Thai Politics - Party Hopping

[12DrinkMore]

When the Thais have their elections there seems to be an element of "party hopping", meaning that politicians previously aligned to one party will jump ship to another party. Often huge sums of money are mentioned with the transfer or with the expectation of a better position. One reason I have seen is that they say they can only represent their supporters if they actually get into power, so by moving to another (winning) party they are able to benefit those that voted for them

You never (?) see this in the UK, for example.

To me it just seems like another tentacle of corruption.

Can somebody who has an understanding of Thai politics explain how it works?

Edited August 25, 2008 by 12DrinkMore

[gymshark]

[alantheembalmer]

Just out of interest, Winston Churchill "crossed the floor" twice. He went from the Conservatives to the Liberals and then back again, so "party hopping" does have some illustrious members.

[poshthai]

Then when someone is nominated the opposition(pad) pay people to go on the streets and try to get the government out.

400 baht per day and if not many people then 800 a day.no wonder pad have many going.god knows how much it costs them for face whitener.

[Bangyai]

Yes, ' crossing the floor ' happens in the U.K. too. Normally its a ' career ' politician who sees the ship he is on is sinking and decides to join something else that floats.

[PoorSucker]

Career politicians, get a real job.

[steveromagnino]

When the Thais have their elections there seems to be an element of "party hopping", meaning that politicians previously aligned to one party will jump ship to another party. Often huge sums of money are mentioned with the transfer or with the expectation of a better position. One reason I have seen is that they say they can only represent their supporters if they actually get into power, so by moving to another (winning) party they are able to benefit those that voted for them

You never (?) see this in the UK, for example.

To me it just seems like another tentacle of corruption.

Can somebody who has an understanding of Thai politics explain how it works?

in thailand there is an entrenched group of families that control certain areas, sometimes through bribes/paying for votes, sometimes through popularity, sometimes through intimidation, sometimes through a variety of all of the above.

Therefore, to form a government, a political party needs to get those families, and the best way is to buy them.

Hence.....if I was a rich telco billionaire wanting to form a party and win the election, I might claim think new do new, but in fact I could never get in without getting the support of the same families as the party currently in power.

So I might do a deal with say the Chidchobs in Buriram; where there is no way any other family could run against them (a fairly well known alledged mafia/strongman type figure that has held the political power in that province for probably 2 generations and the last 30 years) so I would offer them say 60 million baht to come to my party per MP, and then also give them a gauaranteed cabinet seat.

Ditto for Chalerm is Praseecharoen where alledgedly his gambling parlours and other illegal controlled businesses allow him to fund bought votes; so for that area I would also need to get him to switch parties.

The factions (which are like groups of families) Wang Num Yen etc etc I might say you get 2 cabinet seats, 60m per MP and I will help campaign on your behalf in a couple of marginal seats to get them to switch parties.

All this has to occur 90 days I think it is before an election.

This why the whole TRT think new do new mantra was a crock; other than Bangkok you saw almost the same faces; Sanoh, Chalerm, Plah Lai Banharn etc etc as had been in power under the previous supposedly inept government and most of the governments before that. And because there is a huge cost to building that power base, the resultant payoff has to be the level of corruption thereafter.

Since most of the parties have no real policy 'core' (it is crafted just to win elections, and TRT were the first party to actually even have a manifesto that people understood - low cost health, famer debt foregiveness, NPL asset management) there is no real reason why someone would not jump from party to party; other than a few minor independents or minor parties there are no hardcore capitalist parties, there are no rural farmer social welfare left wing parties etc etc. In fact, this current election cycle just been, effectively you had all parties with the same basic manifesto (the TRT approach of giving away everything possible to poor people short term to buy their votes, a few ideas for improving the economy as an afterthought) just that 2 were someone independent (Chart Thai, Democrats, Prachai's effort) and the rest were TRT funded offshoots of TRT's corpse with slightly different flavours, so in case one proved to be illegal or whatever, then there would be others to fill the void.

