Thailand lies in a state of disrepair. The foundations of democracy lie in a brittle state, looking as though one more shock might cause them to disintegrate. Not only do the three pillars - executive, legislative and judiciary - stand ostracised and mistrusting of each other, but they are also internally fractured. Senator battles senator, MP frames MP and lawyer cheats lawyer.
The public have followed suit and split into gangs. Each one has a name - indeed it seems that Thai people love nothing more than forming a group and giving themselves a name - a colour, a theme and a love of attention. Each one has an answer: be it "new politics", a "fight for true democracy" or "national reconciliation (via transfer of money)".
The problem is that none of these sound bites provides a real answer. None of them are good for the country in practice, what they all amount to is manoeuvre and counter manoeuvre. Thaksin is sent into exile, so he organises a rally. PAD take Government House, so Somchai revives old TRT policies to help Isaan people, people who criticise a certain senior statesmen seem to have a run of bad luck, the list goes on.
There are two notable traits running through every move in this political chess game: one, they reek of self interest for certain sections of society; two, they are increasingly myopic. "Bring back Thaksin" will not help Thailand, it will simply infuriate his opponents. "New politics" sounds great but talk of votes depending on "how much tax is paid" is highly revealing. Need I go on?
I'd like to offer my alternative. Forgive me for offering an opinion on Thai politics, and forgive me again for stealing a quote from a UK political party but the answer is: education, education, education.
This is not a rose tinted, Disney style answer. It is a genuine, long term solution to the problem. Likewise I am not suggesting that most people are uneducated or stupid or that I am a model of good study or teaching (I am neither), every country in The World, including England could benefit from higher quality of education.
Education empowers the masses on so many levels. The obvious benefit is that it gives greater awareness of one's society, government and practices. By bringing education to the people, we can eliminate this psychological divide between the so called 'poor people' and "Bangkokians". The feud between these groups always seems to boil down to a row over the charge that 'poorer' people may vote purely for monetary reasons and lack the information to make an informed vote. Universal education can destroy that argument.
Education can also breed confidence and opportunities. It grants independence to the student by allowing them to enter new fields of employment and find new opportunities for self finance. Such solutions are far more effective than village fund schemes or loans. These plans always keep the borrower reliant on the lender.
As a consequence of this, education can eliminate the class divide that is so evident in Thai politics. Indeed, that same divide also seems to reflect not just differing income, but differing values, culture and ways of solving problems. No greater victory can be won for transparency, fairness and democracy than by having far more people educated about any academic subject. Learning breeds curiosity and awareness on many levels, regardless of the subject being taught.
Why has education not been discussed more as a solution to the ongoing crisis? Simple; it gives no short term benefits. It doesn't generate hordes of cheering supporters, it doesn't create impassioned, nationalistic speeches, it can't provide immediate kickbacks (apart from building contracts) and perhaps worst of all: it doesn't give people the opportunity to parade around in gang colours, pretending they are going to hit someone with a plank of wood.
Education truly is a big part of the answer, but that doesn't mean we build more schools and universities and say: "Right, we're done!". We also need reform. Government schools need younger teachers who are trained in teaching methods that actually work. With great respect to many well intentioned, knowledgeable Thai teachers, too many of them rely on the old "water into a glass" teaching method which has proven ineffective.
We need teachers who understand effective teaching methods. We also need the love of discipline in Thailand to be matched by the love of giving opportunities and freedom of thought to students. We need qualifications to really mean something more than: "I can afford to go to this expensive university". Only by setting standards for teachers, students and exams can degrees in Thailand gain international recognition.
It doesn't just stop at schools either. Learning can come in many forms including books or computer games, yet the only reading I see with most people in Thailand is comic books. How often do we see someone reading a newspaper on the BTS or a non-fiction book while their shop is quiet? Comics are great for learning to read but not for further education. Likewise, computer games are massively popular here but Thai kids seem to plump only for "Call of Duty 4" violence based games. Again, COD is a great game but where are the strategy games, the historical epics or conversation driven role players? As for TV I don't watch a lot so perhaps someone else can address its quality.
We need education to be high in quality and availability. Right now we have a lot of universities that are well intentioned but unable. My wife once asked me how it was that more Thai students had university education than English students. I tried to explain but I found my answer was actually rather rude: a degree in England means the student has passed a certain standard of exam. In Thailand, it means the student paid the money and turned up at least sometimes. People who have never been to Thailand often think I am joking or being metaphorical when I tell them nobody fails in Thailand. But of course it's utterly true, which completely invalidates the point of passing.
All this change will take years, maybe decades, but I do believe it will happen and when it does, I hope that Thailand will reap the rewards. Many systems in Thailand are based on UK models, I just wish education was one of them, because then Thailand could pass through this stage of immature democracy that England passed long ago and move on to better things.
