New Mandala

48 responses so far ↓

• 1 Srithanonchai // Jun 10, 2007 at 4:45 am

  This dark, unknown, frightening monster “rural masses”… The MoI has a project to recruit 10-15 million democracy volunteers. One of their tasks will be to convince their fellow villagers to vote for a constitution they will hardly know the content of (I am not sure what the “key issues” are — that this constitution was prepared by a body hired by the military junta and that TRT was dissolved, or are they about the content of the constitution?). The government has allocated 500 million baht for the CDA’s public relations drive. One is not mistaken to assume that this is not about explaining the pros and cons of the document in a neutral fashion. Finally, ISOC and others will also have their part in urging villagers to vote “yes.”

• 2 nganadeeleg // Jun 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

  Will this referendum so baffle rural Thais that they can’t grasp the key issues?

  It will take more than a few months to change a lifetime of ignorance.

  Even if it was a near perfect consitution, there would be those that would push for it’s rejection just because of the way it came about.
  IMO, politics will be the deciding issue, rather than the actual content of the draft constitution.

  It’s also a shame that certain Buddhists persist in demeaning the religion by continuing their push to have it declared the state religion – those monks are either very ignorant, or there is something more sinister going on behind the scenes.

• 3 Vichai N // Jun 10, 2007 at 12:46 pm

  I doubt very much whether rural voters can be confused by silly opposing politics. The villagers are never found to be wanting of opinions . . . in fact they are ample rich of it but destitute of everything else.

  These villagers may easily be conned into going into more debts just to buy those newspapers heavily advertised Jatukams, or, rush to the next big tree on rumours of heavenly penned digits at its trunk by which to wager his last baht at the underground lottery. But when it comes to politics, it won’t be easy to change their minds that elections do bring immediate cashable social welfare benefits to spend for one more Jatukam amulet.

  It is very easy to predict the rejection of the junta influenced new constitution only because appointees in the parliament is a disturbing doctrine to the village masses enamored of elections. I am with the these village masses of course! I reject the newly proposed constitution with exactly the same suspicion and animosity I carry for appointees in parliament.

  And tanks and bullets do not scare me. I carry enough amulets with warranties to bullet proof but I am amazed that with the half-dozen Jatukams I hang like medals around my neck each day, those ample wealth that would put the Shinawatra to shame have not yet materialized.

• 4 Oberver // Jun 10, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  I work in a prominent Thai company, listed on the stock exchange. I frequently have conversations with the Thai elite – Benz-driving, overseas educated, bangkok Thais – as well as a large number of rural people.

  I promise you that broadly speaking rural Thais have a better understanding of politics that the spawn of Chula, Thammasart, etc. In fact, if you had a political quiz show pitting taxi drivers against Chul Poli-Sci grads, my money would be on the taxi drivers.

  The Nation and the elite choir is obsessed with self-interested poor people. Don’t they realize that if they just stopped oppressing them, maybe then they could rise up a little bit more? For years, I have heard the elite deride the uneducated masses, but never do they call to educated them. Giving a few more scraps to the needy is not pandering, it is justice.

• 5 Srithanonchai // Jun 10, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  Nakharin Mektrairat, the dean of the faculty of political science at Thammasat University, predicted that there won’t be more than 1 million no votes. Reasoning: the anti-TRT verdict had opened the people’s eyes and ears, and they wanted an election as soon as possible. I wonder whether this is not wishful thinking based on a Bangkok aircon academic’s world view. Also, he did not mention the massive and very well-funded propaganda campaign that seems to have been planned by a number of agencies, including his own CDA. (reported in Bangkok Post, June 10, 2007, p. 3)

• 6 Republican // Jun 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm

  Whatever its content, this Constitution will always have the stigma of being the “Dictator’s Constitution”. Even if it were passed it will always carry the whiff of illegitimacy, which would enable it to be easily attacked by its enemies. But I would actually be surprised if we even got to hold the referendum, given the anti-CNS movement that has started now. But if the referendum were held, this would be an interesting test of the loyalty of the Thai Rak Thai voter base. If it is still loyal, and Thai Rak Thai were to campaign to reject the Constitution, then the Constitution is dead. Then what?

• 7 Historicus // Jun 10, 2007 at 8:04 pm

  nganadeeleg expresses the expected opinion. The ignorant savages in the villages need re-education. I wonder how many of the ignorant and unwashed cross his/her path? Frankly, most of these so-called ignorant rural masses are far more politically savvy than most of the taokey masquerading as middle class cruising around Bangkok.

