On December 14, 2007, two days after Chaturon Chaisaeng had given his speech attacking what he saw as a lack of fairness in the run-up to the election of December 23, the provincial election commission (PEC) organized two events that aimed at urging people to cast their votes on election day. In the morning, around 600 students gathered on the square between the provincial hall and sala thai for the opening ceremony of two campaign walks.
Picture 1 shows students from Benjamas 2 school holding a banner that reads “The day we love democracy – Ben 2 joins forces according to the democratic way.” In the background are the two buildings making up the provincial hall.
Picture 1
Readers might remember that this school had referred to the “democratic way” earlier already when it participated in “Celebrating the King” (see post no. 4). This second time, the slogan turned out to be somewhat ambivalent again. Should citizens “love” democracy, and should they do so only on election day? And what was democratic in state schools ordering their kids to interrupt their learning in order to be used as tools by another state organization to pursue its ends? Before the school participated in the event, had teachers organized any debate with their students on whether they should participate in that walk or not? Had the school done anything to make its students aware of the elections by systematically including it as a subject in its regular teaching? Having them wear yellow (!) caps showing the official logo against vote buying only underlines the use of students as advertising tools. Or should one assume that the students demanded or agreed to wear these caps because they had individually come to the conviction that vote buying was a bad thing? Interestingly, the PEC had recruited the students at a time when three MP candidates of the Peoples Power Party were under investigation by the election commission of Thailand (ECT) for having recruited villagers to attend an election rally.
The PEC had invited the provincial governor to open the event from 09.00 to 09.09 hours. As usual in such bureaucratic settings, the chairperson of the PEC first formally reported to the governor about the activity that he was presiding over. Picture 2 shows the PEC’s chairman addressing the governor. Behind him were, from right to left, an official from the PEC office, the director of constituency 2, three fellow provincial election commissioners, and a member of constituency committee 2. Afterwards, the provincial governor gave his remarks (picture 3), which remained in the confines of formal clichés. As the formal act of opening the campaign rally, he banged a gong three times (picture 4).
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4
Obviously, one might ask why the PEC had felt the necessity to invite the governor to open its event. Is the ECT, and thus its PECs, not an independent constitutional organization outside the central state’s executive, including its provincial branches, which are headed by governors residing in the provincial halls? But, then, the PEC’s offices are located in the old provincial hall, and the commissioners and the office staff are all well-embedded in the provincial-level civil service culture. From this perspective, the governor is the highest state representative in a province, for which reason it is an honor to have him preside over one’s function, and one must also give him honor. As a result, a big part of all provincial governors’ work is presiding over all sorts of ceremonies. This also includes the private sector, after all, even nowadays newspapers often refer to governors as “pho mueang“-the father of the province.
For the campaign walk, the students were divided into two groups, walking different routes. Both groups were led by brass bands to make people come out of their shops and look what was it all about (picture 5). The students carried banners provided by their schools and those from the PEC (picture 6). At the end of the walk, a PEC official waited with a car to recollect its banners. As the picture indicates, the second route somehow lacked a potential audience. The first route, passing along the town’s old center, was more populated.
Picture 5
Picture 6
Anyway, it was surprising to note that the walks were not accompanied by an advertising truck, nor by teachers using megaphones to get the electoral message across. Moreover, no information material on the election was distributed to the people, who probably could hardly read the banners carried by the students passing their shops. Therefore, the entire undertaking was a lot less effective than it could have been. As a friend noted, “This is merely ceremonial.” She also produced one of the caps given to her by one of the participating students. One wonders whether all these tax-financed caps will ever be worn again beyond these brief walks.
In fact, the PEC does have information material for distribution. For example, there have been stacks of leaflets in the office informing people about the election procedure (picture 7). More recent are the “election manuals” that provide some more detail. Picture 8 shows the cover page, while picture 9 reproduces a double page showing the procedure in a polling station. Perhaps, people along the walk routes were not the intended target voters?
Picture 7
Picture 8
Picture 9
In the evening, a huge stage was erected at the same place where Chaturon Chaisaeng had made his speech. The PEC’s version was billed as a luk thung (country music) show with award-winning students from Benjamas 1 school. However, it turned out to be more like a deafening big band with girls and boys doing Las-Vegas style dancing in fancy costumes. This contrasted nicely with what one election commissioner complained about in his speech from the stage, namely the danger western influences on Thai school children posed for Thai culture. Picture 10 shows a small number of members of the troupe at the end of its rendering of the King’s official birthday song, “The father of the land.”