Showing posts with label thai politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thai politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Thailand twenty years from now
It looks like my friend Tom was correct. Tom is a neighbour of mine (he owns several properties) who likes to practise his English. He's a good guy who likes to help people and is more sensitive than he lets on. But one thing about Tom is that he is rich, and like most rich Thais, he likes to let me know about it. He will often playfully invite me to invest in a Sweensens franchise or some new business venture with him, because he knows I can't afford it. He also likes to jibe me about political figures, especially ones he knows I dislike.
I recall one day when I visited him and he was talking on the phone as I entered. He was talking to the controversial son of a well known politician. When he finished the conversation he smiled and told me: "Don't worry, I didn't tell him what you said about him on your blog".
Tom is a sharp guy and often tells me about business news before it happens. A few months back he told me he was ordering several large sacks of rice (the most expensive brand of course) to his 'upcountry' home. I asked him why and he told me: "There will be a civil war in Thailand soon for sure, I want to be ready". At first I thought it was another one of his jokes but it wasn't, he was serious.
He isn't the only hi-so person to suggest this to me either.
Could things really get that bad? Even if war is a bit of a melodramatic prediction, what does the next ten or twenty years hold for Thailand?
It makes me nervous to think about it. If Sondhi and his mob are successful, Thailand will move backwards in democratic terms by having far more appointed roles in the Parliament. That may restore stability to the country but at what cost? It's almost unheard of for a country to move backwards democratically and forward academically, economically or in terms of social freedoms.
Of course, there is a strong chance that this will not happen and Samak will ride the storm and PPP will continue to form the government.But opponents of Thaksin and Samak will remain vigilant and continue to apply pressure. Many of these alleged opponents - such as Prem - are elderly and in the final chapter of their lives but will stability ensue when the next generation of Thailand's elite take their place? Thais don't talk about this much but - according to Tom - there could be more problems ahead and with our senior statesmen gone, who will provide the stability?
Thais seem unwilling or unable to discuss this. Why is this? Perhaps a clue lies in the sort of behaviour we see from many of the protesters on either side of the ongoing conflict. Each day, the Thai and international press are showing us adults - from young men to elderly women - behaving like thirteen year old boys. They want to look tough so they carry weapons they have no idea how to use, they would be unable to use anyway and even if they did know how to use them, they would be of little help against trained and armed police or soldiers. In reality, the long planks of wood, the sticks, baseball bats and knives are almost entirely to pose for pictures with. Yet while these people strut around looking for attention - and student groups want to get in on the act too, now (they want to miss class, let them!) - problems continue to mount.
I fear that if we ignore our worries or problems then things are doomed to repeat themselves in an endless cycle of tender democracy punctured by conflict and coups, only in future the could become even more damaging. I just hope that this we can solve these problems before they happen. If we don't, I fear my friend Tom's prediction could come true.
I recall one day when I visited him and he was talking on the phone as I entered. He was talking to the controversial son of a well known politician. When he finished the conversation he smiled and told me: "Don't worry, I didn't tell him what you said about him on your blog".
Tom is a sharp guy and often tells me about business news before it happens. A few months back he told me he was ordering several large sacks of rice (the most expensive brand of course) to his 'upcountry' home. I asked him why and he told me: "There will be a civil war in Thailand soon for sure, I want to be ready". At first I thought it was another one of his jokes but it wasn't, he was serious.
He isn't the only hi-so person to suggest this to me either.
Could things really get that bad? Even if war is a bit of a melodramatic prediction, what does the next ten or twenty years hold for Thailand?
It makes me nervous to think about it. If Sondhi and his mob are successful, Thailand will move backwards in democratic terms by having far more appointed roles in the Parliament. That may restore stability to the country but at what cost? It's almost unheard of for a country to move backwards democratically and forward academically, economically or in terms of social freedoms.
Of course, there is a strong chance that this will not happen and Samak will ride the storm and PPP will continue to form the government.But opponents of Thaksin and Samak will remain vigilant and continue to apply pressure. Many of these alleged opponents - such as Prem - are elderly and in the final chapter of their lives but will stability ensue when the next generation of Thailand's elite take their place? Thais don't talk about this much but - according to Tom - there could be more problems ahead and with our senior statesmen gone, who will provide the stability?
Thais seem unwilling or unable to discuss this. Why is this? Perhaps a clue lies in the sort of behaviour we see from many of the protesters on either side of the ongoing conflict. Each day, the Thai and international press are showing us adults - from young men to elderly women - behaving like thirteen year old boys. They want to look tough so they carry weapons they have no idea how to use, they would be unable to use anyway and even if they did know how to use them, they would be of little help against trained and armed police or soldiers. In reality, the long planks of wood, the sticks, baseball bats and knives are almost entirely to pose for pictures with. Yet while these people strut around looking for attention - and student groups want to get in on the act too, now (they want to miss class, let them!) - problems continue to mount.
