The Nation reports on another dreary event where elite commentators lecture about the danger of populist policies. But amongst the familiar refrains there was a breath of fresh air:
Viroj na Ranong, a senior research specialist with the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation (TDRI), said the media’s stereotyping of the poor as rural voters who were “addicted” to populist policies was disturbing because it revealed a deeprooted bias against the poor. Viroj reminded the panel that the rich got their own handouts from the Thaksin Shinawatra administration through assistance with nonperforming loans. “If you really count it, the cost of assistance given to the rich may be even higher than that given to the poor. I feel disturbed with the view that the poor are addicted [to populist policies] because it reflects a belief that the poor are lazy and do not know how to look after their interests.” If one is critical of populist policies offered by various parties, Viroj said, one should also be critical of what he called “royalist populism”, wherein people implement initiatives inspired by His Majesty the King such as the socalled “selfsufficiency” economy in a totally uncritical manner. “Royalist populism is also risky like those in Latin America,” Viroj explained.
Well said!
31 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Nov 5, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Not to forget the “constitutional populism” in the section of the new charter that deals with state policies. But they prefer to call it “welfare state policies.” So, free health care for all is a good constitutional welfare state policy, while Thaksin’s 30-baht scheme was evil populism driven by money politics. In any case, most political parties running in the elections have “populist” platforms.
2 Mariner // Nov 6, 2007 at 1:24 am
I guess his next post will be from a prison cell!
3 nganadeeleg // Nov 6, 2007 at 9:47 am
My beef with Thaksin was never about ‘populist policies’, but rather about the policy corruption, extra-judicial killings, tax evasion & manipulation of various institutions etc etc.
Reading New Mandala one would get the impression that Thaksin is somehow the only person ever capable of helping the poor, and he never had (or has) any ulterior motives .
4 Colonel Jeru // Nov 6, 2007 at 11:42 am
Thaksin helping the poor was all right (every politician will willingly help the poor, but not with their own money). But Thaksin Shinawatra also generously helping (and tax free too!) himself, his family and in-laws, close friends and cronies was the crack that burst his dam.
5 Sidh S. // Nov 6, 2007 at 12:27 pm
My sentiments exactly!
There are many in the bureaucracy and business uncritically paying lip service to ’sufficiency economy’ and doing much more harm than good – as they are people globally giving ’sustainability’ a bad name by clearing ecologically sensitive rain forests to plant palm plantations (in the name of alternative source of fuels to mitigate climate change)… It is already complex as it is with ‘uncritical’ people with good intentions (at least they can be ‘informed’)…
It is a very promising sign that these remarks are coming from TDRI as they draft the 5 years national development plans. They will have to critically ground SE in rigourous research to effectively inform policy and action.
6 Srithanonchai // Nov 6, 2007 at 2:54 pm
The NESDB will be surprised to learn that TDRI is given authorship of its plans.
7 jonfernquest // Nov 6, 2007 at 9:49 pm
No more opaque gifts to subsidise a one party state, that’s the real issue.
I’ve never heard Finance Minister Chalongphob abuse rural folk.
To demand that things be done in a transparent fashion, how is that abuse?
Every candidate has “populist” policies on their platform:
“Mr Abhisit has already campaigned on reversing the capital controls and the controversial amendments on foreign business practices. Privatisation and mega-infrastructure projects would likely be given a big boost under his rule. At the same time, these neoliberal policy promises are being coupled with free education, free health-care, grassroots debt forgiveness, and a host of other handouts and giveaways that underpin the Democrats’ vague and self-aggrandising “People First” agenda.
“Mr Abhisit and his crew have not spelled out how such grassroots pledges will be financed. Nor have they squared their populism with their neoliberal promises. It is a scattered agenda that caters to investor interests and panders to rural sentiments without concrete means for achievement, devoid of coherence.” (Source)
And with PAD (capitalism is evil) stalwarts joining the Democrats, there will probably be some action on these policies.
