Thanks, again, to Patiwat, for drawing our attention to a key political statement, this time from “respected intellectual” Prawase Wasi. The Nation carries a summary of Prawase’s manifesto for what I like to call “sufficiency democracy“:
The new constitution should reduce the power and number of MPs and help bureaucrats be independent from politicians, respected intellectual Dr Prawase Wasi suggested yesterday. Prawase said society had to admit that politicians – who are elected to represent the people – create problems.”They neither have the knowledge nor the competency. They are only interested in making connections in order to get into the House. It is more suitable to call them election winners,” he said. MPs or politicians should not be empowered to be executives. “Their role should be limited to writing policies.”
Prawase said the new constitution should reduce the number of MPs in each province to the basic necessity. The structure of power should be increased from the three branches of government. The House and law courts should have at least five to six branches including a bureaucratic branch.
“I propose that bureaucrats should be independent from politicians, who can no longer be removed or transferred from the post, because if the bureaucrats are strong, they can keep a check on politicians,” he said.
MPs did not need to work at the ministries – they could stay at the House to work on policies, he said. Permanent secretaries, director generals and high-ranking ministry officials should work under limited terms and be protected from being sacked. A national selection body should be established to select bureaucrats to the executive posts. Representatives from the media, the education sector, the law and other institutions could apply to be part of the selection body.
If politicians focus on writing policies, what will intellectuals (respected and otherwise) like Prawase have to do?
19 responses so far ↓
1 polo // Nov 30, 2006 at 4:49 am
While there’s clearly some fuzzy thinking here — six branches of govt and that stuff — Prawase isn’t all the way off on part of the problem in Thai administration:
“bureaucrats should be independent from politicians, who can no longer be removed or transferred from the post, because if the bureaucrats are strong, they can keep a check on politicians.’’
In any modern democratic state you have to find a balance between a permanent civil service and changing, elected politicians. (by comparison, in Singapore the bureaucrats, the politicians and the party are the same). The bureaucracy can be overly independent of politicians. But as under Thaksin, the civil service can also be politicized and corrupted. (Not that the Thai bureacuracy can’t be corrupt on its own.) Thaksin did wreck some of the good parts of the civil service, brining upthis problem.
I think that is what Prawase is getting at, but again, fuzzy comments and fuzzier palace-like justifications (bureaucrats are good because politicians are bad) make a mess of the idea. Nor does he offset it with, what happens when the bureaucracy has no one to answer to? What is the prime job then of elected politicial leaders?
That suggests to that the problem is really that the people Thais are listening to on the problems of society are perhaps not the right people. Because, as well-meaning and selfless as he is, Prawase shows an inability to frame the problems and solutions in any precise and useful way. As this example shows, he actually succeeds in distorting the issue by bifurcating government into good bureaucrats and bad politicians.
That doesn’t take you to the essential question: who does a peasant go to when a government official is stealing his land or a policeman has extorted his money?
If the answer is the king, well, I hope he and Prawase have time for all the cases!
2 New Mandala » Democracy lite // Dec 1, 2006 at 5:35 pm
[...] Now, in the post-coup climate, some of the details of “democracy-lite” are starting to emerge. A few days ago we had Prawase Wasi’s proposal for downgrading the power of politicians. And today, Bangkok Pundit has a great post about the latest academic proposals for non-electoral democracy. Thank goodness Thailand is well supplied with these great academic thinkers because those silly villagers seem to have the crazy idea that “democracy is equivalent to elections.” [...]
3 sudseng // Dec 1, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Prawase is the big problem of Thai politic.
He speak for dictator.He also think the election by people not the real democracy. He too old and confuse.
4 Vichai N. // Dec 3, 2006 at 12:39 am
Prawase may be old and this clear thinking social critic is never confused. Strengthening the Thai bureaucracy with professional-minded civic-spirited technorats that would not be beholden to politicians is an ideal since Adam.
Let ME simplify — if Thailand can have a dedicated and professionally run department like the American FBI who would go after the corrupt and the ethically confused politicians (we remember Senators, Congressmen and even Presidents who had been investigated and properly impeached due to the FBI), THAT would be the ideal.
Got it sudseng?