In terms of social composition, the PEC audience was rather similar, or perhaps slightly lower, than that of the Chaisaeng event (picture 11). About 200 people attended the show, compared to about 400 who listened to Chaturon. The PEC had neither done any public relations for its event nor provided any chairs, for which reason the big space in front of the stage remained empty. According to a source, the PEC lacked budget for organizing chairs, and also thought that the ground was suitable for sitting. The audience, though, obviously thought otherwise.
Picture 11
The show was officially opened by a speech by the PEC chairman (picture 12). While the students performed their first singing- and dancing acts, the PEC’s people and representatives from three political parties, who had responded to the PEC’s invitation (all to be among the electoral “losers”), figured out how to arrange the scheduled five-minute statements by the election candidates. Picture 13 shows the chairperson of Chachoengsao’s Democrat Party branch (holding up two fingers) with one Democrat candidate, Phatachakrienchai (to the left), while the two candidates in white jackets are from the Chart Thai party. The official in the yellow polo shirt is a member of constituency committee 2 and was there to control the speaking time. Picture 14 shows Democrats Chalee and Phatcharakriengchai on stage.
Picture 12
Picture 13
Picture 14
Finally, the Rajaphat University’s public administration department had put up a banner – far from the stage and thus seen by few – asking voters not to elect cheating and vote-buying candidates (picture 15). Curiously, the headline of the text was “prot fang ik khrang” (please listen again). This was the infamous phrase used by the coup plotters when they made their various announcements on television.
Picture 15
One wonders whether this choice of words indicates the lecturers’ endorsement of the past coup and, should the voters elect “cheating and vote-buying” candidates, an advance endorsement of a future military takeover.
13 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Dec 20, 2007 at 2:13 pm
“Or should one assume that the students demanded or agreed to wear these caps because they had individually come to the conviction that vote buying was a bad thing?”
Mr Nelson: I would be interested to hear the opposing arguments to the message that ‘vote buying was a bad thing’.
2 Michael H. Nelson // Dec 20, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Nganadeeleg: You probably don’t expect me to provide you with the opposing arguments you are interested in, right? After all, the sentence you quote is about the relationship between the schools and the students, not about whether vote buying is good or bad. This latter issue is rather more complex than the usual black-and-white approach suggests.
3 nganadeeleg // Dec 20, 2007 at 7:18 pm
On the contrary, I am very interested in those arguments.
As for the relationship between the schools and the students, do you feel the same way about students in Commonwealth countries having school excursions to line up to see a procession of the British queen or other royals, or school visits to government houses/parliament etc?
4 Teth // Dec 21, 2007 at 12:46 am
Personally, vote buying can be “not bad” when it is performed by everyone because in the end, the populace will be richer, and will still be voting for who they like more.
But it is a bad sign of the moral characters of those being elected into public office.
5 rationaliser // Dec 21, 2007 at 6:54 am
nganadeeleg:
Pathetic. You must be Thai. So much rich observation and all you can come up with is a typical reactionary, nationalist Thai response, in defence of a clearly brainwashed country. You do not face the discussion at hand but point the finger at the suspected nationality of the writer. Grow a brain. Learn how to think. Stop attacking the messenger and engage with the ideas the messenger is communicating,.
You should be thanking Michael for drawing these ridiculous scenes to your attention, not trying to HIS background.
Talk about missing the point. The whole scene above is pathetic. As if the PEC are going to fight people selling their votes for money when they can’t even provide somewhere for people to sit.
I quote an AP story December 20….
“Whichever party pays us more, we vote for it,” said Sin Mapula, a 50-year-old farmer in Roi Et province
“I know Thaksin is not good,” said Charaen, 67, the environmental activist. “But I will vote for (his supporters’ party) because my grandson is a village headman and a canvasser. My grandson said Thaksin’s party has lots of money.”
Typical …
nganadeeleg… your xenophobic response is an hypocritical as the guy on the stage criticising foreign influences, after dancers wearing western costumes but with Thai characteristics…. (the west is moving away from dressing up underage children in sexy gear… as Thailand revels in it) parade around in a Las Vegas showgirl style.
And the same Thai institutions criticise democracy itself as a foreign influence, as they call up their canvassers on Nokia mobile phones, slip into their German luxury cars, ogle Japanese comic books, buy coffee at American style coffee shops, while buying Danish furniture…. bloody hypocrites.
And what’s foreign about not wanting politicians to abuse tax money, about wanting equal opportunities for people of ALL races, religions and language groups. What’s foreign about wanting decent work conditions for decent pay. What’s foreign about expecting one part of government to check the power of another part of government? What’s foreign about wanting to read the truth in the media? What’s foreign about expecting that those who seek the truth shouldn’t feel in danger when they are asking questions about abuses of power?
