Hopes for change on hold

[webfact]

Hopes for change on hold

By The Nation Weekend

 

The Future Forward Party, which made an impressive debut, finishing as the third-most popular choice with more than 6.2 million votes and more than 80 House seats, is composed entirely of new faces. Photo/EPA

 

Electoral convolutions resulted in little actual political change – and even less room for claims of legitimacy

 

While last weekend's election seems unlikely to lift the Kingdom out of its deep political divide, it has at least exposed new catalysts for change, with voters choosing many young faces to try and brighten the future. 

 

The electoral system was apparently designed to limit the size of political parties – ensuring none was big enough to dominate the House of Representatives. 

 

According to the latest figures from the Election Commission, no party won a landslide victory. The party that won the greatest number of seats – be it Pheu Thai or Phalang Pracharat – will eventually have slightly more than a quarter of the 500 seats in the Lower House, which will stop them from setting up a single-party government. 

 

The Thaksin Shinawatra camp, which has dominated previous elections, failed to retain that advantage after the Thai Raksa Chart was disbanded a mere two weeks before election day. The party had been set up to focus on the mixed-member appointment system while its sister party Pheu Thai concentrated on constituency seats. 

 

Now, with Thai Raksa Chart gone, Pheu Thai has no party-list seats. Meanwhile, though the pro-junta Phalang Pracharat won few constituency seats, it will still benefit from the altered electoral system, which many analysts say was designed to allow the junta to perpetuate power. 

 

Though this election was perhaps one of the longest-awaited in recent memory, the 75 per cent turnout was not abnormal. The same ratio of voters had came out in July 2011. 

 

Of the 51 million eligible voters this time, the majority (38.1 per cent) was between 26 and 45 years old, while 7.3 million (14.3 per cent) were first-time voters aged between 18 and 25. 

 

Many first-time voters told The Nation Weekend they exercised their right to vote in the hope of bringing about change, even though they suspected it was a virtual lost cause in this election. 

 

“This election won’t trigger any changes because it was designed by people who want the status quo to continue,” said a first-time voter, asking to be identified only as Phon. 

 

“But I hope it spurs more conversation about the country’s future, which might lead to whoever is ruling becoming more responsible or even giving us another chance to vote – on a more level playing field.”

 

Generally, the successful candidates are not really young, with an average age of 52. The party with the oldest candidates – average 55 – is Pheu Thai, followed by Phalang Pracharat (53) and the Democrats (52). The rookie Future Forward Party stands to have a relatively younger representation in the House, averaging 45 years old. The Commoners Party, with candidates averaging 43 years old, won no seats in the election. 

 

Future Forward co-founder Taopiphob Limjittrakorn said young voters chose him because they were “bored” with the established elite. The young maker of craft beer entered politics with the hope of breaking up business monopolies and helping reshape the political landscape. 

 

Smashing through

 

He managed to smash his way through in Bangkok’s Klong San constituency, defeating heavyweight Democrat candidate and former MP Suran Chanpitak.

 

The Democrats, the oldest Thai party, suffered a major setback last weekend, losing its strongholds in the capital and most of the South. Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva stepped down to accept responsibility for the defeat. 

 

Many observers said the Democrats lost votes to Phalang Pracharat in Bangkok and the South because Abhisit refused to help Prayut Chan-o-cha retain power. The pro-junta party won a lot of seats in the upper Central region and lower North. 

 

However, Phalang Pracharat’s victory and the Democrats’ defeat made little difference in the political landscape because they appear to be sticking together. 

 

Pheu Thai, meanwhile, managed to hang on to its strongholds in the far North and Northeast, but was unable to take the largest northeastern province, Nakhon Ratchasima, because Phalang Pracharat had poached some of its MPs from that area. 

 

 

Yada yavarakanon is among dozens of Phalang Pracharat's fresh face MPs.

 

Unlike Future Forward, which won a surprise victory among young voters, Phalang Pracharat emerged as the most successful newcomer in the election – especially since it managed to take advantage of the privileges embedded in the revised electoral law. 

 

Its PM candidate is the incumbent and the party cleverly used the name of the junta’s pet project, Pracharat, in its branding. 

 

In the big picture, this election is unlikely to end the chronic polarisation, with both pro- and anti-junta camps, led by Phalang Pracharat and Pheu Thai respectively, compete to claim legitimacy to form a government. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30366808

 

[leeneeds]

 

36 minutes ago, webfact said:

this election is unlikely to end the chronic polarisation, with both pro- and anti-junta camps, led by Phalang Pracharat and Pheu Thai respectively, compete to claim legitimacy to form a government

Inept, false and greed are just a few  words that stick to switching parties for powers sake, 

it truly shows those people are there for themselves not for the people.

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Electoral convolutions resulted in little actual political change

the leader of the would-be-changers is already being persecuted by selective law enforcement, the other leaders of future forward are likely on watch lists

[Samui Bodoh]

"...In the big picture, this election is unlikely to end the chronic polarisation, with both pro- and anti-junta camps, led by Phalang Pracharat and Pheu Thai respectively, compete to claim legitimacy to form a government..." 