5 Republican // Dec 3, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Prawes is truly pathetic; it’s hard to know whether his latest rantings are another sign of early senility or the intellectual corruption that comes from being too close to the monarchy, the font of unreason in Thailand. He is widely ridiculed on Thai academic websites, so in one sense we don’t have to take what he says too seriously, but on the other hand we do, given his influence in the “network”. The real issue is that bureaucrats are not “public servants” but “servants of the king” – the Thai term “kha ratchakan” makes this clear. Politicians on the other hand are, in structural terms (even if not in practice), servants of the people. So there is a natural conflict between the two that has increased over the last two decades with the growing power of elected politicians. There is a symbiotic relationship between the kha ratchakan (including the military and police) and the monarchy, as there is between elected politicians and the people who elect them. A decline in the influence of kha ratchakan directly affects the monarchy’s influence, and vice versa. This is why Prawes and the monarchy’s other cronies are so opposed to elected politicians having any power over the kha ratchakan. And that is why they were so opposed to Thaksin, because that is precisely the transformation that his regime was bringing about.
6 nganadeeleg // Dec 3, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Interesting concept: ‘Politicians servants of the people’
Would you prefer future military power be exercised for the benefit of a politician rather than for the country/people/king ?
Be careful what you wish for, Republican, you just might get it.
I would like to wish His Majesty a very happy birthday for tuesday, and truly hope he has a trouble free, peaceful year ahead.
7 Vichai N. // Dec 3, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Republican claiming the Thaksin regime was transforming politicians to be ’servants of the people’ is one good early April fool joke but it did succeed to make me laugh out loud and spill my beer. Next thing Republican will claim TRT truly stood for ‘Thai Love (Rak) Thai’, Thaksin’s love boat, the TRT party.
8 jeru // Dec 4, 2006 at 3:23 am
There was one Thai politician I remember who was ’servant of the people’. Chamlong Srimuang, former governor of Bangkok and a former General.
Chamlong Srimuang was an extraordinary Street Sweeper. He kept the streets of Bangkok clean and swept out two corrupt vermins: Suchinda and Thaksin . . two ousted corrupt tyrants courtesy of Sweeper Chamlong.
9 anon // Dec 4, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Chamlong was NOT a servant of his people – he did everything for his own power. Now that he’s rebranded himself as Mr. Anti-Thaksin, we might have fond memories of him.
But during the 90’s when he was the boss at Phalang Dharma, the power struggles between him and the other factions was sickening. The reason Chamlong took in Thaksin wasn’t because he was so fond of Thaksin, but because he needed someone with deep pockets to offset the influence of his Santi Asoke faction against the faction of Boonchu Rojanasathien. The party was always a mess, sometimes supporting government policies (that didn’t make sense), sometimes supporting opposition ideas (that didn’t make sense either). It was a party of whores and power hungry ascetics. Being a long-time Santi Asoke man and a firm believer that the spirit of Buddhism must be turned into a political system that works, it really makes me sad every time I think about how Chamlong’s personal greed and mismanagement wrecked the party.
10 Vichai N. // Dec 5, 2006 at 12:07 am
Anon you are even more pissed than Republican that Thaksin the Mother of Corruption had been booted out of Thailand. But taking your anger on that devout ascetic Chamlong would be futile. Whereas Anon you worship a corrupt, Chamlong’s life had been dedicated to the people. Where is the personal greed Anon you maliciously impugn on Chamlong.
Maybe Anon you should stay anonymous. You are just one malicious poster with spite in your heart because your master Thaksin had been completely disgraced.
You should find another master Anon . . . there are still a lot of corrupt left . . remnants of TRT. Newin perhaps?
11 anon // Dec 5, 2006 at 7:10 am
Vichai, why do you insist on looking at the world through Thaksin-colored glasses? You’re hatred of the man is disgusting. Was your father killed in the War on Drugs or something?
I really don’t give a damn about Thaksin. My beef is with Chamlong. He betrayed the spirit of Santi Asoke in his quest for personal control.
12 Bystander // Dec 5, 2006 at 9:19 am
I’m saying this again but Vichai N, you’re really stereotyping people way out of context. It must seem to you that people who disagree with you must come from the same mold, share every exact same beliefs, and miserably misguided in every way possible. It’s getting old, and you don’t have any persuasive power whatsoever. Why don’t you try to do something more creative?
13 nganadeeleg // Dec 5, 2006 at 10:14 am
I can understand Vichai’s passion given the general pro Thaksin slant of many on this site.
There is a distinct lack of criticism from the pro democracy, anti coup commentators which seems to suggest they are pro Thaksin.