I fear that if we ignore our worries or problems then things are doomed to repeat themselves in an endless cycle of tender democracy punctured by conflict and coups, only in future the could become even more damaging. I just hope that this we can solve these problems before they happen. If we don't, I fear my friend Tom's prediction could come true.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thailand and the UK - polar opposite politics
In Britain this week, a man called Nick Griffin was invited to speak at the Oxford Union Debating Club to debate "freedom of speech". (The Union is not part of the university, but it is a well respected institution with many student and prestigious members).
Nick Griffin is leader of a party called the BNP (British National Party), a far right party labelled "racist" by many, but such a tag ignores the fact that they have a full manifesto and their leader cuts a very good argument over the immigration problem in England.
Such is the opposition to the BNP that when Nick's invitation to the Union became public, heavy protests and lobbying took place in an effort to stop the debate. The Union put it to a democratic vote and decided two to one in favour of allowing Nick to appear. The Union representatives explained that regardless of people's opinions on the BNP, freedom of speech had to include everybody, or it was not true freedom at all.
The far left was enraged and several prominent figures publicly lambasted the group, one senior politician and life long Union member resigned in protest.
On the day of the debate, masked and hooded far left activists such as the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) group stormed the union building and staged a sit down protest. Griffin had to be escorted in with security and police to prevent violent attacks and even when he was inside, the groups outside staged a continual howling chant to try ad literally drown out the debate.
Needless to say, this was accompanied by the usual profanity, spitting and taunts that the far left always provide to any right wing political appearance. In fact all the events I have just described are a regular occurrence.
The irony of all this was that the groups that claim to be anti - fascist had done everything they could to bully and intimidate a legally registered politician to stop him speaking his mind at a debate on "freedom of speech" and when the bullying failed, they resorted to physical intimidation and vocal bullying, many of them wearing masks all the while.
This is the state of the UK now. The left have control. Tags such as "racist" are thrown around to silence people because in the UK, multiculturalism has become such a sensitive issue that it almost as taboo as any criticism of the Monarchy in Thailand. To be patriotic in the UK is considered by many to be akin to calling yourself a bigot. To voice concern for the roots and traditions of your nation is almost a crime in itself. The UK is on verge of being lost forever in sea of liberal "freedom".
How different to Thailand. In the Land of Smiles, a picture of the King stands in every building on every soi. Thai students sing their national anthem every day. TV shows remind us of the importance to be proud of Thailand and its history, and not doing so can indeed be branded a crime in some regards. Immigration is controlled tightly and the police have no qualms or fears about "racist" accusations when rounding up immigrants of any nationality. And as for politicians being accused of bashing foreigners, well let's just say it's unlikely to raise any mass protests!!! :-)
My politics change between my two countries. In England, I am a member of a well right sided party. In Thailand, I am an admirer of Giles Unpagkorn's political group and the PAD People's Party.
It's interesting to see how polar opposite cultures and politics can be when comparing two countries. Britain may be "further down the line" than Thailand in terms of democracy, but perhaps we have made some serious mistakes that others could learn from too. I hope the day never comes when Thailand has to deal with a far left group that behaves as disgracefully as those in the UK.
Nick Griffin is leader of a party called the BNP (British National Party), a far right party labelled "racist" by many, but such a tag ignores the fact that they have a full manifesto and their leader cuts a very good argument over the immigration problem in England.
Such is the opposition to the BNP that when Nick's invitation to the Union became public, heavy protests and lobbying took place in an effort to stop the debate. The Union put it to a democratic vote and decided two to one in favour of allowing Nick to appear. The Union representatives explained that regardless of people's opinions on the BNP, freedom of speech had to include everybody, or it was not true freedom at all.
The far left was enraged and several prominent figures publicly lambasted the group, one senior politician and life long Union member resigned in protest.
On the day of the debate, masked and hooded far left activists such as the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) group stormed the union building and staged a sit down protest. Griffin had to be escorted in with security and police to prevent violent attacks and even when he was inside, the groups outside staged a continual howling chant to try ad literally drown out the debate.
Needless to say, this was accompanied by the usual profanity, spitting and taunts that the far left always provide to any right wing political appearance. In fact all the events I have just described are a regular occurrence.
The irony of all this was that the groups that claim to be anti - fascist had done everything they could to bully and intimidate a legally registered politician to stop him speaking his mind at a debate on "freedom of speech" and when the bullying failed, they resorted to physical intimidation and vocal bullying, many of them wearing masks all the while.