 

"...compete to claim legitimacy..."?

 

There are no competing claims to legitimacy.

 

Phalang Pracharat was formed by essentially using tax payer's money. It (mysteriously!) aligned its name with a government slush fund. The 'Three Amigos' of the party went on a bribing tour to poach other parties MPs. It, for all intents and purposes, began its campaign a year ahead of all other parties. It benefited from the "Mobile Cabinet Meetings" held with government money using government facilities with people paid for by the government. The De Facto leader of the party, Prayut, held free weekly speeches on all TV channels for a year. The Junta supported the party through the use of intimidation tactics and questionable legal maneuvers against its political opponents. The complicit EC allowed it to hold a massive, seemingly government-funded, fund-raising dinner with no consequences. I could write pages and pages on all the advantages the Phalang Pracharat party had.

 

The PTP and its allies, no matter what you think of them, had to play by the rules or face immediate and severe legal consequences. The Allied Parties had to deal with an unfriendly and morally-dubious Electoral Commission. The Allied Parties had to deal with intimidation tactics utilized by the government and its different agencies, especially the military. As above, I could write pages and pages on all the disadvantages faced by the PTP and the Allied Parties.

 

To say that the parties "...compete to claim legitimacy..." is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever heard.

 

 

[Lungstib]

Power in Thailand is held by men in uniform, officials and big money that can influence everything. They have succeeded in staying around well past their expiry date due to manipulation of rules, laws and quite recently in constitutional changes. This has been accomplished without any inclusion of the ordinary citizens who despise these people but cant get rid of them. Young people facing a whole lifetime of this situation desperately want change but know achieving it will cost many lives. There is no simple answer.

[Cadbury]

1 hour ago, Lungstib said:

Power in Thailand is held by men in uniform, officials and big money that can influence everything. They have succeeded in staying around well past their expiry date due to manipulation of rules, laws and quite recently in constitutional changes. This has been accomplished without any inclusion of the ordinary citizens who despise these people but cant get rid of them. Young people facing a whole lifetime of this situation desperately want change but know achieving it will cost many lives. There is no simple answer.

The men in power you refer to are the likes of General Apirat whose daddy was General Sunthorn the head of government from 1991 to 1992 after a coup against a former coup leader.

It seems General Apirat is genetically designed to become the next coup leader and unelected PM to replace the incumbent PM Prayut.

After his recent ugly rant against democracy and the Future Forward party in particular it seems only a matter of time before he takes control. Compared to the relatively harmless PM Prayut this will likely be a frightening prospect for Thailand.  

 

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

The men in power you refer to are the likes of General Apirat whose daddy was General Sunthorn the head of government from 1991 to 1992 after a coup against a former coup leader.

It seems General Apirat is genetically designed to become the next coup leader and unelected PM to replace the incumbent PM Prayut.

After his recent ugly rant against democracy and the Future Forward party in particular it seems only a matter of time before he takes control. Compared to the relatively harmless PM Prayut this will likely be a frightening prospect for Thailand.  

 

His loyalty to that someone make him even more dangerous. Likely more ruthless and unwavering in his manner to maintain status quo for that someone. 

[Thailand]

Apiarat is by far the biggest danger in the coming weeks. If Prayuth and his minders and minions do not secure the target it will not be long before we see the military back on the streets "protecting" the citizens from that disease that is democracy.

[Samui Bodoh]

21 hours ago, Thailand said:

Apiarat is by far the biggest danger in the coming weeks. If Prayuth and his minders and minions do not secure the target it will not be long before we see the military back on the streets "protecting" the citizens from that disease that is democracy.

I share the view of Apiarat from above; he is truly a scary person.

 

However, is he as much of a threat as we might think? Could he launch a coup and rule Thailand for a long time? I am not so sure... it bears some thought.

 

First, yes, he could launch a coup and rule for a bit; it is pretty much impossible to stop the military from doing it unless it is stopped by another element of the military. But, would it last? 

 

It is worth having a quick look back on recent Thai history. Prayut's coup was, to a certain extent, successful(?!), for one reason; the Kingdom's economic growth rate remained above zero. It is a general truism that authoritarian governments flounder due to weak economic activity (I can't be bothered to research the direct correlation, but if another member has time...), and Prayut/the Junta managed to keep the kingdom's proverbial economic head above water. How did they do it? They did it by increasing massively the number of Chinese tourists visiting; I can't give an exact figure, but the rise in numbers certainly meant a few points of GNP, and those points were the difference between negative and positive growth rates, and thus also whether the government was "successful" or not. That said, that particular growth engine is rapidly approaching its limits; yes, perhaps the numbers of Chinese visitors can continue to rise a little, but it is reaching the point of diminishing returns; locals are getting pissed off, tourism sites are being over-run, infrastructure isn't keeping up, other tourists from other areas/countries are dropping, etc. Simply put, the kingdom, in terms of tourism, is rapidly getting full and I don't think another few million can be added without it directly leading to a few (other) million deciding to not come anymore.