8 Sidh S. // Nov 6, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Thanks for the correction Srithanonchai.
It’s been an interesting election campaign so far jonfernquest. With PPP planning to continue where TRT left off, the Democrats seem to be the only party releasing policies that pander to every segment of society while the ‘mid-size’ parties are very busy wheeling and dealing! They’ll all mention SE ofcourse…
9 Historicus // Nov 7, 2007 at 1:25 am
“And with PAD (capitalism is evil) stalwarts joining the Democrats, there will probably be some action on these policies.”
So-called anti-capitalists joining with the alleged neo-liberals (Dems). The very same party they abused and hated from the economic crisis and up to they threw in their lot with Thaksin…. The coup and post-coup politics are remarkable for their bizarre alliances (if nothing else).
10 Srithanonchai // Nov 7, 2007 at 1:45 am
The Democrats are just so desparate for every MP seat that they might be able to win that they are ready to take in people who are almost completely alien to them, and who will have great difficulties integrating themselves into the Democrats’ party culture. On the other hand, people such as Kraisak, Somkiat, Manoonkrit, or Phichet (a rather unlikeable, emotional, aggressive, and unreasonable guy) are desperate to continue their political roles. Thus, they are willing to forget for a while that they dislike the Democrats’ blandness and liberal stance.
11 Teth // Nov 7, 2007 at 2:01 am
Its always a case of “lesser of two evils” in Thai politics. Never any sort of real principle, always some sort of emotionally-fired “let’s fight for the King” type crap. If only Thai intelligentsia, literati, elite, Bangkok middle class, or whatever you call us were to move away from our royalist, nationalist, conservative brainwashing, our country would be a better place.
In what other country does its population make so much fuss about corruption yet gleefully participate in it themselves?
Same with regards to “preserving Thai culture/language/traditions” by not showing satirical art or preserving “nation/religion/king” through a “democratic coup.” Hypocritical.
Make up your minds, open up your eyes. Our unelected monarchy is inbred (*I say this using its strict meaning, not colloquially as an insult) and our “nation” has only been a proper nation-state for less than 150 years. Our religious clergy are corrupt and immoral. I’d rather see “democracy, justice, equality, and rule of law” over any “preservation” of Thai culture any day and I could only wish my fellows would see the same rather than argue over pointless ways to “protect” nation/religion/king. As if such “protection” and “preservation” hasn’t been enough to hold us back as it is.
Sorry about the rant.
12 nganadeeleg // Nov 7, 2007 at 9:34 am
Never fear Srithanonchai, Historicus & Teth:
PPP & Samak will be the savior, and lead the country into the light.
(We are so lucky that there are no hypocrites on that side of the political battle)
13 Sidh S. // Nov 7, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Teth, I suppose that’s what makes the country so interesting – even intriguing (but that could be a partisan statement!). Thai society manifests the socio-cultural conservative Vs liberal like any other society – but in most cases it has not been too hateful or violent. Everyone seem to have their spaces which ebbs and flows. In fact, it is never really that neatly divided and often the same person may alternate between being a conservative to liberal on various issues from the monarchy, religion, politics, nationalism, gender, education, youth culture etc…etc…
For example, I for one may be branded as a ‘traditionalist’ in terms of Bangkok’s street culture. I love the vibrant mobile markets and vendors. I love their food in particular – for their great tastes and value for money. In the name of ‘development’ (’cleanliness’, ‘orderliness’, ‘civilizedness’), they are being displaced by expanding traffic (and reduced footpath) and department stores (I find that franchised food has no soul).
In terms of urban architecture, from the above, I am against ‘modernization’ in the name of malls and high-end condominums unless they are responsive to the mentioned street culture (and the Thai street typology needs re-designing). With the case of the proposed new Thai style administrative court (?) building east of Sanam Luang to replace the old modernist (with traces of Art Deco) structure, I am torn inbetween. Aesthetically, I don’t like the old structure – but on learning of its link to the the People’s Party of AjarnPridi and FMPibul, I am beginning to have a change of heart. This may result in an ‘ugly compromise’ – but so be it!
