Most of the populist policies being pushed by parties competing in the December 23 general election belong to the bad variety, which means they pander to the unprincipled wants and needs of the people. What’s more, the implementation of bad populist policies could expose the country to unacceptable levels of financial liability.The problem is that it is quite difficult for many people – particularly those who are not well educated or who belong to the lower rungs of the socio-economic groups – to tell the difference between good and bad policies touted by political parties in the run-up to the election. This is not only because the country’s 75-year-old democracy has been too often punctured by periods of authoritarian rule, but also because the quality of public debate in this country has remained poor…
…To carry out populist policies, including village funds, low-cost housing projects, debt moratorium for farmers and People’s Bank credit programmes, the Thaksin government had to bend rules that were made to ensure sound governance and good economic stewardship. This allowed corruption to happen.
- Extracted from The Nation‘s editorial, “Populism rears its ugly head”, 31 October 2007. Thailand Jumped The Skark has a characteristically forthright analysis of the whole editorial. It is well worth a look.
The editorial may be a response to “sour grapes” Prachai’s full page advertisement in several newspapers yesterday, probably the Nation also, that listed 42 points, many of which made no economic sense at all, all of which seemed like he was trying to bang all of the keys on the so-called “populist” piano at once (better use a different less worn out word), 2 of which seemed to imply “I want TPI back,” which is what most people suspect, as far as the following statement goes:
“The problem is that it is quite difficult for many people – particularly those who are not well educated or who belong to the lower rungs of the socio-economic groups – to tell the difference between good and bad policies touted by political parties in the run-up to the election.”
Prachai’s ad indicates that this may well be true. Whether the person writing the editorial expressed himself in an acceptable way to certain people, is another issue. Translating the Prachai ad, and criticizing specifics would have been better.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Yup . . . Fonzi (ThailandJumpedtheShark) I agree made his point that The Nation is getting to be a very bland uninspiring newspaper. The Nation editors/columnists are getting fat and lazy . . .
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
It’s a stark thing that the Nation accused the people of having unprincipled needs rather than calling it the politicians’ unprincipled pandering. Shame on Suttichia, Thepchai and Kavi for not knowing the difference.
Evidently, too, they don’t know the difference between the costs of the medical fund for the poor — a supposed “populist policies (which) could expose the country to unacceptable levels of financial liability” and much more costly urban-oriented wasteful megaprojects like redundant highways and the vastly overpriced, and still badly built, Cobra Swamp airport project.
Kind of disgusting, where the Nation’s head is at these days.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0