 

So, should there be another coup, what would the economic driver be to maintain economic growth in the kingdom? It appears that the EEC project is designed for that, but there are several problems associated with that idea. First, the 'build it and they will come' idea is great in movies, but definitely not a certainty in real life; many areas are competing to attract economic activity. Second, would investors be willing to invest in a country that has had (will have had) 3 coups so far this century? I wouldn't, and I am guessing that many others wouldn't either. Third, we have all seen the stories in the papers that Thailand lacks skilled workers to drive activity in the EEC; if we read the papers, can't we assume that investors would as well? Fourth, why Thailand over another area? Is the EEC worth it compared to other areas? Competition will rule and other areas can certainly compete with Thailand, Fifth, would an investor have any certainty? We all see it in the news repeatedly; investors want certainty and if a new government comes to pass via coup, who would believe that certainty was assured? I am sure that there are other reasons (anyone else care to chip in?), but I'll leave it there for now.

 

Another coup, should (somehow) Prayut not manage to retain power is possible, but one really has to question if it would be sustainable in any sense; I suspect the likelihood of any future coup government would be measured in months rather than years. And, it would be due to economics. And, its fall would be ugly. Ugly as hell.

 

If Thailand wants to continue its development and economic growth (and we all know Thais like money), then it needs to change to a civilian government which can inspire the people to create economic wealth. Should it fail to do so, then it is likely that we will see it blow up into an ugly fight or follow some kind of similar path that neighbouring Burma took, and neither would not go over well... not well at all.

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Samui Bodoh

[tlandtday]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I share the view of Apiarat from above; he is truly a scary person.

 

However, is he as much of a threat as we might think? Could he launch a coup and rule Thailand for a long time? I am not so sure... it bears some thought.

 

First, yes, he could launch a coup and rule for a bit; it is pretty much impossible to stop the military from doing it unless it is stopped by another element of the military. But, would it last? 

 

It is worth having a quick look back on recent Thai history. Prayut's coup was, to a certain extent, successful(?!), for one reason; the Kingdom's economic growth rate remained above zero. It is a general truism that authoritarian governments flounder due to weak economic activity (I can't be bothered to research the direct correlation, but if another member has time...), and Prayut/the Junta managed to keep the kingdom's proverbial economic head above water. How did they do it? They did it by increasing massively the number of Chinese tourists visiting; I can't give an exact figure, but the rise in numbers certainly meant a few points of GNP, and those points were the difference between negative and positive growth rates, and thus also whether the government was "successful" or not. That said, that particular growth engine is rapidly approaching its limits; yes, perhaps the numbers of Chinese visitors can continue to rise a little, but it is reaching the point of diminishing returns; locals are getting pissed off, tourism sites are being over-run, infrastructure isn't keeping up, other tourists from other areas/countries are dropping, etc. Simply put, the kingdom, in terms of tourism, is rapidly getting full and I don't think another few million can be added without it directly leading to a few (other) million deciding to not come anymore.

 

So, should there be another coup, what would the economic driver be to maintain economic growth in the kingdom? It appears that the EEC project is designed for that, but there are several problems associated with that idea. First, the 'build it and they will come' idea is great in movies, but definitely not a certainty in real life; many areas are competing to attract economic activity. Second, would investors be willing to invest in a country that has had (will have had) 3 coups so far this century? I wouldn't, and I am guessing that many others wouldn't either. Third, we have all seen the stories in the papers that Thailand lacks skilled workers to drive activity in the EEC; if we read the papers, can't we assume that investors would as well? Fourth, why Thailand over another area? Is the EEC worth it compared to other areas? Competition will rule and other areas can certainly compete with Thailand, Fifth, would an investor have any certainty? We all see it in the news repeatedly; investors want certainty and if a new government comes to pass via coup, who would believe that certainty was assured? I am sure that there are other reasons (anyone else care to chip in?), but I'll leave it there for now.

 

Another coup, should (somehow) Prayut not manage to retain power is possible, but one really has to question if it would be sustainable in any sense; I suspect the likelihood of any future coup government would be measured in months rather than years. And, it would be due to economics. And, its fall would be ugly. Ugly as hell.

 

If Thailand wants to continue its development and economic growth (and we all know Thais like money), then it needs to change to a civilian government which can inspire the people to create economic wealth. Should it fail to do so, then it is likely that we will see it blow up into an ugly fight or follow some kind of similar path that neighbouring Burma took, and neither would not go over well... not well at all.

 

 

 

Good points but you are underestimating China's role. They will contribute to the Junta whether it be tourist numbers or rail projects. Thailand is almost colonized they won't let it change direction.

[ChrisY1]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I share the view of Apiarat from above; he is truly a scary person.

 

However, is he as much of a threat as we might think? Could he launch a coup and rule Thailand for a long time? I am not so sure... it bears some thought.

 

First, yes, he could launch a coup and rule for a bit; it is pretty much impossible to stop the military from doing it unless it is stopped by another element of the military. But, would it last? 

 

 

You have to look hard at him....he has strings attached and is "managed"!