I think our politics is merely a reflection of that. We’ll always end up way short of the ‘ideal’ with ‘ugly compromises’. There’s two very plausible ugly scenarios PPP+Chart Thai or Democrats+Chart Thai. What next?! Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
14 Teth // Nov 8, 2007 at 12:16 am
nganadeeleg said:
Never fear Srithanonchai, Historicus & Teth:
PPP & Samak will be the savior, and lead the country into the light.
(We are so lucky that there are no hypocrites on that side of the political battle)
Thank you so very much for lumping me in with the rabid pro-Thaksin supporters.
Where did I ever say I supported Thaksin? In fact, that tirade of mine was directed against the entire establishment and the fight they are perpetuating, which means both sides, the generals and the cronies. If only there were something as revolutionary and drastic as another People’s Party. I would join it and campaign to eliminate “Nation/Religion/King” and replace it with “Liberty/Equality/Fraternity” in our collective mindsets. Minus the guillotines of course and maybe have Phra Thep as Prez.
Sidh, I actually think Thailand is violently conservative overall. Check out the rhetoric, the posturing, and the clashes (at Prem’s house) we have had recently. Sondhi has often been vitriolic in his statements and accusations against Thaksin, while we all know Thaksin and Samak have big mouths. But everyone professes their conservative royalism, the need to preserve the Thai language, culture, and bureaucracy, etc etc etc. In the West, political rhetoric is now limited to politically correct phrases, and vague, ambiguous “visions” but back in Thailand, it is still pretty much, “I love the King, I love the Thai language, I love the Sangha, I love Thai culture, all our social ills are farangs’ fault.” And nowadays, add populism to the mix. There needs to be a paradigm shift in education, in public life, academia, and especially the press. The press needs critical thinkers and brave souls unafraid of challenging the dogma….
6 October is a good example of rabid conservatism and I can clearly see that happening again because it is a Thai trait. Personally, for all the nonsense about Thais being gentle people, we love to lynch “suspects”, rabid tuk-tuk drivers love to harass tourists, same with porno sellers. Our “heroic” soldiers are caught saying, “Beware, you might die for ….” and every once in a while, some local politician gets murdered. Hell, some provinces are famous for their “mue puens”! The police love to kidnap and intimidate. And stretching it back even further, how did the Chakris come to power? By killing Taksin. And during the Ayutthaya period? Not only that, but cockfights, muay boran, fighting fish, etc etc etc. Not the hallmark of a peaceful, reasonable, and especially, not Buddhist society is it? Right from the top down.
As for liberals in this country, they are so far to the left and so deluded it often makes me squirm. I love the dissent and criticism found in magazines like Fah Diew Kan, but certain things are simply too radical. If there is to be a real force to counter these conservatives, it certainly will not be them. Honestly, who is going to vote for the recently formed “Artists’ Party”?
15 Historicus // Nov 8, 2007 at 2:07 am
nganadeeleg said:
“Never fear Srithanonchai, Historicus & Teth:
PPP & Samak will be the savior, and lead the country into the light. (We are so lucky that there are no hypocrites on that side of the political battle)”
And Teth adds: “Thank you so very much for lumping me in with the rabid pro-Thaksin supporters.”
Can’t let this go by. Teth is wrong on this. I am not now and never have been a “rabid pro-Thaksin supporter.” This is just silly. I have regularly commented in ways that are anti-military and anti-coup. That does not, ipso facto, make me a Thaksin supporter.
nganadeeleg’s comment can’t be taken seriously. It is this either your with us or against us mentality better left to dummies like George Bush. If nganadeeleg looks back at an earlier exchange I had with our good Colonel, it would be clear what my views are on Samak. But nganadeeleg still can’t get out of the blindingly dumb view that there are just two sides in Thai politics. I would have thought that the the politicians are demonstrating this for nganadeeleg.
16 nganadeeleg // Nov 8, 2007 at 9:25 am
..lumping me in with the rabid pro-Thaksin supporters
If the cap fits?