This is the state of the UK now. The left have control. Tags such as "racist" are thrown around to silence people because in the UK, multiculturalism has become such a sensitive issue that it almost as taboo as any criticism of the Monarchy in Thailand. To be patriotic in the UK is considered by many to be akin to calling yourself a bigot. To voice concern for the roots and traditions of your nation is almost a crime in itself. The UK is on verge of being lost forever in sea of liberal "freedom".
How different to Thailand. In the Land of Smiles, a picture of the King stands in every building on every soi. Thai students sing their national anthem every day. TV shows remind us of the importance to be proud of Thailand and its history, and not doing so can indeed be branded a crime in some regards. Immigration is controlled tightly and the police have no qualms or fears about "racist" accusations when rounding up immigrants of any nationality. And as for politicians being accused of bashing foreigners, well let's just say it's unlikely to raise any mass protests!!! :-)
My politics change between my two countries. In England, I am a member of a well right sided party. In Thailand, I am an admirer of Giles Unpagkorn's political group and the PAD People's Party.
It's interesting to see how polar opposite cultures and politics can be when comparing two countries. Britain may be "further down the line" than Thailand in terms of democracy, but perhaps we have made some serious mistakes that others could learn from too. I hope the day never comes when Thailand has to deal with a far left group that behaves as disgracefully as those in the UK.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Five minutes later.....
Prescient old me. Almost the minute after I finished discussing my prediction, we learned that Samak Sundaravej claimed (link may expire and citebite is down!) to have documents leaked from the junta with "massive plans to undermine the party".
How would the junta do that? What would they do? What did the documents say? We don't know. This kind of mind game is common. The player with the documents does not want to reveal them because of course, everybody in politics has mud on everyone else and they don't want it to be revealed. But the document holder will tease the alleged offender, who then has to call his bluff. What usually results is a rather pathetic game of claim and counterclaim, innuendos about the alleged offenders such as nicknames or ultra vague descriptions.
Still, it was notable that the army's response was muted and defensive. Sonthi made an outright denial though.
That was yesterday, today PM Surayud admitted he had the documents and they were leaked from the junta, but did his best to water down the ferocity of the alleged plot as described by Samak. And Sonthi backtracked claiming "I didn't have the chance to see the documents".
Strange how Sonthi has time to organise the election and do the ECC's job for them but he does not have an hour free to visit his boss and the PM he hand picked to examine some serious allegations of plotting to control the election.
How would the junta do that? What would they do? What did the documents say? We don't know. This kind of mind game is common. The player with the documents does not want to reveal them because of course, everybody in politics has mud on everyone else and they don't want it to be revealed. But the document holder will tease the alleged offender, who then has to call his bluff. What usually results is a rather pathetic game of claim and counterclaim, innuendos about the alleged offenders such as nicknames or ultra vague descriptions.
Still, it was notable that the army's response was muted and defensive. Sonthi made an outright denial though.
That was yesterday, today PM Surayud admitted he had the documents and they were leaked from the junta, but did his best to water down the ferocity of the alleged plot as described by Samak. And Sonthi backtracked claiming "I didn't have the chance to see the documents".
Strange how Sonthi has time to organise the election and do the ECC's job for them but he does not have an hour free to visit his boss and the PM he hand picked to examine some serious allegations of plotting to control the election.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Who said UK politics is less fun than Thailand's?
It would have been better if they didn't use American accents though.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Who will be the next prime minister of Thailand?
(Left to right: Abhisit Vejajiva, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh , Samak Sundaravej)
On the surface, Thai elections may seem similar to their British counterparts. Indeed the system was modelled on the UK version, the only differences are that Thailand's upper house is a senate and the kingdom uses a mix of 'first past the post' voting (about 80%) and proportional representation(the other 20%)
Since the absolute monarchy was overthrown by Pridi and his group in 1932, Thai government has been run by either a junta or a coalition government. Coalition governments may seem like a good idea but they are not. In Thailand at least, coalition governments equate to corporate businessmen looking to engage in power plays, favours and corruption. Party policies are thin on the ground and keep promises even rarer. Party campaigns are done by patronage and advertising, promotion by policy or party vision simply does not happen.
At this point I should mention the only exception to this is Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai party. TRT actually made some polices and went through with them. They were also the only party (to my knowledge) that gained a full majority in the house (248 seats from 500, but they bought out another party just to be absolutely sure). Too bad they used that for bad rather than good.