The 1997 Constitution was aimed at getting out of the cycle of unstable coalitions with a ruling party controlled via a few control mechanisms including the senate, the courts, national counter corruption commission, independent media and others.

Obviously, once someone came in and bought off every one of those bodies, then that system didn't work, so now the constitution has been changed and the senate has been changed to try to address that; however until a viable long term party system emerges then you will continue to see politicians jumping back and forth.

The payoff as a politician in the ruling party is about 20% on average of most govt contracts (alledgedly). Under TRT it rose to as high as 40% towards the end as most again alledgedly of course as we all know the Shinawatras are fairly litigious (alledgedly) because the factions and families demanded more and more for their allegiance.

As a member of the opposition the pay off is zero.

And that's also why the most sought after posts are the ones where you get to spend loads of cash. Defense, tourism, interior, agriculture, education, finance, commerce - all quite popular posts.

[cloudhopper]

When the Thais have their elections there seems to be an element of "party hopping", meaning that politicians previously aligned to one party will jump ship to another party. Often huge sums of money are mentioned with the transfer or with the expectation of a better position. One reason I have seen is that they say they can only represent their supporters if they actually get into power, so by moving to another (winning) party they are able to benefit those that voted for them

You never (?) see this in the UK, for example.

To me it just seems like another tentacle of corruption.

Can somebody who has an understanding of Thai politics explain how it works?

in thailand there is an entrenched group of families that control certain areas, sometimes through bribes/paying for votes, sometimes through popularity, sometimes through intimidation, sometimes through a variety of all of the above.

Therefore, to form a government, a political party needs to get those families, and the best way is to buy them.

Hence.....if I was a rich telco billionaire wanting to form a party and win the election, I might claim think new do new, but in fact I could never get in without getting the support of the same families as the party currently in power.

So I might do a deal with say the Chidchobs in Buriram; where there is no way any other family could run against them (a fairly well known alledged mafia/strongman type figure that has held the political power in that province for probably 2 generations and the last 30 years) so I would offer them say 60 million baht to come to my party per MP, and then also give them a gauaranteed cabinet seat.

Ditto for Chalerm is Praseecharoen where alledgedly his gambling parlours and other illegal controlled businesses allow him to fund bought votes; so for that area I would also need to get him to switch parties.

The factions (which are like groups of families) Wang Num Yen etc etc I might say you get 2 cabinet seats, 60m per MP and I will help campaign on your behalf in a couple of marginal seats to get them to switch parties.

All this has to occur 90 days I think it is before an election.

This why the whole TRT think new do new mantra was a crock; other than Bangkok you saw almost the same faces; Sanoh, Chalerm, Plah Lai Banharn etc etc as had been in power under the previous supposedly inept government and most of the governments before that. And because there is a huge cost to building that power base, the resultant payoff has to be the level of corruption thereafter.

Since most of the parties have no real policy 'core' (it is crafted just to win elections, and TRT were the first party to actually even have a manifesto that people understood - low cost health, famer debt foregiveness, NPL asset management) there is no real reason why someone would not jump from party to party; other than a few minor independents or minor parties there are no hardcore capitalist parties, there are no rural farmer social welfare left wing parties etc etc. In fact, this current election cycle just been, effectively you had all parties with the same basic manifesto (the TRT approach of giving away everything possible to poor people short term to buy their votes, a few ideas for improving the economy as an afterthought) just that 2 were someone independent (Chart Thai, Democrats, Prachai's effort) and the rest were TRT funded offshoots of TRT's corpse with slightly different flavours, so in case one proved to be illegal or whatever, then there would be others to fill the void.

The 1997 Constitution was aimed at getting out of the cycle of unstable coalitions with a ruling party controlled via a few control mechanisms including the senate, the courts, national counter corruption commission, independent media and others.

Obviously, once someone came in and bought off every one of those bodies, then that system didn't work, so now the constitution has been changed and the senate has been changed to try to address that; however until a viable long term party system emerges then you will continue to see politicians jumping back and forth.

