 .. 2548 ­ 2551 2548 2549 2550 2551 GDP ( , ) 176.2 206.4 245.5 285.1 GDP ( , ) 2,753 3,225 3,738 4,450 , Atlas ( , 2,700 2,990 3,400 n.a. 9.3 10.7 13.7 n.a. GDP 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.0 4.5 4.7 2.3 4.0 GDP 0.3 0.9 0.3 -0.3 -0.6 0.5 -1.9 -0.8 -4.5 1.1 5.7 -0.7 23.4 23.3 22.4 21.7 3.7 5.1 4.1 3.6 39.0 36.1 33.8 32.1 8.8 6.7 5.0 4.1 ( ) 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 () 11.2* 9.5 8.5 n.a. Economic Monitors , IMF ( ) : * .. 2547 .. 2546 2 .. 2550 13 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. 2.5 .. 2542 (i) (ii) (iii) (a) (KPI) ( .) KPI (b) (GFMIS) GFMIS . .. 2548 (c) (MTEF) 4 MTEF MTEF 2.6 C. 2.7 .. 2549-2551 . .. 2550-2551 14 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.2 .. 2549-2551 ( GDP) 2549 2550 2551 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.0 16.0 15.5 17.8 18.6 17.4 14.1 15.2 14.4 3.7 3.4 3.0 () -0.7 -1.5 -0.9 () 2.3 ( ) 2548 2549 2550 5.4 4.8 5.4 6.5 6.3 7.6 5.8 5.5 5.7 21.6 22.2 21.8 8.0 9.9 9.7 8.4 7.8 7.7 2.9 1.4 2.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 21.9 21.7 20.1 18.8 19.6 19.0 15 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ É D. ¦°Á·®¤µ¥Â¨³µ´¸Îµ´¦³ PFM ®nª¥µ®¨´¸ÉÁ¸É¥ªo°´¦³ªµ¦ PFM: µÂ¨³®oµ¸É 2.8 ®nª¥µ®¨´¸É¤¸µÄ¦³ªµ¦¦·®µ¦µ¦¨´ ÅoÂn 4 ®nª¥µ®¨´µÁ«¦¬· ¨nµªº° . ¦³¦ªµ¦¨´ «. ¨³ . åε´¦³¤µ¹É´´Îµ´µ¥¦´¤¦¸Îµ®oµ¸É´Îµ ¦³¤µ ε®··¦³¤µÁ°¦°¦³¤µ¦µ¥nµ¥n°³¦´¤¦¸ ¨³®µ¦º°´®nª¥¦´ Ê ¦³¤µÁ¸É¥ª´µ¦´¦¦¦³¤µ °¸´Îµ¦nµ¡¦³¦µ´´·¦³¤µ¦µ¥nµ¥Á°n°¦´£µ nª ¦³¦ªµ¦¨´¤¸®oµ¸É´Îµ´ªÁ¨£µ¡¦ª¤¸ÉÁ¸É¥ªo°´¦³¤µ (´ÎµÃ¥ «. ´Ê¸Ê o°¤¼¨´¨nµª ¦ª¤¹¦µ¥Åo ¦µ¥nµ¥Â¨³µ¦´®µÂ®¨nÁ·´»µ¦Äonµ¥) µ¦´ÁȦµ¥Åo (¦¤¦¦¡µ¦ ¦¤ ¦¦¡µ¤·Â¨³¦¤«»¨µ¦) µ¦Îµ´µ¦Á·nµ¥¦³¤µnµ´¸Á·¨´ (¦¤´¸¨µ) ¨³¦·®µ¦ ®¸Êµµ¦³ (.) ³Á¸¥ª´ «. ε®oµ¸É´¨Îµ´ªµ¤Îµ´Â¨³ªµ¤Á¦nnª°Ã¦µ¦µ¤Âµ¦ Äonµ¥¦³¥³µ¨µ ¹É¦ª¤¹Ã¦µ¦¨»°¦´ª·µ®·Â¨³nª¦µµ¦oª¥ nª . ε®oµ¸É¦´ µÂ¨³ ´ ¼Â¨´¸Á·¨´ ¹ÉÁ}´¸¸ÉÄo¦Â¨³nµ¥Á·Ân·Â´Ê®¤ (¦ª¤Á·¦³¤µ °»° ¦³¤µÂ¨³»¦¦¦¤°ºÉÇ) µ¦¦·®µ¦¦³¤µÂ¨³µ¦´Îµ´¸¦´Â¨³nµ¥Á·Ân·³¦³Îµnµ¦³ GFMIS ¹É¼Â¨Ã¥¦¤´¸¨µ ´Ê¸Ê ®nª¥µ®¨´´Ê 