So when TRT were dissolved by the Constitutional Court and their executives banned from politics, it didn't take long for many of the veteran rats to crawl back on the political ship as they sensed the power vacuum. New parties sprang up everywhere, the most notable being Pracharaj Party lead by former Thaksin ally Sanoh Thienteng (who jumps ship whenever his party is not in power) and former PM Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who apparently thinks that running Thailand into the ground during the Asian Financial Crises makes him an attractive proposition for re-election.*
But the biggest concern for this writer is the re-emergence of Thaksin's former TRT allies. The execs who were banned from politics have thrown their academic and considerable financial support behind the non executive members who in turn - after several games of political musical chairs - have merged into the People Power Party. (Don't be fooled, Thai parties use the cool and modern sounding names to hide their utter incompetence and lack of vision).
The PPP purposely chose the man as closely linked with Thaksin as possible his, name is Samak Sundaravej This man is basically Thaksin without the economic prowess or desire for health care. Samak is a former Bangkok governor and like Chavalit, he sees his record of being utterly ineffective as a good resume. His very first speech as party leader was a perfect summary of his - and his party's - mentality:
[To corruption investigators] "You smack me and I'll smack you back" (Bangkok Post)
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Thai politics.
The PPP have stormed the north east of Thailand, shamelessly promoting themselves on their Thaksin connections. The PPP rally this week was attended by 3,00 or 25,000 depending on which newspaper you read, and saw supporters holding signs saying "Vote Samak, get Thaksin". Meanwhile the PPP speakers spent their time outlining not policies, not visions for Thailand, not assurances of clean behaviour but a litany of how great Thaksin was and how he was being bullied by the junta. That was it folks, that was all PPP had to offer.
Already internal splits have begun. Today, PP member Chalerm Yoobamrung threatened to take his ball and go home if PPP did not allow his sons to run for election :
"If People Power does not select me and my two sons - Wan and Duang - as Bangkok candidates, I'll be ready to leave the party,The bottom line is that it must accept me and my sons as a package," Chalerm said.
Chalerm said if he left People Power he might join Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who has suggested he may establish a party. He will talk with Chavalit today.
Source: The Nation
And you thought politicians behaved like adults who cared about their voters.
There is a thorn in the PPP side however. Fromer Junta leader, now self nominated deputy PM, Sonthi Boonyarakin is on a mission to stop PPP. Under the guise of "stopping vote buying" the current government and election agencies are giving PPP a hard time. Their new party advert (surprise! It is simply a promise to bring back Thaksin's policies) was rejected by the Election Commission without reason. PPP howled in disdain, forgetting the days when TRT dominated TV advertising and the Democrats received less than ten percent of their air time allowance.
The others side of this equation is Abhisit Vejajaiva of the Democrats. Abhisit has handled himself well throughout the coup and the dissolution trial. As I've said before, he is a genuinely intelligent, progressive politician. However, he has constantly failed to show the leadership or passion that is required. Abhisit failed to offer genuine policies to counter TRT's populism, he failed to project himself as the ideal replacement for Thaksin after the coup and he has failed to win hearts or minds in the North East during this election run up.
Some has voiced concerns that Abhisit may be too soft to resist military interference in his government, a further concern Abhisit has never addressed. Thais see youth as a disadvantage in leadership and Abhisit has not offered any response to criticisms that he is too young to lead the nation.
Yet undoubtedly, Abhsiit is the best choice for Thailand. He is the only genuine new breed of politician available (the guy is not even fat and ugly for gooness sake!) and he has taken genuine steps to reduce corruption inside and outside his party. If he does not take this opportunity to steer the Democrats to a clear majority in the house, he will have only himself to blame and Thailand will suffer from another era of weak, greedy, incompetent coalition governments.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Bye bye Sittichai
You couldn't make this stuff up. When people (especially people back home) ask me why I am interested in Thai politics, I frequently point out that it has more twists and turns than an epic movie. This week is just one example.
My friend Sittichai Pookai-yaudom and two other ministers in PM Surayud's cabinet have been found to have violated a graft law. They have all exceed permitted limits in public share holdings. Sittichai is head of MICT, the office that awards itself the status of thought police and moral guardian for the entire nation. Sadly, it seems Sittichai fails to follow his own superior ethics that he imposes upon Thailand.
In fairness to Sittichai, he has already resigned his post to "show transparency". Surely real transparency would be taking him to court and asking him why he only "showed transparency" after he was caught? The other two ministers are delivering the usual squabbling, pathetic and remorseless arguments and obfuscation that we have come to expect from greedy politicians.
The complication is that although the three have clearly committed an offence (and credit to the NCCC for actually pointing it out) they are protected from a clause in the new constitution that exempts them from complying!!!!
So there appears to be no punishment. Surayud has given them 'a week to consider their actions' and it appears the worst any of them will face is resignation. Somehow, that seems unlikely to bother them given their amassed wealth.
I wonder, if Thaksin was found to have committed the same offence,would he be protected by this clause? Would he simply be given "a week to consider" ?
Welcome to the world of Thai politics.