  But even if we were to agree that they (and others) need more political education, where are they going to get it from? The inadequate school system? The controlled media that produces almost no political news and feeds the people a diet of North Korean like propaganda about the government, the military and the obscenely wealthy royals and their obsequious minions?

  The royalists and Bangkok elite and some of the middle class as so scared of the masses having a say in anything that they run to hide behind the military’s guns and the royalist ideology every time they see a taxi driver speak of politics.

• 8 Republican // Jun 10, 2007 at 8:46 pm

  If indeed the Constitution does fail then Nakharin Mektrairat should be made to resign from his position as Dean of Political Science at Thammasat; not only for willingly serving a royalist-miliary junta which came to power and remains in power purely out of the threat of violence, but also because of his total misunderstanding of the politics of his own country, supposedly his field of expertise. If academics want to play politics (as opposed to teaching and researching it) then let them run for office and be accountable to the people who pay their salaries. This is the problem with Thailand’s academics: they want the power and glory but refuse to be accountable.

• 9 Vichai N // Jun 10, 2007 at 10:33 pm

  Oh silly Republican . . . you carry on with your noxious diatribe against monarchs, generals, academics and the so-called elites, because they have rejected Thaksin Shinawatra, The Corrupter?

  Silly man. For all your silly long paragraphs professing sedetious doctrines . . . it all comes down to your attachment to Thaksin Shinawatra. You might as well join those silly ex-TRT men at Sanam Luang – - anti-coup but mainly pro-Thaksin, their paymaster.

  You are truly a silly man Republican. Your politics only orbit around that one silly speeding ticket you want served by the corrupt policeman to the royal driver of the speeding Thai royal motorcade. Republican . . if you remove the policeman’s cap you should have recognized, that corrupt policeman was no other than Thaksin Shinawatra.

• 10 Taxi Driver // Jun 10, 2007 at 11:01 pm

  The incompetence of this CNS knows no end: this latest reported in BkkPost:

  “The junta’s official spokesman said the military has promised that if the proposed constitution is defeated at the upcoming referendum, the CNS will use a revised version of the 1997 constitution as the new charter, in order to allow general elections to be held on time”.

  These guys are so useless they cannot organise a drink in a bar or a f**k in a brothel, let alone run a dictatorship.

• 11 Taxi Driver // Jun 10, 2007 at 11:13 pm

  Groundhog Day: Elections are scheduled for a date later in the year but the worry is whether peace & unity will be maintained until that date. No we’re not in June-06, we’re in June-07.

  By using undemocractic means to oust a government (rather than persist in the ouster of Thaksin by legal means) the yellowshirts have really painted themselves (and the rest of the country, including HMK) into a corner and many now belatedly beginning to realise it. Violence is coming, I’m afraid, and this time another coup ain’t going to defuse the situation but in fact will make matters worse. I see another groundhog day coming: May 1997.

• 12 Srithanonchai // Jun 11, 2007 at 12:58 am

  #9 The PAD also had paymasters. “Silly ex-TRT” — This probably underestimates the genuine feelings of most of the participants. One cannot reduce this protest to 20,000 hired thugs.

• 13 Republican // Jun 11, 2007 at 2:19 am

  What I think the various groups that are organizing the Sanam Luang protests should do, if they’re smart and if it is possible politically, is to make the rallying call NOT a call for the return of Thaksin, or “we love Thaksin”, but a call for the immediate removal of the CNS, the return to the 1997 Constitution (possibly with the promise of a revision of the Constitution by a democratically elected drafting panel) and elections as soon as possible under the 1997 Constitution, which was abrogated illegitimately by the coup of September 19. What they should NOT do (if they are smart) is to make this appear as a stage act to invite Thaksin back through mob politics. This will alienate the Bangkok middle class which, as fed up as they are with the CNS (whose incompetence is starting to affect their own economic interests with the downturn in the Thai economy), still regard Thaksin as the spawn of the devil. This strategy would open the way to many more groups willingly joining the movement to oust the CNS, and hence lessening the likelihood of bloodshed. But protests organized around the call for Thaksin’s return can only lead to confrontation and violence. What most groups (with the exception of the PAD and their supporters, especially the Palace) would be willing to rally around is fully free and fair democratic elections in which ALL parties (including Thai Rak Thai) are free to compete. The problem, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is that sections of the Thai Rak Thai voter base may not be willing to compromise, given the way they have been treated over the last 9 months. But if the Thai Rak Thai leadership is smart this is the way they should play it.

