Politicians rail against 20-year national plan

[webfact]

Politicians rail against 20-year national plan

By KAS CHANWANPEN 
THE NATION 

 

 

Junta drafted strategy picked apart as victims of ‘Black May’ remembered
 

POLITICIANS FROM leading parties warned yesterday that the junta-led national strategy and reform plans could obstruct the work of future governments.

 

Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, a key member of Pheu Thai Party, said that though the reform was supposedly pushed for the national interest, public participation in the process was lacking.

 

“We have to think about the goal. Is the goal [to benefit] the people? If so, then their participation is essential,” said Sudarat, speaking on a panel on future politics hosted as part of this month’s anniversary of the “Black May” crackdown in 1992.

 

 

Though many assemblies and committees had been set up by the junta to plan national reform, Sudarat said their members might lack the first-hand knowledge that ordinary people had of the issues being tackled. So it was doubtful reform would really respond to the people’s needs and expectations.

 

Also, she said she failed to see the difference between the 20-year national strategy plan and the existing five-year economic and social development plan.

 

Sudarat expressed surprise that the junta government was confident enough to write a plan to cover 20 years when events and circumstances changed so fast. “Even well-prepared private companies revise plans every two or three year because of the rapid changes,” she said. 

 

 

Sudarat also echoed growing concern at how future governments would be limited by the junta’s national strategy. It would also curb voters’ choices since parties could not formulate policies that fell outside the 20-year strategy, she said.

 

Sora-at Klinpratoom, a key member of the Bhum Jai Thai Party, agreed that the 20-year strategy was a bold move but said he was willing to follow it and hoped the people would understand that parties had limitations. 

 

However, the Bhum Jai Thai man was non-committal about joining the military to form a coalition. He said the party would wait for the election results before making a decision.

 

Meanwhile, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he detected little sign of national reform in the past four years and remained doubtful about progress. The national strategy, for instance, was still only a draft paper despite years of junta rule, he said. 

 

 

However, the former prime minister said he remained steadfastly opposed to the junta-drafted Constitution. 

 

Abhisit was critical of the constitutional role of the 250 junta-appointed senators, who are widely perceived as a force that will back the junta’s extended grip on power after the election. He said that the Senate should respect the people’s decision shown through the election of MPs. If it did not, it could lead to conflicts, he said.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30345665

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-18

[Samui Bodoh]

It is good to see/hear the politicians begin to speak up; there is an adage in politics that a government is only as good as its opposition. As the Junta has been ruthlessly silencing their opposition for four years, we can all see how they have done!

 

It is both appropriate and sad that these comments come while celebrating/remembering the people and events of "Black May" in 1992. I fear that we may well be headed into another similar time.

 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

30 minutes ago, webfact said:

Sora-at Klinpratoom, a key member of the Bhum Jai Thai Party, agreed that the 20-year strategy was a bold move but said he was willing to follow it and hoped the people would understand that parties had limitations. 

They should rename this party to the: Bootlicker Party

[YetAnother]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Sudarat expressed surprise that the junta government was confident enough to write a plan to cover 20 years when events and circumstances changed so fast. “Even well-prepared private companies revise plans every two or three year because of the rapid changes,” she said. 

good point ; this is another negative fallout of having a narrow-minded military government that had no experience governing a nation; a nation which is exposed to volatile internal as well as external possible threats that will render any 20 year plan moot

[Cadbury]

 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

"....the junta government was confident enough to write a plan to cover 20 years when events and circumstances changed so fast"

The 20 year plan is the dream child of the Prime Minister and it is precious to him. Hasn't he had it written into law that no future government (if there is one) can mess around with or change his 20 year plan? If that is the case then he has imposed his will on the people of Thailand for the next two decades. The 20 year plan means long term ongoing indirect governance by Prayut himself. What other country has had the audacity to do something like that?

[PatOngo]

Hard to imagine anyone here projecting 20 years into the future, most can only see as far as the next bowl of rice!

[candide]

45 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

 

The 20 year plan is the dream child of the Prime Minister and it is precious to him. Hasn't he had it written into law that no future government (if there is one) can mess around with or change his 20 year plan? If that is the case then he has imposed his will on the people of Thailand for the next two decades. The 20 year plan means long term ongoing indirect governance by Prayut himself. What other country has had the audacity to do something like that?

The 20 years plan is a way to oust any government they don't like for any vague reason without making a coup.

[Anak Nakal]

20 year plan?