It is understandable that vested interests come into play, but those who are genuinely pro democracy should be concerned at why Thaksin continues to be supported when he was such a divisive leader (not to mention greedy, corrupt, with questionable morals particularly in relation to ordering/condoning extra-judicail killings etc).
14 Vichai N. // Dec 6, 2006 at 12:52 am
The thing we should remember is Toxin Shinawatra ‘poisoned’ Thai Democracy.
“In the toxicology world, dose makes the poison.” What that means is that nearly every creature in the world is exposed to toxic substances from air, water or even nutrition we feed on. But such toxic substance is in such minuscule quantity as to be harmless.
Such is the case too with Thai democracy since the 1997 constitution when there were corruption here and there, isolated vote-buying, police & military abuses too, and politicians making ‘honest mistakes’; but the dosage were minute, unsystematic and not widespread as to be un-toxic and harmless to Thai democracy.
But with the advent of Toxin Shinawatra, there was deliberate, widespread and systematic dosage increase (assets concealed by honest mistakes , extrajudicial killings, conflict of interest, subverting of checks & balances, abuse/killings of Southern Muslim prisoners, divisive politics, nepotism and cronyism, mega-corruption, mega-vote buying, refusal to submit to accountability, illegal elections and election cheating, tax finagling by highest ranking public officials) that made Toxin Shinawatra’s venom lethal to Thai Democracy.
Toxin Shinawatra poisoned to death Thai democracy. General Sonthi intervened to retrieve Thai democracy, purge democracy of its toxins, and to return Thai democracy to the Thai people hopefully this time strengthened with anti-toxins against similar toxic threats and dangers of recent past.
15 Naphat // Dec 6, 2006 at 4:54 am
“There is a distinct lack of criticism from the pro democracy, anti coup commentators which seems to suggest they are pro Thaksin.”
I don’t think we need to preface every comment regarding the current government (which this blog understandably now focuses on, since Thaksin is no longer in power) with one criticism at Thaksin’s old regime. I think the criticisms should be judge at their own merit – most of the time there’s nothing really relevant about Thaksin regime that need to be brought up for example in regards to the current government’s crack down on free speech..
I don’t think that just because the coup delivered us from the (to some) evil that is Thaksin, they should not be immune to constructive criticism. In original post above makes the point that curbing the power of elected officials (who are representative of the electorate) and transferring it an unelected ‘national selection body’ doesn’t do a great deal to increase the accountability of the government.
16 nganadeeleg // Dec 6, 2006 at 8:46 pm
I have reviewed this site since it’s inception in June 2006 (pre coup) and am unable to find any real criticisms of Thaksin by Andrew or Nicholas.
In fact, Andrew in his very first post on 16th June admitted he is a supporter of Thaksin merely because he won at the ballot box.
He accepted that Thaksin presided over ‘flagrant abuses of human rights both in the South and in the notorious war on drugs’ and had some concerns about ‘Thaksin’s apparent manipulation of key democratic institutions’
It is well worth reading his original post to get an insight into where he is coming from:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/06/16/some-thoughts-on-the-political-crisis-in-thailand/
I must be an elitist, because regardless of whether Thaksin was able to win elections, I am unable to just accept flagrant abuses of human rights, manipulation of key democratic institutions, personal greed, corruption, tax avoidance and divisive manipulation of the rural poor.
The old saying about fooling some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, needs to be amended in this case to:
You can fool most of the people, all of the time.
17 Vichai N. // Dec 6, 2006 at 11:49 pm
When I first visited New Mandala site, I accused it of being a propaganda tool for Thaksin Shinawatra specifically against the monarchy and those against Thaksin.
I have not changed that opinion one bit.
18 polo // Dec 7, 2006 at 12:40 am
Ngana: Is throwing out the constitution and suspending rule of law the way to combat “flagrant abuses of human rights, manipulation of key democratic institutions, personal greed, corruption, tax avoidance and divisive manipulation of the rural poor” ?Is that “one step backwards to go to steps ahead” or is it two steps backward in hopes of monving one step back ahead?
19 nganadeeleg // Dec 7, 2006 at 8:24 am
To polo: Time will tell.
I would have preferred that Thaksin resigned, but he kept giving mixed signals and eventually seemed determined to remain (probably as the best way for him to quash scrutiny and protect all the dodgy deals)
On the consitution, I dont like the idea of starting again and would prefer to use the 1997 constitution as the starting point.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.