  To my mind there are two principles which the Bangkok middle class, many academics, the media and the NGOs, MUST accept for Thailand’s politics to advance in a rational way: that (i) political legitimacy can ONLY come from democratic elections; and (ii) the only form of economy, for better or for worse, that can survive in today’s globalized world economy is a free market, capitalist economy. “Sufficiency Economy” is code for the rejection of capitalism and the culture that it produces, as well as the feudal, pre-capitalist culture that it inevitably destroys. This is a truth that the Bangkok intelligentsia and NGOs still can not accept, which explains both their rejection of Thaksin and their tolerance so far of the CNS. An important reason why they can not accept these two principles is that if accepted they will definitely lead to the end of the monarchy’s influence in Thailand’s political economy. This explains why the monarchy and its allies are fighting so hard with their yellow shirts, their farcical sufficiency economy theory and their “khon di” morality. That is, they are fighting with all the tools of the “superstructure” which they control, because they have lost control of the “base” to Thaksin.

• 14 Vichai N // Jun 11, 2007 at 2:21 am

  Srithanonchai you overstate the numbers . . . there were approximately 10,000 (according to the news) hired TRT thugs, not 20,000. Or maybe 20,000 thugs were indeed hired by Thaksin but only 10,000 showed up – you should know Srithanonchai being the TRT insider you hint you are.

  If I personally believe those at Sanam Luang hangers-on were Thaksin\’s thugs for hire, it is only because thuggery had been Thaksin\’s calling card when he is cornered (in case people forget, I remind the forum of Thaksin\’s thugs attacking The Nation and The Manager headquarters during his last panic days just before the coup). And I may be forgiven to presume that those very same thugs and troublemakers are very likely back on the streets again to do malicious assignments for Thaksin, who imust now feel even more cornered with criminal proceedings threatening to not only reduce his considerable ill-gotten wealth by a third (for taxes), but jail time too for the election fraud Thaksin masterminded in April-06.

• 15 nganadeeleg // Jun 11, 2007 at 9:07 am

  To Historicus (#7): The only reason I continue to point out the truth of ignorance in the electorate is because it is the rural masses that have the real power at election time – I have never stated that they are the only ones that need some education.

  The fact is virtually the whole system is corrupt from the top down.
  People like you, Andrew, Republican etc need to consider this question:
  Will it be easier to change the ways of those in power, or those who have the power to put them there?

  Much of the drama over the last 2 years could have been avoided if TRT had acted like a legitimate politcial party instead of an autocracy.

  The ”Octoberists” have done more than roll over to Thaksin, they have bent over to him.

• 16 jonfernquest // Jun 11, 2007 at 2:24 pm

  I bet a lot of the rural masses will vote for the draft constitution because they are fed up with politics and want to get a leader in place with an actual mandate to make long-term decisions.

  I doubt if a strong leader can rise to the fore in the current state of divisive politics, what will result is probably more of a reconciliation leader to heal the divisive politics. A comeback by the TRT and Thaksin would probably lead to a repeat of 2006 and would probably just lead to an eternal political see-saw putting economic progress on hold again.

  (Strong leaders have worked in other Asian economies but they had industrial policies for development, not just massive cash handouts and subsidies to consolidate power over the critical rural electorate, they rationed credit to export industries, they didn’t just swing the doors open to debt, foreign consumer credit, more TVs, cars, and short-term thinking.)

  IMHO the interesting question is what it would take to transform the draft constitution into a Peoples’ Constitution sometime in the future when things have cooled down a bit, cooled down a bit being what the draft constitution seems geared to accomplish.

• 17 Srithanonchai // Jun 11, 2007 at 4:35 pm

  Vichai: Just as I spent hours observing the Sondhi protests, I spent five hours last Sunday on Sanam Luang, and then marched to the army headquarters with the protestors. I left at 23.30. This is the background for my caution not merely to disqualify participants as “hired thugs.” This approach might well lead to misjudgments. Certainly, the social composition of the participants was not as middle-class as it was with Sondhi (this also “shocked” Kraisak, who is more used to “well-behaved” middle-class people).