4 ®nª¥µnµ¤¸nª¦nª¤Äµ¦¦³¤µµ¦¤¤·µ µÁ«¦¬·¤®£µÄ¦³¥³µ¨µ °´Á}»Á¦·É¤o°¦³ªµ¦´Îµ¦³¤µ 2.9 É ¦³¦ªnµÇ ¦ª¤´Ê®nª¥µ¸Å¤n´´¦³¦ª ³´Á¦¸¥¤¦µ¥¨³Á°¸¥¦³¤µ åĮo¤¸ ªµ¤°¨o°´Âµ¦¦·®µ¦¦µµ¦Ân· ¡´µÁ«¦¬·Â¨³´¤Â®nµ· ¨³®¨´Ár¨³ª·¸ ´ÎµÎµ°¦³¤µ¦µ¥nµ¥¸É´ÎµÃ¥Îµ´¦³¤µ µ¦ÎµÁ·µ¦nε°¦³¤µ¤¸ 2 ´Ê° Ã¥ Ĵʰ¦ ε´¦³¤µ³¦ª¦ª¤Îµ°¦³¤µ°®nª¥µnµÇ ¸É¤¸ª´»¦³ºÁ¡ºÉ°ÎµÅÄoÄ µ¦¡´µ¦´¦»µ¦¦·µ¦µµ¦³£µ¥Äoªµ¤¦´·°°®nª¥µÁ° åε°¦³¤µÁ®¨nµ¸Ê Á¦·É¤´Îµn°¸É³¤¸µ¦Îµ®¦°¦³¤µ¦µ¥nµ¥¦³ÎµeÃ¥®nª¥µ®¨´µÁ«¦¬· ´Ê¸Ê ε° ¦³¤µÁ®¨nµ¸Ê³¼ÎµÅ¡·µ¦µ¦´¦»£µ¥®¨´µ¸É³¦´¤¦¸Á®È°¦°¦³¤µ¦µ¥nµ¥ ¦³Îµe¨³¥»«µ¦rµ¦´¦¦¦³¤µÂ¨oª 2.10 °¥nµÅ¦È¸ ¥´¤¸ªµ¤Å¤n°¨o°´°¥¼noµ¦³®ªnµ¦³ªµ¦ªµÂ¦³¤µ´µ¦Îµ´µ¦Äo nµ¥¦³¤µ °´Á}¨¤µµÃ¦¦oµµ®¤µ¥Â¨³µ´ ε´¦³¤µ´Îµ¦³¤µ¹Ê¤µ £µ¥Äo¦°Â¨³ª·¸µ¦¸Énµµ¦³ GFMIS °¦¤´¸¨µ ¹ÉÁ}¦³¸É¦°¦´µ¦Á·nµ¥¦³¤µ °¸´Êε´¦³¤µÂ¨³¦¤´¸¨µ nµÈŤnÅoÄ®oªµ¤Îµ´´µ¦Á¦¸¥Á¸¥o°¤¼¨µ¤Á°µ¦ ¦³¤µ´¦µ¥Åo¨³nµ¥¸ÉÁ·¹Ê¦· °µ¸Ê ªµ¤¥º®¥»nĵ¦¦·®µ¦¦³¤µ¥´ÎµÄ®oµ¦ É Á¦¸¥Á¸¥o°¤¼¨´Ê°»Á}Åoª¥ªµ¤¥µ¥·¹Ê ¨nµªº° ¦³¤µ¦o°¥¨³ 14.5 °ªÁ·¦³¤µ³¼ ´¦¦ÅªoĨµÎµ®¦´¦µ¥µ¦¸É¥´Å¤nµ¤µ¦¦³¤µ¦µ¥nµ¥ÅoÂn° (Án Á·Á¸Ê¥®ª´ εÁ®Èεµ ¨³¦µ¥nµ¥ª´·µ¦¦´¬µ¡¥µµ¨oµ¦µµ¦ Á}o) Ã¥¦³¤µ®¹ÉÄ®°¨µ³°¥¼nĦµ¥µ¦Á· 16 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ É Îµ¦°nµ¥Á¡º°¦¸»Á·®¦º°ÎµÁ} ÁºÉ°µ¦µ¥µ¦Ä¨µÁ®¨nµ¸Ê³¼´¦¦Åµ¤ÂµnµÇ Ã¥ iµ¥¦·®µ¦ εĮoÁ}µ¦¥µ¸É³Îµµ¦Á¦¸¥Á¸¥¦µ¥nµ¥¸ÉÁ·¹Ê¦·´¦³¤µ¸ÉÅo¦´µ¦´¦¦ ´ °µ¸Ê µ¥¦´¤¦¸¥¤¸°ÎµµÃ°¨µ¦µ¥µ¦Ä¦µ¥µ¦®¹ÉÅ¥´¦µ¥µ¦°ºÉÇ ÄÁ¸¥ª´ÅoåŤn Ê ÎµÁ}o°°°»¤´·n°¦´£µ ¨³Á¤ºÉ°¦µ¥µ¦Ä¨µ´Ç ¤¸¦³¤µÅ¤nÁ¡¸¥¡°n°µ¦Äonµ¥Èµ¤µ¦Äo Ê nµ¥µÁ·¨´Åo (¨³o°´¦µ¥nµ¥ÄoÁ·¨´Äe¦³¤µ´Å) °¥nµÅ¦Èµ¤ Änªe ¡.«. 2548-2551 µ¥¦´¤¦¸Å¤nÅoÄo°ÎµµÄµ¦Ã°Á¨¸É¥Â¨¦µ¥µ¦¨µ´¨nµª °µ¸Ê{´¥Îµ´ É °¸¦³µ¦®¹¸ÉεĮoµ¦Á¦¸¥Á¸¥¦³®ªnµ¦³¤µÂ¨³¦µ¥nµ¥¸ÉÁ·¹Ê¦·¤¸{®µ º° µ¦°»µÄ®onª ¦µµ¦µ¤µ¦Îµ¦³¤µ´¦¦¸ÉÁ®¨º°Äe¦³¤µ¸ÊÅÁ·nµ¥Á®¨ºÉ°¤eÄe¦³¤µ®oµÅoÃ¥ Á¡¸¥ÂnÂoÄ®o¦¤´¸¨µ¦µÁnµ´Ê 2.11 ¦µ¥Åo¦´µ¨nªÄ®n´ÁÈÃ¥¦¤´ÁÈ£µ¬¸´Ê 3 ¦¤ ÅoÂn ¦¤¦¦¡µ¦ ¦¤¦¦¡µ¤·Â¨³¦¤ É «»¨µ¦ ¦¤¦¦¡µ¦¹Îµ®oµ¸É´ÁÈ£µ¬¸Á·Åo»¨¦¦¤µÂ¨³··»¨ ¨³£µ¬¸¤¼¨nµÁ¡·É¤ εn¦µ¥Åo ·Á}¦o°¥¨³ 70 °¦µ¥Åo´Ê®¤°¦´µ¨ ij¸É¦µ¥Åoµ£µ¬¸¦¦¡µ¤·Â¨³£µ¬¸«»¨µ¦·Á} ´nªn°¦µ¥Åo´Ê®¤Ánµ´¦o°¥¨³ 15 ¨³ 5 µ¤¨Îµ´ 宦´¦µ¥Åo¸ÉÁ®¨º°°¸¦o°¥¨³ 10 ´ÊÁ·µÁ· ¦µ¥Åoεnµ¦´ª·µ®·Â¨³¦µ¥Åo°ºÉÇ °¥nµ¨³¦¹É ´Ê¸Ê µ¤¸ÉÅo¨nµª¤µÂ¨oª ®¤µ¥Îµ®Ä®o °. o°¤¸ ¦µ¥Åo¦ª¤·Á}´nª¦³¤µ¦o°¥¨³ 25 °¦µ¥Åo¦´µ¨´Ê®¤ É Ê ¹¦o°¥¨³ 90 °¦µ¥Åo °. ´¤¸ ®¨nÁ·¤µµ¦´µ¨ Ťnªnµ³Á}Ħ¼°Á·Ã° Á·°»®»®¦º°µ¦Ân¦µ¥Åo¸É´ÁÈÃ¥¦´µ¨ ³¸É °. ¤¸µ¦´ÁȦµ¥ÅoÃ¥¦Ä´nª¸Éo°¥¤µ Ã¥nªÄ®nÁ}¦µ¥Åo¸É¤µµ£µ¬¸Ã¦Á¦º°Â¨³¸É· ´Ê¸Ê £µ¥Äoªµµ¦ÎµÁ·µ¦Ä{»´ °. Ťn¤¸Â¦¦³»oÁ¡ºÉ°Á¡·É¤¦³··£µ¡µ¦´ÁȦµ¥Åo °µ¸Ê o°¤¼¨¦µ¥nµ¥° °. 嵤¨´¬³µÁ«¦¬·Â¨³µ¤¨´¬³µÈŤnÅo¤¸µ¦´ÁÈ °¥nµÁ}¦³ 宦´¦´ª·µ®·´Ê ¤¸ ¦. ε®oµ¸Éε´Â¨³·µ¤µ³µµ¦Á·Â¨³Ã¦µ¦¨»° ¦´ª·µ®· °µ¸Ê Ä{»´µ¦ÎµÁ·µ°¦´ª·µ®·Åo¤¸µ¦Â¥´¸°°Á} 2 ´¸ Ã¥´¸®¹É Á}´¸µ¦ÎµÁ·µ¦·µ¦µµ¦³Ä¦µµ¸É¦´µ¨Îµ® ¨³°¸´¸®¹ÉÁ}´¸µ¦ÎµÁ·µÁ· ¡µ·¥rµ¤· ´Ê °. ¨³¦´ª·µ®·nµÅo¦´µ¦¦ª°µ . ÁnÁ¸¥ª´´®nª¥µ°¦´µ¨ 2.12 nª¦µµ¦Â¨³®nª¥µnµÇ ³o°¤¸µ¦ª»¤£µ¥Ä´Êµoµ¦µ¥nµ¥Â¨³£µ¦³¼¡´ °¸´Ê o°´Ä®o¤¸®nª¥¦ª°£µ¥Ä¸É¹Ê¦n°¼o¦·®µ¦¼»°®nª¥µ µ¦¡´µÂ¨³¦´¦»µ¦¦ª° É £µ¥ÄÅo¦´µ¦´»µ . °¥nµÅ¦Èµ¤ ¥´Å¤n¤¸®nª¥µ¨µ¸Îµ®oµ¸É¦³µ·¦¦¤nµÇ¸É É Á¸É¥ªo°´µ¦¦ª°£µ¥Ä ¨°¥´Å¤n¤¸¦³ªµ¦¸¦oµªµ¤ÂnĪnµ®nª¥µ¸ÉÁ¸¥ªo°´µ¦É ¦ª°£µ¥ÄÅo¤¸µ¦Îµ¦¼Âµ¦·´·µ¸ÉÄoÅo¦·Å¦³¥»rÄo Änª°µ¦¦·®µ¦»¨µ¦£µ¦´ ´Ê εªoµ¦µµ¦Â¨³µ¦Á¨ºÉ°Á·Áº°¤¸µ¦Îµ´¼Â¨°¥nµÄ¨o·Ã¥Îµ´µ .¡. ¹É¦³Á¸¥¸É É Á¸É¥ªo°´Á¦º°´¨nµª¤¸µ¦n°¨µ¥¤µ¹Ê£µ¥®¨´µ¦¦³µ«Äo¡¦³¦µ´´·¦³Á¸¥oµ¦µµ¦¡¨Á¦º° ¡.«. 2551 Ã¥¡¦³¦µ´´·´´¨nµªÎµÄ®oµ¦Á¨ºÉ°Á·Áº°oµ¦µµ¦¤¸ªµ¤¥º®¥»¤µ¹ÊÁ¡ºÉ°¦´¬µ n É oµ¦µµ¦¸É¤¸»£µ¡ÅªoĦ³¦µµ¦ Á¡º°Å¤nÄ®oÁ·{®µ¤°Å®¨ ¦¤´¸¨µÅoε®®¨´Ár 17 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . 2.13 .. 2550 105 20 2 .. 2502 ( 1 - 30 ) 4 ( 2.5) 4 ( ) 4 ( ) 18 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.1 o .. 2550 8 ( 166-170) 11 ( 252-254) o .. 2502 ( .. 2543) o .. 2546 o .. 2548 o .. 2491 o (.. 2542) 19 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. A. PI-1 B PI-2 A PI-3 A PI-4 A B. PI-5 B PI-6 B PI-7 B+ PI-8 . D+ PI-9 A PI-10 B C(i) PI-11 A PI-12 C C (ii) PI-13 A PI-14 B PI-15 A PI-16 A PI-17 B+ PI-18 B PI-19 B PI-20 C+ PI-21 C+ C (iii) (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A. PI-22 C+ PI-23 B PI-24 B+ PI-25 C+ C (iv) PI-26 B PI-27 B+ PI-28 D A. PI 1: PI-1 B ( ( ) 10 M1) ( 3.1) .. 