Teth & Historicus don’t like the cap – are you calling out Srithanonchai?
still can’t get out of the blindingly dumb view that there are just two sides in Thai politics
Unfortunately, at this point in time it sure looks to me like there are only two sides in Thai politics, and I was merely trying to restore the balance as I read plenty of criticism of one side here, but for some reason it’s hands off PPP & Samak.
For the record:
- Yes, I am anti-Thaksin, but for the reasons stated in my post #3 above.
- Yes, I chose to accept the coup (after the event)
- Although pleased Thaksin is gone, I am not pleased with many aspects of the junta’s rule.
Overall, I agree with much of Teth’s post #14 above
17 Teth // Nov 8, 2007 at 11:36 am
Sorry about that, Historicus, I believed him without actually looking at the evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. If I could edit my post, it should say, “allegedly rabid pro-Thaksin supporters,” because I was also put into that list.
18 Sidh S. // Nov 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Teth, that is a reductive observation of Thai society – seeing one side of a box (not coin – I don’t see Thai society/culture as a dualistic non-violent/violent sides, it is far more complex)…
Maybe it is worth putting things in broader context and let’s take your time-span from the deposing of King Thaksin by King Yodfa to today. Let’s compare with other cultures and societies and record how many wars and civil wars Europeans, American and other Asian societies have been through with how many that we have? How many deaths per capita from those wars and civil conflicts?
If you think that is simplistic, let’s also use another measure – immigration from wars and civil conflicts. If we exclude the early KingTaksin-Chakri reigns where people were forcebly moved to populate Siamese territories, how many Chinese, Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Burmese and others willingly fled their respective countries to take refuge (whether temporily or permanently) in Siam/Thailand. Look around you in Bangkok and see all those faces, of both 3rd/4th/5th generations and of recent migrants…
Without peace and stability, they won’t be here. In that context, I also think you have to separate the rhetoric from actual, multiple practices. These nationalistic narratives arose from King Rama VI, continuing under FMPibul – with the aim of assimilating immigrants (particularly Chinese then). The reality on ground is different, always has been.
19 Suriyon Raiwa // Nov 8, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Wirot Na Ranong hardly came to any of these conclusions yesterday. He is a man in whom the commitments of many Thai students during the 1970s have proved particularly deeply rooted. It is striking to see the change in his demeanor when he talks about issues of social justice and rural poverty in Thailand … Wirot is also a damned good economist.
20 Teth // Nov 8, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I do acknowledge that my analysis was one sided. And as you said, perhaps comparatively and by any measure, other nations are as violent as we are. But somehow, we manage to believe that “Thai nee rak sangob” (Thais love peace) and are a gentle race of peace-loving mai-pen-rai people, which is clearly untrue. Regardless of how we compare to other nations, we are still certainly not the pacifists we delude ourselves to be.
What I mean when I say “from the top down” is that one can see a reflection of the attitude that pervades Thai society with regards to the use of violence. Obviously it is not the only trait commonly found in Thai people, but there is that violent side of Thais that is often on display but seldom acknowledged.
21 Sidh S. // Nov 8, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“Thai nee rak sangob” is precisely part of the nationalist, republican national anthem coming out from FMPibul’s era (and I find it fascinating that it is still the national anthem today with the monarchy’s renewed vibrancy!). As I said, actual reality is different and the Siamese Thai have always been ‘expansionist’ (and I am glad of the new vibrancy in regional cultures of Lanna, Isan, the South etc.).
I think we need to differentiate between “sangob” (peace) and “kwammankong” (stability). It is the latter which the Thais love I think and any leader that can deliver on that is a good leader (something along that line on King Ramkamhaeng’s inscription I recall?).
22 Viroj NaRanong // Nov 13, 2007 at 6:17 am
I have just seen this post and would like to set the record straight.
The content and qoutation below was, in fact, an editorial error.
” If one is critical of populist policies offered by various parties, Viroj said, one should also be critical of what he called “royalist populism”, wherein people implement initiatives inspired by His Majesty the King such as the socalled “selfsufficiency” economy in a totally uncritical manner. “Royalist populism is also risky like those in Latin America,” Viroj explained.”