  As for the numbers, the stage was set in the middle of Sanam Luang. Of the space occupied by the protestors, more than 25% was quite full, while the rest was more sparsely populated. Comparing this protest with what I saw at the PAD rallies around Government House, I would guess that this Sunday rally had more people in attendance. Not all of them, though, walked down Rajadamnoen Avenue to the Army.

• 18 nganadeeleg // Jun 11, 2007 at 6:29 pm

  Matt (Lost boy) over at whatismatt.com raises an interesting point when he says he thinks the protesters are leaderless because Thaksin cannot come back.

  It will be interesting to see if a real leader emerges – personally, I don’t think Thaksin is finished yet, and have the feeling that he
  is just waiting for enough trouble to be stirred up so that the country will welcome him back as the shining knight – I hope I’m wrong!
  Thailand is dominated by personality politics and looks for a white knight as the saviour, and it’s interesting to me that a centre right party (TRT) can have more appeal to the rural masses than a supposedly centre left party (Democrats)
  Being seen to be ‘clean’ & have integrity comes a sorry last to a strong personality.
  Not discounting the better networks that TRT has in the north/northeast, but it sure helps to have a personality leader and it doesn’t hurt if he is also very wealthy.
  Notice many protesters are calling specifically for the return of Thaksin, rather than the 111 TRT party executives.

  The scene seems ripe for a party with populist policies (and appropriate taxes on the rich to pay for them) but I wonder can the Democrat Party make ground with ‘poor friendly’ policies, or is it beyond them to achieve mass appeal in the north because they don’t have the right personality leader, and many are still loyal to the Thaksin personality no matter what.

• 19 jonfernquest // Jun 11, 2007 at 7:10 pm

  Finance Minister Chalongphob in Asian Economic Policy Review on the “moral hazard” problem of rural debt (June, 2007):

  “More worrying is that grassroots borrowers now appear to expect that the government will always come in and write off their debt if they cannot service it themselves. Cases of mobs demanding debt forgiveness (and getting it) are becoming regular events. In October 2005, more than 5 000 farmers marched in the government house area to demand debt relief. A week or so later, the government approved a debt restructuring scheme covering more than 50 000 farmers. In April 2006, another 2 500 farmers marched on the Ministry of Agriculture demanding debt relief, again the government rewarded them with what they demanded. These scenarios are very worrying. There is a risk of a loss of financial discipline in the whole system if the government continues to forever pursue a policy of pushing out credit and then forgiving debt. If this becomes the norm, then there is no reason to be prudent with any borrowing or investment. Although the current problem is still relatively limited in scope, from the lesson of the crisis, this kind of situation should never have been allowed to happen, let alone brought about by government policy.”
  http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1748-3131.2007.00055.x

  Chang Noi citing Anek Laothomas:

  “In his book, Thaksina-prachaniyom (Thaksin-style populism) Anek worries that Thaksin could be a signal of even worse to come. Thaksin gave people things they wanted, and was rewarded with massive support at the polls. Even if Thaksin and TRT vanish from Thailand’s political map, this populism will stay. Other leaders will copy it. Once one party offers people the moon, then its rivals must offer the moon and the stars. But Anek fears the risks are massive. The people become dependent on state handouts. The bureaucracy is politicized. The economy dives into the same kind of economic crises as populist Latin America. Society is sharply divided between the lower-class who benefit from populism, and the middle and upper classes who have to pay for it.”
  http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/prophet.htm

• 20 nganadeelg // Jun 11, 2007 at 7:40 pm

  Jon – good points, but the answer must lie somewhere between the two extremes – the poor need a leg up (even a fair go in the legal system and a decent safety net would be an improvement ), but the middle class should not be taxed out of existence.

• 21 Historicus // Jun 11, 2007 at 7:44 pm

  nganadeeleg : Apologies, but I don’t follow your response. Is it that the whole system is corrupt so education is a waste of time? Or is it that the elite and middle class are not able to be re-eductaed, but the masses are? Or is it something else?

  I am still wondering that if political education is possible, where is it going to come from? The inadequate school system? The now highly controlled media that produces almost no political news and feeds the people a diet of propaganda about the government, the military and the obscenely wealthy royals and their obsequious minions?

• 22 Srithanonchai // Jun 11, 2007 at 8:13 pm

  supposedly centre left party (Democrats) : a lot of center, and nothing left; if they had been, no TRT

  Chalongphob: He is probably right, but the government he belongs to has also made the experience that it is easier to give in to protestors than resisting them — in the South.