My friend Sittichai Pookai-yaudom and two other ministers in PM Surayud's cabinet have been found to have violated a graft law. They have all exceed permitted limits in public share holdings. Sittichai is head of MICT, the office that awards itself the status of thought police and moral guardian for the entire nation. Sadly, it seems Sittichai fails to follow his own superior ethics that he imposes upon Thailand.
In fairness to Sittichai, he has already resigned his post to "show transparency". Surely real transparency would be taking him to court and asking him why he only "showed transparency" after he was caught? The other two ministers are delivering the usual squabbling, pathetic and remorseless arguments and obfuscation that we have come to expect from greedy politicians.
The complication is that although the three have clearly committed an offence (and credit to the NCCC for actually pointing it out) they are protected from a clause in the new constitution that exempts them from complying!!!!
So there appears to be no punishment. Surayud has given them 'a week to consider their actions' and it appears the worst any of them will face is resignation. Somehow, that seems unlikely to bother them given their amassed wealth.
I wonder, if Thaksin was found to have committed the same offence,would he be protected by this clause? Would he simply be given "a week to consider" ?
Welcome to the world of Thai politics.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Why Abhisit must stand alone
Abhisit Vejjajiva should be feeling on top of the world these days. The Democrat leader has seen his party survive a transparent and efficiently handled dissolution trial in the Constitutional Court and - in the same fall of the axe - the opposition Thai Rak Thai party was dissolved. It created an ideal political void, seemingly tailor made for the Oxford educated leader.
Just when it seemed things couldn't get any better, the military junta announced the date of the national election could be bought forward, stealing time away from any rival party or disassociated politicians looking to clamour back to power.
So why, then, does the young party leader seem to continue festering a deep streak of insecurity?
Abhisit appeared recently at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Bangkok to state his cause to foreign journalists. I was unable to attend but a colleague informed me that Abhisit presented himself well but seemed more concerned with drawing criticism of Thaksin and the current political situation than he was with propagating his own ideas. "Lack of vision" was the abridged summary of the Democrat's front man.
It seems the foreign journalists aren't the only ones having their doubts. Reports from The Nation state that since the conclusion of the dissolution trial, Abhisit has been in regular contact with political heavyweights like Banharn Silapa-archa and Chavalit Yongchaiyud. One doesn't need embellished imagination to guess at what was being discussed.
Clearly, Abhisit lacks faith his own group's ability to take a clear majority in the elections. In such circumstances, he has decided to follow the laws of realpolitik and co -operate with the old brass to ensure he gets a controlling stake in the house.
But for Abhisit to collaborate with 'old school' leaders like Barnharm and Chavalit carries huge risk.
Everything about Abhisit Vejjajiva represents a "new generation" of Thai politician. Young, fresh faced and western educated, Abhisit has always presented himself as a detachment from the past that is unaffiliated with military politics and perceived as cleaner and less contentious than Thaksin. His promises of asset declarations for all MPs and pledges of transparent checks and balances have always been delivered with the gentle but firm tone of voice and the handsome smile that endears him to the Bangkok middle classes.
Abhisit also speaks with boldness of a progressive breed. He openly criticsed Sondhi and Thaksin's dual use of astrologers in the process of politics and has pledged compulsory asset declaration for his own party MPs.
Such actions at well with the core bases, but as Abhisit well knows, it hasn't gained any ground with the traditional non Democrat areas such as the North East. In such areas the ghost of Thaksin the politician looms large, and voters are less concerned with emulating western style politics than with receiving tangible benefits for voting one particular way. So far Abhisit has failed to convince them, and it appears his concern has forced him to look to the experience of old leaders.
But Abhisit must be sure that in associating himself with the likes of Banharn Silapa-archa for the sole purpose of reaching a new audience, he doesn't destroy his own base. Neither Barharn nor Chavilit achieved a lot of good for Thailand during their reign, and time has done little to boost the public's faith in the old brass. If Abhisit is sincere about reducing the "old boys" network of corruption in government, he cannot possibly expect people to accept his collaboration with a man who gained the nickname "Mr ATM" during his tenure as PM.
Likewise, Chavalit Yongchaiyud has done little to restore himself credibility in recent months. As the junta and the people struggled to return to normal after the coup of 2006, Chavilit was more concerned with making sure that everyone heard his cries of discontent at the ousting of Thaksin and publicly demanded "a deep, deep wai" from the CNS. For many voters, the old general represents the antithisis of a modern progressive government.
None of the candidates for a coalition with The Democrats have shown any interest in party policies, all of them have shown a willingness to switch parties and jump ship at any given time.