2549-2551 3.1 ( ) 21 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.1 ( ) ( ) (%) 2006 1,360,000 15,395 1,375,395 90,095 1,360,968 1.1 2007 1,566,200 29,660 1,595,860 132,108 1,607,008 -0.7 2008 1,799,946 140,000 1,939,945 124,829 1,709,708 11.9 () PI 2: PI-2 A 2.5 22 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.2 ( ) ( ) 2548 2549 2550 80,885.88 68,954.07 -14.8 84,887.33 70,172.73 -17.3 102,121.2 85,419.0 -16.4 88,072.08 81,974.76 -6.9 118,160.21 92,892.21 -21.4 175,880.8 119,822.2 -31.9 80,583.18 74,302.85 -7.8 91,796.36 81,537.67 -11.2 103,919.5 90,956.0 -12.5 279,589.50 274,866.82 -1.7 333,163.37 327,922.87 -1.6 363,999.4 345,209.5 -5.2 102,840.36 101,846.83 -1.0 149,498.62 145,907.83 -2.4 159,018.0 153,790.1 -3.3 95,559.51 106,935.59 11.9 112,410.37 115,604.12 2.8 117,813.6 122,584.4 4.0 41,532.69 36,858.12 -11.3 27,484.32 20,109.13 -26.8 48,969.5 33,666.2 -31.3 10,186.91 8,734.58 -14.3 13,464.65 11,596.87 -13.9 15,375.4 12,846.6 -16.4 360,864.59 277,768.46 -23.0 372,140.09 319,428.62 -14.2 387,452.3 318,931.4 -17.7 235,280.53 238,630.92 1.4 292,855.16 289,728.60 -1.1 325,395.8 301,653.2 -7.3 ( 1,375,395.22 1,270,873.00 -7.6 1,595,860.48 1,474,900.64 -7.6 1,799,945.55 1,584,878.64 -11.9 ) 9.7 8.0 12.5 2.1 0.4 0.6 PI 3 PI-3 A ( M1) 23 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3 .. 2548-2551 3 .. 2548 8.9 .. 2549 25505 3.3 ( ) 2548 2549 2550 573,000 601,292 638,900 643,105 679,900 739,530 /1 337,683 303,251 781,440 753,318 819,637 802,621 118,900 200,550 86,450 88,514 76,820 97,445 2,117 2,896 2,100 2,626 2,013 2,720 137,500 153,995 155,200 206,649 183,100 185,633 1,169,200 1,261,984 1,664,090 1,694,212 1,761,470 1,827,949 7.9% 1.8% 3.8% 1/ PI 4 PI-4 (i) ( A ( ) (A) M1) (ii) (A) 5 A ( PEFA) 24 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . 25 ( 10 ) 25 2551 90 ( ) 1 2-3 15 B. PI 5 PI-5 B ( COFOG GFS 1986 M1) ( ) GFMIS GFS 2001 25 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ GFS 14.5 .. 