• 23 bangkokpundit // Jun 11, 2007 at 9:35 pm

  More worrying is that grassroots borrowers now appear to expect that the government will always come in and write off their debt if they cannot service it themselves. Cases of mobs demanding debt forgiveness (and getting it) are becoming regular events.

  One could apply the same criteria to large corporate debtors. An issue of moral hazard arises there as well. A number of corporate entities borrowed billions of USD, backed by personal guarantees, in a much greater scale than rural people. Debts have been written off. Can’t we also say that large politically connected and influential businesses

  One could also say they have their own mob, given Sondhi’s personal corporate debts and the debts of some of his backers (Prachai of TPI).

  I think there needs to be some coherent policy on which debt should be written off and it should not just come about to pacify protesters otherwise you create an incentive for people to protest. Although, I am mindful of the fact that without protests no one will actually look at the matter (why when there are other pressing issues).

  But I don’t see how you can justify forgiving large amounts of corporate debt and then not look at others in society? Ask the Democrat Party, I think they learned their lesson on this issue.

  But Anek fears the risks are massive. The people become dependent on state handouts. The bureaucracy is politicized. The economy dives into the same kind of economic crises as populist Latin America. Society is sharply divided between the lower-class who benefit from populism, and the middle and upper classes who have to pay for it.

  The village fund wasn’t a state handout though, they were loans, as Andrew has detailed. Thai bureaucracy becoming politicized? It always has been, they support themselves with their little fiefdoms.

  I am just wondering in which western society, do the middle class and the upper classes not pay for the poor in some way?

• 24 jonfernquest // Jun 11, 2007 at 10:35 pm

  “…the answer must lie somewhere between the two extremes…”

  I think there is a lot more promise in OTOP than the dismissal it is given in the Chalongphob paper (p. 116) not to mention its indirect effects of making people think more entrepreneurially which certainly makes the nation stronger. Small scale entrepreurship is not given as much respect as a research topic in Thai universities as it should have.

  But IMHO Markets are certainly not the solution for everything. Non-sellable land for poor people, permanent non-alienable rights for the family in perpetuity, the way land tenure often worked in the pre-modern period, often works better even now than having the family mortgage the land and then lose it to some rich merchant who accumulates piles of deeds held for the long-term, speculating on future appreciation, but not getting as much value out of the land for human and animal life support purposes. But this is not a new problem, alas.

• 25 nganadeeleg // Jun 11, 2007 at 11:08 pm

  Historicus – I’ll give you a hint: The elite and middle class are already educated and they know what they are doing.

  I see more hope in trying to educate the masses that things will not get better if they keep rewarding corrupt politicians with their votes.
  They need to realise that another obscenely wealthy person is (or was) not going to be their salvation, and the main game of obscenely wealthy individuals is not about helping the rural masses but all about helping themselves/family/friends.

• 26 21Jan // Jun 12, 2007 at 8:59 am

  # 25: “They need to realise that another obscenely wealthy person is (or was) not going to be their salvation, and the main game of obscenely wealthy individuals is not about helping the rural masses but all about helping themselves/family/friends.”

  That could also be said by Republican – so obscenity is just in the eye of the beholder (although I have to admid that BOTH are obscene wealthy)
  And I really doubt the statement about the educated middle-class – especially concerning democracy they could take some extra lessons.

• 27 nganadeeleg // Jun 12, 2007 at 4:51 pm

  to 21 Jan: Yes, I thought Republcan would have liked it – thats why I specifically said ‘another obscenely wealthy person’.

  I still think there is more scope to educate the rural masses than the middle classes, and today’s ABAC poll in the Bangkok Post seems to back me up:

  A opinion poll which concludes Bangkok people don’t really believe honesty is always the best policy shows a worrying decline in the morality of Thai society, Deputy Prime Minister Paiboon Wattanasiritham said yesterday.
  The Abac Poll surveyed 2,506 people in Bangkok and nearby provinces and found that more than 70% of them were ready to ”accept” a corrupt government if it would improve their own well-being.
  The results were released yesterday, a day after Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont addressed the nation in a TV broadcast, calling on all Thais to help rid the country of corrupt politicians.
  Sponsored by the government’s Centre for the Promotion of National Strength on Moral Ethics and Value, the survey was aimed at examining the morality of Thai people.
  Worryingly, the poll also found that 90% of the respondents accepted that they were more afraid of losing money-making opportunities than anything else.
  About 83% said they were even ready to violate social regulations if necessary.
  Generally, men were less moral than women, while the morality of youths aged 18-20 was lower than the other age groups, the Assumption University poll concluded.
  When educational background was taken into consideration, the survey showed that people with only high school or high vocational level education were morally better than those with a higher education.
  The survey had focused on the six indicators important for monitoring morality _ discipline, responsibility, honesty, conscience, diligence and acts of giving.
  Mr Paiboon, the minister for social development and human security, said the survey’s findings will be used as a tool for addressing and tackling problems associated with morality.
  ”Its findings that a majority of people can accept corruption is worrying. It shows how people look at things with a narrow perspective and short-sightedness, which is dangerous,” he said.
  Corruption, he said, can be poisonous in the long term, even for people who have benefited from it. It will finally lead to social and economic decline.
  ”An influential figure may use corruption as a means to build up his popularity and make people feel they are better off with more money in their pockets, but that’s not sustainable. A strong foundation for social and economic growth only comes from true goodness,” he said.
  The government has already approved the National Morality Promotion Bill, which would enable it to build a more responsible society.
  In order to speed up the process, the cabinet also plans to issue a Prime Minister’s Office regulation to encourage moral behaviour in every government agency.
  Narathip Phumsap, director of the centre, said seven more surveys will be conducted in the same areas as well as in 18 other provinces to get a comprehensive view of the situation.

• 28 Historicus // Jun 20, 2007 at 8:43 pm

  So, the less education people have the more moral they are. The elite are beyond help and education (or the education system has made them as they are) and someone must save the poor from an education system that doesn’t work? Why not just give them political rights without all the elitist clap trap? Oh yes, that was tried and it failed too. Where to now nganadeeleg?

• 29 nganadeeleg // Jun 21, 2007 at 7:24 pm

  Try again – perhaps they will be wiser next time.

  Educate might have been the wrong word – Substitute ‘wisdom’, but can you teach wisdom?

  It’s a simple message really:
  Once a politician shows their true colors, kick them out (don’t keep rewarding them with your vote – search for a better one).

  It’s not only the rural masses who threw away their electoral power, I also am disappointed in those TRT politicians who rolled over to Thaksin instead of standing up to him.

• 30 Srithanonchai // Jun 21, 2007 at 10:17 pm

  How many juniors will stand up to their seniors in Thailand, I wonder? If the Sondhi protests and the coup and its aftermath have shown anything, it is that the Bangkok educated elite is not superior to the Po 6 villagers, neither in terms of morality nor political knowledge.

• 31 Historicus // Jun 22, 2007 at 12:32 am

  But the elite maintain their power. Of course, that is what all this is about. Thaksin is not the issue that worries the elite now in control. He is symbolic of the fear they have of letting the villagers, workers and others have their say. They are scared witless that they will lose their privileges and power. They seek a democracy – Thai-style democracy with the king as head of state – that preserves that power.

• 32 nganadeeleg // Jun 22, 2007 at 11:08 am

  “He is symbolic of the fear they have of letting the villagers, workers and others have their say.”

  Unfortunately, I too, have that fear, but for different reasons than being “scared witless that they will lose their privileges and power”

  I am amazed that Thaksin continued to receive support even after he had outserved his initial usefulness to the masses.

  Perhaps the visits to the fortune tellers made all the difference:) (apart from gaving him some forewarning to stash funds away for a rainy day, it also seems to have kept the masses on side)

  Ultimately Thaksin was trying to outdo the elite at their own game, and got tripped up by his own greed.

• 33 Historicus // Jun 22, 2007 at 9:45 pm

  nganadeeleg – the problem is that you think you know better than they do. That’s the elitism that is at the basis of many of the problems facing Thailand. The elite thinks they know best. Maybe they really don’t and just reflect their own interests. Maybe that’s what the plebs do as well.

• 34 Vichai N. // Jun 23, 2007 at 2:11 am

  “I am amazed that Thaksin continued to receive support even after he had outserved his initial usefulness to the masses.” – ngana (#32)

  I personally believe the so called adulation of the Thai poor for Thaksin Shinawatra was more hype than real. Certainly Thaksin’s spin machine, plus ready cash handouts and populist policies, succeeded to create a sort of cult following among the guillible Thai poor. The Thai poor would cling to a champion that Thaksin was quick to exploit. Were not all the Big Corrupts first and foremost the Defenders of the Poor? Bah!