Abhisit can see the opportunity of his career looming ahead of him and he's straining to ensure it doesn't pass him by. But in doing so, he must ensure that he doesn't wreck everything he stands for by associating with the type of politician who is everything Abhisit professes not to be. The only true victory for The Democrats in the next election would be a clear majority. If Abhisit can't do it achieve that now, he never will.
Just when it seemed things couldn't get any better, the military junta announced the date of the national election could be bought forward, stealing time away from any rival party or disassociated politicians looking to clamour back to power.
So why, then, does the young party leader seem to continue festering a deep streak of insecurity?
Abhisit appeared recently at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Bangkok to state his cause to foreign journalists. I was unable to attend but a colleague informed me that Abhisit presented himself well but seemed more concerned with drawing criticism of Thaksin and the current political situation than he was with propagating his own ideas. "Lack of vision" was the abridged summary of the Democrat's front man.
It seems the foreign journalists aren't the only ones having their doubts. Reports from The Nation state that since the conclusion of the dissolution trial, Abhisit has been in regular contact with political heavyweights like Banharn Silapa-archa and Chavalit Yongchaiyud. One doesn't need embellished imagination to guess at what was being discussed.
Clearly, Abhisit lacks faith his own group's ability to take a clear majority in the elections. In such circumstances, he has decided to follow the laws of realpolitik and co -operate with the old brass to ensure he gets a controlling stake in the house.
But for Abhisit to collaborate with 'old school' leaders like Barnharm and Chavalit carries huge risk.
Everything about Abhisit Vejjajiva represents a "new generation" of Thai politician. Young, fresh faced and western educated, Abhisit has always presented himself as a detachment from the past that is unaffiliated with military politics and perceived as cleaner and less contentious than Thaksin. His promises of asset declarations for all MPs and pledges of transparent checks and balances have always been delivered with the gentle but firm tone of voice and the handsome smile that endears him to the Bangkok middle classes.
Abhisit also speaks with boldness of a progressive breed. He openly criticsed Sondhi and Thaksin's dual use of astrologers in the process of politics and has pledged compulsory asset declaration for his own party MPs.
Such actions at well with the core bases, but as Abhisit well knows, it hasn't gained any ground with the traditional non Democrat areas such as the North East. In such areas the ghost of Thaksin the politician looms large, and voters are less concerned with emulating western style politics than with receiving tangible benefits for voting one particular way. So far Abhisit has failed to convince them, and it appears his concern has forced him to look to the experience of old leaders.
But Abhisit must be sure that in associating himself with the likes of Banharn Silapa-archa for the sole purpose of reaching a new audience, he doesn't destroy his own base. Neither Barharn nor Chavilit achieved a lot of good for Thailand during their reign, and time has done little to boost the public's faith in the old brass. If Abhisit is sincere about reducing the "old boys" network of corruption in government, he cannot possibly expect people to accept his collaboration with a man who gained the nickname "Mr ATM" during his tenure as PM.
Likewise, Chavalit Yongchaiyud has done little to restore himself credibility in recent months. As the junta and the people struggled to return to normal after the coup of 2006, Chavilit was more concerned with making sure that everyone heard his cries of discontent at the ousting of Thaksin and publicly demanded "a deep, deep wai" from the CNS. For many voters, the old general represents the antithisis of a modern progressive government.
None of the candidates for a coalition with The Democrats have shown any interest in party policies, all of them have shown a willingness to switch parties and jump ship at any given time.
Abhisit can see the opportunity of his career looming ahead of him and he's straining to ensure it doesn't pass him by. But in doing so, he must ensure that he doesn't wreck everything he stands for by associating with the type of politician who is everything Abhisit professes not to be. The only true victory for The Democrats in the next election would be a clear majority. If Abhisit can't do it achieve that now, he never will.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
They think it's all over, is it now?
“Thai Rak Thai have damaged society. They acted not for the people but for power”
Court judge.
Politics, like football, is all about opinions. No opinions = no politics, the equation is simple. The pitfall of this of course is that strong opinions drag us into the quicksand of human nature in denying and ignoring facts and arguments that simply don’t fit our belief system. It’s a well observed fact that far right wing politics and politicians often have an underlying element of fear in many of their policies. Such fear - whether well founded or not - frequently leads to rejection and denial of truths.
So we all know it’s rare to find a balanced judgment on hot political issues of the moment, and when discussing the finale to the dissolution trial of Thai Rak Thai and The Democrats, it’s even harder. The Nation will undoubtedly trumpet TRT’s downfall and its subsequent hammer blow to Thaksin. Bangkok Pundit will diligently document the facts and frequently look to the hypocrisy of the junta, and rightly so. Thailand Jumped the Shark will scan the faults in The Nation's reporting and numerous Thai political groups (not parties) will simply cry foul over TRT being punished.