Junta not have 20 day plan!

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

“Even well-prepared private companies revise plans every two or three year because of the rapid changes,”

True, just shows the lack on nimble mindedness on behalf of the autocrats running the country.  Twenty years ago in 1998, we would not have guessed electric cars were on the cusp of mainstream use, wireless technology would jump leaps and bounds.  The web and WiFi were in their infancies.  20 year plans are pretty dumb. 

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he detected little sign of national reform in the past four years

TRANSLATION:

Prayut didn't share any of his power with Abhisit nor, as yet, given his Democrat Party any edge to be part of the pro-military coalition in the next election.

[Denim]

5 hours ago, HiSoLowSoNoSo said:

They should rename this party to the: Bootlicker Party

 

Followthedough party would be better.

[rkidlad]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

“We have to think about the goal. Is the goal [to benefit] the people? If so, then their participation is essential,”

That's absolutely correct. So what can we ascertain when the public are not allowed to participate? Easy - it's not about the benefit of the public.

 

The junta have for far too long been telling people that 1+1 is 3. And what happens when people say the real answer?

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, candide said:

The 20 years plan is a way to oust any government they don't like for any vague reason without making a coup.

 

Yep. These are the rules in which you must operate - or else you'll be removed.

 

But the main worry for the old polies is obstructions to the flow from the trough!

 

Any new reformist party, and let's hope some are, are going to have their work cut out!

[Lupatria]

Could this be a reason for a 20 year plan?

 

      

[sjaak327]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yep. These are the rules in which you must operate - or else you'll be removed.

 

But the main worry for the old polies is obstructions to the flow from the trough!

 

Any new reformist party, and let's hope some are, are going to have their work cut out!

No they won't as they are hampered by the same 20 year roadmap. One that exists for one reason only. To ensure access to the trough for the people that drafted it, and their buddies pulling their strings. Politicians are leagues less corrupt than those people.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No they won't as they are hampered by the same 20 year roadmap. One that exists for one reason only. To ensure access to the trough for the people that drafted it, and their buddies pulling their strings. Politicians are leagues less corrupt than those people.

 

You must be joking, or seriously naive. The politicians, whoever they are, have shown time and time again the same behavior. But they've never been able to by-pass the military or get them on their side. So when they push too far, they get removed. And the game cycle begins again.

 

Any new reform party has to dismantle the restrictions slowly, carefully and craftily; and must do a much better job of getting the military on-side.

 

Given the opportunity the politicians would be very pleased to replace those pulling the strings - with themselves pulling them instead.

[tomta]

6 hours ago, Cadbury said:

The 20 year plan means long term ongoing indirect governance by Prayut himself. What other country has had the audacity to do something like that?

The 1000 year Reich. 

 

Stalin modestly put 5 year plans in place. 

[tomta]

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Any new reform party has to dismantle the restrictions slowly, carefully and craftily; and must do a much better job of getting the military on-side.

Why should a democratically elected government have to "get the military on side"? How many votes did the army get? The  next government should firmly put the military in its box. This should have been done as soon as Yingluck won in 2011. She tried softly, softly and it didn't work. The current crop of generals should be sacked en masse and they should keep sacking them till they get to someone who can be trusted not to interfere in politics, even if they have to go to the lowliest corporal. This is why Wattana's call for the abolition of conscription was so good. It would be the first step in reform of the military, the most important of all the reforms which Thailand needs and the one that all others are predicated on.

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You must be joking, or seriously naive. The politicians, whoever they are, have shown time and time again the same behavior. But they've never been able to by-pass the military or get them on their side. So when they push too far, they get removed. And the game cycle begins again.

 

Any new reform party has to dismantle the restrictions slowly, carefully and craftily; and must do a much better job of getting the military on-side.

 

Given the opportunity the politicians would be very pleased to replace those pulling the strings - with themselves pulling them instead.

Of course I am not joking. What I stated in the last line of my post is a fact. The military does not intervene because politicians go too far, they intervene when governments are close to cutting down access to the trough for the people that do control the army. 

 

You call me naieve, but then your second paragraph quite clearly shows, you have absolutely not understood how things work here. There is no way those new reform parties (providing they even get enough seats) can do what you describe. The army will not allow those restrictions being removed. And the senate and the roadmap will give them the tools to ensure this doesn't happen.

 

The coup was not staged to remove a corrupt government (which at the time was already I care taker status, with elections scheduled ) it was staged to make elections inconsequential.