  But surely from such quick “attachment” were not love affairs destiny bound to disappoint? Money can only consumate quickies. True attachment, or love, grow in increments. Only Fools believe in Love at First Sight

• 35 nganadeeleg // Jun 23, 2007 at 6:22 pm

  Historicus: Of course the elite think they know best. Unfortunately, I’m not one of the elite, but I also think I know best – it’s human nature!

  I agree there are a number of problems facing Thailand, and one is that too many people didn’t think at all and assumed that Thaksin knew best.

  Actually, I’m starting to lose interest politics (again) – this is what I posted over at Bangkok Pundits site in a discussion about the economy and revisions of the Foreign Business Act:
  I would rather have transparency than a continuation of the Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink grey zones.
  However I think it is up to a new elected government to make the changes, not this interim government.

  IMO the junta have already done their main job by being the circuit breaker to get rid of Thaksin and save the country from a Marcos situation.
  Dismantle the Thaksin system, allow proper investigations into all problem areas including corruption & the drug war etc, apologise for the heavy handed atrocities in the south, & pave the way for new elections – job done, now move on.

  I say after all this time and what everyone should by now know about Thaksin, if the majority of voters still want someone like him, then let them have what they deserve.

• 36 Nick Wood // Jun 23, 2007 at 6:59 pm

  What was obviously so scary to the Bangkok so called Elite was how easy and how realtively cheap it was to gain landslide popularity in the rural areas.

  I don’t have the stats for how many villages he gave the money to, but at 25,000 USD per village it proved to very very cheap I would think. Yes he was corrupt, yes he had some crazy policies, yes he indebted the poor and yes he was the single most popular and successful politician that Thailand has ever had.

  The next step will be if this realisation has had any effect on the politicians left in his wake and whether this will spark something akin to manifesto politics. Thai politics with it’s godfathers and patronage lurches slowly from fad to the next crackdown because no party every stands up and says what it stands for and what it is going to do for the country.

  I believe it may well happen that in the next election that we might get some of the younger more western educated politicians to stand up and for example say “I will put one percent on higher rate income tax to fund rural education, or I will tax rental incomes since this is the preserve of the rich to pay for scholarships for the rural to attend university”. Likewise tax reductions here, social programs there etc etc. This is the best surefire way to make sure that Thaksin cannot re-enter politics. I do fear however, that the vested interests of the few are so entwined in Thai politics there is only a remote chance of any party coming up with a comprehensive plan to get this country moving in both the metropolitan and rural areas.

  There is no accountability in Thai politics because no party has an ethos that drives their ideas of how a country should be fundamentally run be it left, right, open, closed etc etc. They sway in the wind, and can never be held accountable for failure because there was nothing planned and announced to the electorate. How the electorate be expected to educate itself when the only real policy is “Let me give you a hundred baht, and trust me”.

  That is exactly what Taksin did, but unlike just about every other party before he put his hands in the government coffers and he paid out in what the rural populous felt was mountains of money.

  However, Thaksin didn’t even announce his manifesto before he won. He won and out of the hat he produced Thaksinomics. It was a marketing and political masterstroke, much like Blairs “Third Way”, a mish mash of this and that pandering to the masses. The Bangkok elite had better be scared, very scared that he doesn’t come back because he can move this country in both good and bad ways.

• 37 patiwat // Jun 24, 2007 at 4:14 am

  Nick, your suggestions were taken since the 2005 election: the Democrats, led by a certain younger Oxford-educated old-money politician, adopted several “me too” populist measures in their election platform, including a higher minimum wage, free education, free health care, and greater subsidies on electricity tariffs. They did the same thing in the October 2006 election (the one that the junta cancelled).

  Were such copycat promises a surefire way to gain ground from Thaksin and the TRT? No – it was a tremendous failure. The Democrats lost a net 30 seats in 2005. Nobody believed that the Democrats, and elitist party for its entire history, would really be able to deliver on a populist platform.

• 38 patiwat // Jun 24, 2007 at 4:20 am

  On the contrary, Nick: Thaksin did announce his policy manifesto prior to the 2001 election. In fact, the TRT manifesto of universal access to healthcare, a 3-year debt moratorium for farmers, and the 1 million THB locally-managed village development fund was a revolution in election politics.

  Prior to the 2001 election, no political party ever had a concrete national policy platform. After the 2005 election, every major party announced a concrete national policy platform – and many parties ended up copying the TRT party’s populist measures.