I don’t see it in the following URL, so I presume that Khun Pravit Rojanaphruk had realized that and corrected it.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/11/05/headlines/headlines_30054887.php
I believe that the comment above should be attributed to Dr.Prapas Pintobtang, who was the real panelist who employed–and probably invented– the term “Royalist Populism.” For those who interested to hear that term, Prapas also mentioned it in the video file posted in Bangkokbiznews.com
In my own view, the movement we see in Thailand has only one common emphasis as those in Latin America, i.e., the anti-globalization element.
23 Suriyon Raiwa // Nov 13, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I had been hoping that Dr Wirot would join this discussion. And I am pleased that he has now done so. Reading his public comments in the corrected version of The Nation article, one comes across the statement, “Those with reserved power preach to people all the time about morality and ethics …” If anything, this statement is an even more damning indictment of the Network that the one on “royalist populism” mistakenly attributed to Wirot. Who preaches in this society? Who goes on about “good people”? Juxtapose Wirot’s indictment of the preachers and his comments in The Nation article about the Thai countrysie, and then join me in urging Wirot to join our discussions more often …
24 Srithanonchai // Nov 13, 2007 at 5:49 pm
nganadeeleg:
“Never fear Srithanonchai, Historicus & Teth:
PPP & Samak will be the savior, and lead the country into the light.
(We are so lucky that there are no hypocrites on that side of the political battle)” >> I don’t understand this remark.
25 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Srithanonchai: It was sarcasm – the lowest form of wit.
An attempt at restoring the balance, as here on NM it seems that generally only one side of the political divide is open to pot shots.
26 Grasshopper // Nov 13, 2007 at 8:49 pm
nganadeeleg, where are all these people directly supporting PPP and Samak? I think its your imagination. That’s ok. Although I am pretty sure though that you could say that New Mandala is partial to democracy. With all this sarcasm flying about willy nilly it seems like your real problem might be with democracy… So by continuously highlighting Samak from your anti-democratic position aren’t you associating him with academia’s notion of a purer democracy? Thats quite a compliment for Samak!
27 Srithanonchai // Nov 13, 2007 at 11:09 pm
nganadeeleg : I suspected that it was sarcasm, but I had problems connected me to it.
28 nganadeeleg // Nov 14, 2007 at 8:26 am
Srithanonchai: Your name was just there because you were one of the three most recent posts in the thread at the time – no offence intended.
Grasshopper: I see continual criticism of one side as, at least, indirect support for the other side.
Yes, you are correct – I do have a problem with democracy, and my thoughts on this have been expressed here:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/01/19/one-vote-one-value/
Perhaps I am just too idealistic in thinking that voters should rise above self interest, or that a ‘committee of the virtuous’, similar to Plato’s philosopher kings, would be a better system than todays ‘democracy’.
29 Viroj NaRanong // Nov 15, 2007 at 4:15 am
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with “voters with self-interest.” Democracy (and politics) is not about “purity.” Each voter may cast her/his vote based on self-interest, but each vote does not mean much in general election, so one voter could not have done much damage. Of course, a lot of voters–whom can be claimed to be enticed by certain “populism policies,” can make a difference. But if it is the mass’s own interest, what (or who) else can be fairer than this? Of course, one can go further by claiming that the mass don’t know their own interest, but if that can be the case for someone, then how can anyone proof that s/he (or his revered one) is able to know other people’s (the very diverse mass’) interest better than themselves.
30 nganadeeleg // Nov 15, 2007 at 8:43 am
OK, I admit it – I’m an individualistic radical altruist, and never consider self interest in my voting considerations.
Perhaps that’s why I’m always on the losing side, which might also explain why I keep hoping there is a better system than what ‘democracy’ has evolved into) .
31 Suriyon Raiwa // Nov 15, 2007 at 11:35 am
Well, this is exactly the point, Dr Wirot.
How can anyone–including revered ones and their hangers-on–presume to know the interests of others better than those others themselves? At the same time, how long can the claim endure that the interests of revered ones and their hangers-on never differ from the collectives interests of “the masses”?
Your comments give voice to Thai democracy.
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.