2552 ( ) ( ) GFS (B) PI 6: PI-6 5 PEFA B 2 ( M1) 26 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. () 2. GFS GFS GFS 2001 . ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 5. () ( ) 6. ( ) 27 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. ( ) () 8. ( ) ( ) 9. () PI 7: PI-7 (i) B+ ( M1) 10 ( .) 2 (B) (ii) ( 0.5 ) (A) 28 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) 95 . . 5 (B) (ii) GFMIS ( ) 0.5 (A) PI 8 . PI-8 (i) . () D+ (C) . (ii) ( M2) . . . (D) (iii) . ( 20 ) (D) (i) . ( ) . 25 .. 2549 ( 126,013 ) 29 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 . . . . (C) (ii) . . . () . ( . ) (. . . ) . .. 2550-2551 . 16 ( ) . 5 (D) (iii) . .. 2539 ( . 20 (D) 30 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 9 PI-9 (i) A . (A) ( M1) (ii) . . . . . (A) (i) . . . ( . ) ( ) (Public service obligations PSOs) ( PI-7) . . . . (A) 31 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (ii) . . . . .. 2548 . . . (A) PI 10 PI-10 3 6 B PEFA ( M1) 6 (i) ( PI 6): . () (ii) - GFMIS . () (iii) GFMIS ( ) . .. 2548 ( ) (iv) . 6 () 32 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (v) .. 2550 () (vi) 56 .. 2550 () B C. C (I ) PI 11 PI-11 (i) (A) A (ii) ( M2) (A) (iii) (A) 33 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . (i) . (KPIs) 4 ( 2.8) . ( ) 5 (A) (ii) - - (PI-11) - 34 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (A) (iii) 125 (A) PI 12: PI-12 (i) C ( (C) M2) (ii) 1 ( 2549-2551) (B) (iii) 4 (C) (iv) (C) 35 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) (C) (ii) ( ) 50 GDP ( .. 2551 38 GDP) 15 ( 10.4 .. 2550- 2551) 4 GDP 3 (B) (iii) 36 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . (C) (iv) . 4 (C) C (II). PI 13: PI-13 (i) A ( (B) M2) (ii) (supervision) (A) (iii) 37 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (A) 18 GDP ( .) (i) " " "" .. 2550 167 (Tax Expenditure) (5 64 ) 50 5,000 ( ) 38 (e-Revenue) 1 0 (B) (ii) (Supervision) ( ) 38 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (A) (iii) 30 (38 .. 