• 39 Srithanonchai // Jun 24, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  Patiwat is quite right: It was the combination of promised policies before the election and their speedy implementation afterwards that way outdid all other party outfits in the election of 2005. And the Democrats under Abhisit still have no clue, but may be helped in the November election by the coup period–but only if the remnants of TRT fail to act in a coordinated way. As Gladiator said: We stay together–we’ll survive; we’ll fight each on his own–we will all die.

• 40 ThaiBloke // Jun 24, 2007 at 4:04 pm

  If he announced before then I stand corrected.

  The problem with the stance that the Democrats took was that their policies were indeed “me too,” policies. There was no real depth to the plans other than to say, “An increase in the minimum wage”.
  Plus they had a huge credibility problem.

  The Democrats need to adopt an ethos to hang their policies upon. Are they fundamentally free market, are they fundamentally pro FDI, are they fundamentally pro income distribution. These may be western descriptions of a political party and may not necessarily be relevant in a Thai context.

  However, until a party stands up and really describes what they want to do to move Thailand in a given direction be it pro poor, pro business, pro exports, pro investment, pro income distribution, pro Bangkok, pro rural a character like Taksin can steal their thunder in a second.

  The Democrat policy stance considering that it is the oldest party in Thailand is absolutely pathetic. Or is it truly the case that Thai politics is simply about being in power first and policy later?

• 41 Nick Stump // Jun 25, 2007 at 12:55 pm

  What a fascinating discussion. I’m an American veteran of the Vietnam War. I spent a lot of time in rural areas in Northeast Thailand. I’ve been following this story for a while now. My, how things have changed in Thailand in 35 years. I’m working here on rural issues and see some of the same problems in Thailand I see in the US.

  A recent poll here shows the next US President will be decided by rural voters. Reading about the politics in Thailand make me homesick to see the country again. I’d have to brush up on my Thai again. It’s been a long time.

• 42 jeru // Jun 25, 2007 at 10:09 pm

  As Gladiator said: We stay together–we’ll survive; we’ll fight each on his own–we will all die. – Srithanonchai

  The aphorism that applies to the Thai Rak Thai party courtiers of Thaksin Shinawatra was: “Stay together and we’ll hang together, or, be separately hanged.” Crooks will sooner or later be hanged, together or separately.

• 43 Srithanonchai // Jun 26, 2007 at 12:34 am

  Yes, Jeru. But only those crooks without power, tanks, and guns.

• 44 jeru // Jun 26, 2007 at 2:31 am

  True enough Srithanonchai . . that without ‘power’ to shield them, either money, tanks or guns, crooks will quickly hang. But men of integrity will have nothing to worry about. Hence, Srithanonchai, should Thaksin Shinawatra worry?

• 45 Srithanonchai // Jun 26, 2007 at 4:39 pm

  Jeru: Whether or not Thaksin should worry is of no concern to me. Generally speaking, “people of integrity” have little space to stay in Thailand, be it at the national, provincial, or district levels. Or where will integrity lead you to if you happened to be a civil servant in the ministries of interior, public health, education, communication, agriculture…?

• 46 jeru // Jun 27, 2007 at 12:08 am

  Srithanonchai if what you said in #45 is predominantly true, and you seem to express a certain glee that Thai corruption could be already endemic (to give credence to Thaksin’s declaration that ‘corruption is normal’), then it becomes more urgent that elected leaders must be seen as embodying integrity cap-to-toe. And elected leaders and prominent ministers who break their contract with the electorate by their corruption must be seen as being judicially punished without mercy! Otherwise the cycle of corruption will indeed poison the whole Kingdom to a moral rot of unberable stench.

• 47 Srithanonchai // Jun 27, 2007 at 2:33 pm

  Jeru, from my experience, bureaucratic corruption is more serious and widespread than political corruption. However, usually, the blame is put on the politicians–often by those who are themselves corrupt but shielded from public eye. It would be nice if we could trust, for example, that people on the CDA are clean. But…

• 48 Srithanonchai // Jun 27, 2007 at 2:42 pm

  Jeru: P.S. > The government is about to adopt the Thaksin-initiated new bureaucratic system. According to Khun Thippawan, this is supposed to at least make nepotism in personnel administration more visible (So, in the future, I guess, people who buy their positions also have to be qualified, be it as administrators, school directors, associate/full professors, or generals.). However, this will not affect the huge bureaucratic corruption routinely associated with all sorts of procurement at all levels.

Leave a Comment