Nothing…. nothing is foreign about these things,…. these are human HUMAN!!!! RIGHTS not foreign rights….
You idiots who say “this is Thailand” are forgetting what came from building this nation…. BUTCHERY…. blood… and rich generals
6 nganadeeleg // Dec 21, 2007 at 8:52 am
You should be thanking Michael for drawing these ridiculous scenes to your attention, not trying to HIS background.
Where did I try to ??? his background? (A little too much Xmas cheer???)
The reports from Chachoengsao have been quite interesting to me, and I have no idea of Mr Nelson’s nationality, nor am I sure of what his capacity is in observing the electoral processes in that province.
One of his statements sounded a little strange, so I asked a question. In his response, Mr Nelson raised the point about the relationship between the school and the students, which led me to ask another question.
FWIW, I agree with much of what you said, Rationaliser, although I wonder just who is being xenophobic.
…it is a bad sign of the moral characters of those being elected into public office
Thank you Teth for addressing my question – I agree, and IMO that far outweighs any short term gain that a voter may get from selling his or her vote.
7 Michael H. Nelson // Dec 21, 2007 at 3:14 pm
nganadeeleg: “nor am I sure of what his capacity is in observing the electoral processes in that province.” >> First, I really am at a loss of what this issue has to do with my observations. Second, I can help you knowing my “capacity” better. The first post in this series stated the following: “Michael H. Nelson is a visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, and a senior research associate in Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Passau, Germany.” And: ” As had been the case with the constitution referendum, I have moved to Chachoengsao to observe the election as part of a project covering 14 provinces conducted by King Prajadhipok’s Institute (KPI).” I guess that you are sure now, right? Are my observations now more valid/invalid in your view? Third, I am really not inclined substantially to respond to your defensive points. Suffice to say that the country were I come from is a republic, and students are not normally used by state agencies in the instrumental way described in my post. Fourth, re vote-buying, I am not interested in a moralistic discussion. As for state agencies, be it the ministry of the interior or the ECT, vote-buying has been positive, because they could claim the money-induced higher turnout as their achievement. Since the elections of 2001, compulsory voting had its part, but it also made the work of hua khanaen more convenient.
8 nganadeeleg // Dec 21, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“….I am not interested in a moralistic discussion”
That’s not the impression I get from your reports.
9 Michael H. Nelson // Dec 21, 2007 at 9:14 pm
nganadeeleg: I am not sure what statements in particular you refer to. Generally speaking, it is not really my problem if you cannot distinguish mildly analytical-critical academic descriptions from a consideration of good/bad issues.
10 nganadeeleg // Dec 22, 2007 at 10:17 am
Michael H Nelson: I could post a list of some of your (non judgmental, non moralistic) “mildly analytical-critical academic descriptions”, however at this point in time I am really not inclined substantially to respond to your defensive points.
(I may change my mind if you choose to directly answer my initial questions)
11 Michael H. Nelson // Dec 22, 2007 at 6:17 pm
nganadeeleg: Since your question was neither about my post nor related to my research interests, I can join you in the festive samanachan mode and keep quiet.
12 polo // Dec 23, 2007 at 1:27 am
nganadeeleg: why don’t you do the tough work of sharing with us what you witness in the election, rather than sniping at others. I for one thank Mr. Nelson for bringing us his experiences and the photos, which as always speak a thousand words.
13 nganadeeleg // Dec 23, 2007 at 10:03 am
Polo: I’m not in Thailand so I am not witnessing anything.
From this distance, the impression I get is that the election is being fought on 2 different fronts:
1. For or against Thaksin
2. For or against the military (& royalists)
For simplicity, I would categorize the voters under 4 broad groups:
A. Bring Thaksin back – we love him
Many Thaksin lovers don’t seem to be bothered at all by his misdeeds (extra judicial killings, policy corruption & tax avoidance etc), so for them it is a simple choice on both fronts.
B. Democracy overrides everything
Others seem prepared to overlook any of Thaksin’s misdeeds (whether they liked his policies or not) because he was ‘democratically’ elected, and ‘democracy’ overrides everything else – their choice is also simple.
C. Hate Thaksin
The dislike of Thaksin overides all other considerations – they know who not to vote for.
D. Anti Thaksin and Anti Military
The choices are more difficult for those people that cannot overlook Thaksin’s misdeeds, but also don’t like military rule.
They are being forced to hold their nose and choose because a third force has not arisen, and it looks like the Democrats have been unable to distance themselves far enough from the military.
The result will depend on which group is the largest, however I think no matter what the result, we can look forward to another interesting year (or boring, as I expect it will be more of the same).
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.