2551 1,377 22 ) (A) PI 14 PI-14 (i) B ( M2) (B) (ii) (B) (iii) (Business visit) (B) 39 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) ( ) (Doing Business 2009 Survey) .. 2551 8 (B) (ii) (Supervision) .. 2550-2551 2 600,000 236 370 (B) (iii) 2,500 40 ( ) e-Revenue (Supervision) ( (ii)) (B) 40 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 15: PI-15 (i) 3 A ( 8 (A) M1) (ii) (A) (iii) (A) (i) 2549 2550 2551 8.1 6.6 7 .. 2551 .. 2551 .. 2549 ( 10 ) (A) (ii) 1 (A) (iii) (A) 41 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 16 PI-16 (i) A ( M1) (A) (ii) (A) (iii) (A) (i) GFMIS (A) (ii) 25,000 2 (90.7 2551) 2 ( ) (A) 42 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (iii) ( ) ( ) 3 (A) PI 17 PI-17 (i) B+ (A) ( (ii) M2) (C) (iii) . (A) (i) (A) 43 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (ii) GFMIS 2551 90.7 7.7 . (C) (iii) .. 2548 . 20 . 20 . . ( . ) . (FIDF) 2551 38 GDP 11 (A) 44 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 18 PI-18 (i) B ( M1) (B) (ii) .. (A) (iii) (B) (iii) . (C) .. (i) .. 45 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (B) (ii) (A) (iii) ( ) (B) (iv) . (C) 46 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 19: PI-19 (i) () B ( M2) (B) (ii) (C) (iii) (B) . . .. 2549 47 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) .. 2548-2549 ( ) .. 2550 . 15 25 . (B) (ii) () 2 . (C) (iii) 3 (B) 48 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 20 PI-20 (i) C+ (B) ( M1) (ii) COSO 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (B) (iii) (C) (i) GFMIS ( SAP/Oracle) GFMIS (B) (ii) .. 2544 . 27 2544 COSO 5 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) ( ) 49 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (B) (iii) .. 2544 .. 2551 25 . (C) PI 21 PI-21 (i) C+ ( M1) (B) (ii) .. 2551 2 2 (B) (iii) (C) 50 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) (B) (ii) .. 2551 2 .. 