How you see justice and truth depends on where you are standing. Touching it requires one to walk through a minefield of hearsay, polemicism, and outright falsification. For that alone, the Constitutional Court should be commended. The verdicts were due at 3am, the final decision was announced shortly before midnight. The nine hours in between involved a marathon outline and verdict read in installments by the judges. It’s to the immense credit of the judges that for all objections and foul cries after the verdict, few have pointed to discrepancies or choice interpretations of the law. The judges took each point and accusation and discussed it in detail. It was far too technical for a farang like me to follow the language (BangkokPundit played a good role here), but I’ve yet to meet or read from a Thai who had a problem with the verdict.
The Democrats have been exonerated. The courts examined the complaints - including suggestions that they “framed” Thaksin or damaged democracy by encouraging a “no vote” campaign - and dismissed them as well within the boundaries of free speech. Accusations suggesting Democrats hired small parties to defame TRT were also dismissed.
Around the same time as this verdict, it was also announced that three minor parties would be dissolved for having forged documents (in the case of the Progressive Democrat Party) or engaging in other dishonest practices, such as in the case of Pattana Chart Thai (not to be confused with Chart Thai).
The TRT verdict then began. It seemed like the verdict would never end. I watched Channel Three - with its English summaries running at the bottom of the screen, but I couldn’t stay awake. I awoke the next day to the news that TRT had been dissolved.The party that seemed like an unstoppable political juggernaut just a few years ago had met its fate.
And what’s more, the court enforced a rule that party executives are banned from politics for five years. Whilst many expected trouble at this verdict, the response was relatively well maintained. Few incidents occurred.
Now allow me to put my neck out and say something really unfashionable: justice has been served - legally and poetically. Firstly, the evidence against TRT was damming. The evidence against The Democrats was cooked up in a pathetic response to balance the charges and allow both parties to be let off. Judges spent weeks sifting through files, documents , witness reports and argumentation to actually detect and deliberate raw facts. When this happened, TRT was doomed.
Poetically, the response from each party in the fiasco speaks volumes. Three days before the trial verdict, Chaturon Chaisang - caretaker leader of TRT - announced there would be a protest on Thursday , with his close allies at PTV using “students as security guards”. The day before the verdict he announced “If the party is dissolved, we will register again under the same party name”. No hint of remorse, not a whisper of care or concern for the country and its problems. The closest to the latter was a remark “We will continue to propagate the populist policies made by Mr. Thaksin” in a desperate attempt to continue selling under the name of the banned Mr. Thaksin. After the verdict? Chaturon said “This ruling came from those who took power, even though that power came from the barrel of a gun”. Err….sorry Chaturon, the ruling actually came from judges, not the junta. Sure they might have been lobbied but they actually obeyed the law, unlike the same court when they cleared your founder Thaksin of asset concealment charges where one judge later admitted he regretted ignoring the law and clearing Thaksin.
Whether such arrogance and lack of remorse goes over the head of the rural masses that follow TRT or if they don’t hear it, I have no idea. Likewise, the fact that the courts abided by the rule of law and gave a legal, clear and concise verdict has not been mentioned by anyone at TRT. Their response has been akin to a spoilt child who refuses to accept his punishment, more on that in a moment.
For The Democrats, the story was different. Abhisit promised before the veridct to “continue working for the Democrats as long as I can still breathe, even if they cease to exist as a political party”. And “I believe we will be cleared because we are innocent” After the verdict, Abhisit declared simply “Let’s turn our victory into Thailand’s victory”.
Nobody is foolish enough to think of Abhisit or The Democrats as angelic, and indeed they made many mistakes during their own reign, but the sheer fact they are at least trying to show they care went a long way with me.
But this is politics, and there’s always fallout. So after the verdict , what do you think happened? A show of repentance? A plan amongst politicians to take note of the law in future? Nope, no fairy tales here people. The ban on TRT politicians created a huge scramble for the power (and money) void left behind with immediate announcements for a “TRT group” with suggested leaders including the well known incompetent, allegedly corrupt, undoubtedly hidiously fat and sickeningly arrogant Chavalit Yongchaiyudh (Wikipedia have spared you the horror of a photo) amongst other equally desirable names.
The fact that such people belonged to different parties - with supposedly different ideals - and displayed impotence and highly questionable behavior even in their better years matters not. The policy of money is all that matters for such ‘old ginger’ politicians.
For that reason alone, I hope The Democrats win the next election. The jury is still out (no pun intended) on Abhisit, but he is at least a new breed of politician. Western educated, young, no military connections and actually fluent in things such as policies that extend beyond “directorships for me” (To be fair, Thaksin also had most of these qualities) and a clean record and lack of arrogance.
The alternative is that this brave step for the better taken by the constitutional court, simply opens the door for Dark Age rulers to return once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
