Bangkok: "Prit" has recommended that the Ministry of Education opt for renting 15 provincial education buildings instead of constructing new ones, with a proposed budget of 375 million baht. He emphasized that renting is currently more cost-effective and adaptable to changing circumstances, enabling agencies to commence operations more swiftly.
According to Thai News Agency, this suggestion was made during a meeting of the House of Representatives, chaired by First Vice President Chaiya Promma. The meeting was dedicated to discussing the draft Budget Act for the fiscal year 2026 (B.E. 2569), focusing on Section 24 concerning the Ministry of Education and its subordinate agencies. Mr. Panus Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP from the Prachachon Party and a minority member of the committee, also debated the proposal. He called for a reduction in the budget allocated for constructing education buildings across 15 provinces and suggested switching to renting new premises or exploring other alternatives. Mr. Panus and committee members noted the pressing issues faced by the current provincial education offices and the necessity for safe and convenient new workplaces.
Mr. Prit reiterated the unnecessary nature of constructing new buildings by highlighting budgetary constraints. He argued that if the Provincial Education Office were to persist in its current form for a century, building new facilities might be justified. However, with the impending review of the Education Act drafts, which question the roles and structure of the Provincial Education Office, constructing new buildings seems unjustified. The proposed new Education Act, expected to be considered soon, may redefine these roles, reducing the need for new constructions. Prit suggested exploring shared spaces within the Ministry of Education or other government agencies and renting new spaces. He detailed that with an average budget of 25 million baht per building, rental could be sustained for over 20-40 years, depending on the monthly rent.
Further, Mr. Prit addressed the issue of staff safety. He argued that if current buildings are dilapidated and unsafe, constructing new ones would be an unsuitable solution. He suggested reallocating construction funds to rent new premises, allowing immediate relocation and ensuring staff safety. Even if regulations prevent the conversion of the 2016 budget for new premises, the 2017 budget could still facilitate faster relocations than new constructions.
Reflecting on past allocations, Mr. Prit noted that of the eight provinces granted education construction budgets in 2015, only one or two have completed construction. Most are not expected to be ready for occupancy until early 2016. This suggests that even if the budget for 15 new buildings were approved now, they would not be ready until early 2017. Meanwhile, renting new premises could allow staff to relocate as early as the beginning of fiscal year 2017 or even the fourth quarter of 2016.
In conclusion, Mr. Panusaya appealed to the 500 MPs set to vote on the issue by drawing a parallel to business decision-making. He questioned whether one would choose to rent or build if faced with uncertainty about future operations. He urged MPs to treat taxpayer money with the same care as personal finances, expressing confidence that this approach would garner unanimous agreement with the minority committee.