2548 2 (B) (iii) (C) 51 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C (III). PI 22 PI-22 (i) C+ GFMIS ( M2) GFMIS 2548 (D) (ii) GFMIS 15 (A) (i) PI-17 GFMIS GFMIS ( GFMIS 2548) GFMIS 2 . GFMIS . GFMIS GFMIS GFMIS GFMIS .. 52 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2548 (D) (ii) 15 (A) PI 23: PI-23 B ( M1) (B) PI 24: PI-24 (i) GFMIS B+ ( M1) (C) (ii) (A) 53 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (iii) GFMIS (A) (i) (GFS 1986) GFMIS (GFS 2001) (C) (ii) 4 (GFS 1996) (GFS 2001) (A) (iii) GFMIS . (A) PI 25: PI-25 (i) C+ GFMIS .. ( 2548 M1) (C) (ii) . 10 . .. 2548 (C) 54 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (iii) IPSAS (B) (i) GFMIS (C) (ii) . 10 GFMIS . .. 2548 .. 2548 . GFMIS (C) (iii) (Modified accruals approach) IPSAS (B) 55 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C (IV) PI 26 PI-26 (i) . B ( M1) . (IFRS) . 7,900 . . 1 3 (B) (ii) . 4 . .. 2548 . 3 (B) (iii) . . . (B) (i) .. 2542 . 56 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . . (IFRS) . 7,900 . . . 1 3 . 333 (.. 2542) (ISA) (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions) (B) (ii) . GFMIS . .. 2548 . . (B) (iii) . 60 . . 57 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . . (B) PI 27: PI-27 (i) B+ ( (B) M1) (ii) (A) (iii) 3 (A) (iv) (B) (i) .. 2550 167 168 ( ) 58 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (B) (ii) (A) (iii) 105 20 (A) (iv) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 20 ) (B) 59 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PI 28: PI-28 (i) D (D) ( M1) (ii) . (D) (iii) . (D) (i) . (D) (ii) . . (D) (iii) . (D) 60 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. 4.1 (i) .. 2546 4 (ii) .. 2548 .. 2551 (iii) (e-Budget) (e-Revenue) GFMIS (iv) 4.2 (i) ( ) (ii) 61 (PEFA) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (iii) . . 20 (iv) iv) ( 2550) (vi) 4.3 ( ) 62 30th Floor, Siam Tower 989 Rama I Road, Pathumwan