The payoff as a politician in the ruling party is about 20% on average of most govt contracts (alledgedly). Under TRT it rose to as high as 40% towards the end as most again alledgedly of course as we all know the Shinawatras are fairly litigious (alledgedly) because the factions and families demanded more and more for their allegiance.

As a member of the opposition the pay off is zero.

And that's also why the most sought after posts are the ones where you get to spend loads of cash. Defense, tourism, interior, agriculture, education, finance, commerce - all quite popular posts.

The clearest description of Thai politics I have ever seen - a classic kleptocracy. If true then the current machinations in BKK are merely an internecine power struggle within a criminally corrupt system - a system that the majority of citizens have appeared to accept for reasons unfathomable to me as a Westerner.

[lannarebirth]

In other countries they'd be called warlords. Here, they lick their ass.

[soundman]

Plah Lai Banharn

Oh that's good!

[Bangyai]

When the Thais have their elections there seems to be an element of "party hopping", meaning that politicians previously aligned to one party will jump ship to another party. Often huge sums of money are mentioned with the transfer or with the expectation of a better position. One reason I have seen is that they say they can only represent their supporters if they actually get into power, so by moving to another (winning) party they are able to benefit those that voted for them

You never (?) see this in the UK, for example.

To me it just seems like another tentacle of corruption.

Can somebody who has an understanding of Thai politics explain how it works?

in thailand there is an entrenched group of families that control certain areas, sometimes through bribes/paying for votes, sometimes through popularity, sometimes through intimidation, sometimes through a variety of all of the above.

Therefore, to form a government, a political party needs to get those families, and the best way is to buy them.

Hence.....if I was a rich telco billionaire wanting to form a party and win the election, I might claim think new do new, but in fact I could never get in without getting the support of the same families as the party currently in power.

So I might do a deal with say the Chidchobs in Buriram; where there is no way any other family could run against them (a fairly well known alledged mafia/strongman type figure that has held the political power in that province for probably 2 generations and the last 30 years) so I would offer them say 60 million baht to come to my party per MP, and then also give them a gauaranteed cabinet seat.

Ditto for Chalerm is Praseecharoen where alledgedly his gambling parlours and other illegal controlled businesses allow him to fund bought votes; so for that area I would also need to get him to switch parties.

The factions (which are like groups of families) Wang Num Yen etc etc I might say you get 2 cabinet seats, 60m per MP and I will help campaign on your behalf in a couple of marginal seats to get them to switch parties.

All this has to occur 90 days I think it is before an election.

This why the whole TRT think new do new mantra was a crock; other than Bangkok you saw almost the same faces; Sanoh, Chalerm, Plah Lai Banharn etc etc as had been in power under the previous supposedly inept government and most of the governments before that. And because there is a huge cost to building that power base, the resultant payoff has to be the level of corruption thereafter.

Since most of the parties have no real policy 'core' (it is crafted just to win elections, and TRT were the first party to actually even have a manifesto that people understood - low cost health, famer debt foregiveness, NPL asset management) there is no real reason why someone would not jump from party to party; other than a few minor independents or minor parties there are no hardcore capitalist parties, there are no rural farmer social welfare left wing parties etc etc. In fact, this current election cycle just been, effectively you had all parties with the same basic manifesto (the TRT approach of giving away everything possible to poor people short term to buy their votes, a few ideas for improving the economy as an afterthought) just that 2 were someone independent (Chart Thai, Democrats, Prachai's effort) and the rest were TRT funded offshoots of TRT's corpse with slightly different flavours, so in case one proved to be illegal or whatever, then there would be others to fill the void.

The 1997 Constitution was aimed at getting out of the cycle of unstable coalitions with a ruling party controlled via a few control mechanisms including the senate, the courts, national counter corruption commission, independent media and others.

Obviously, once someone came in and bought off every one of those bodies, then that system didn't work, so now the constitution has been changed and the senate has been changed to try to address that; however until a viable long term party system emerges then you will continue to see politicians jumping back and forth.

The payoff as a politician in the ruling party is about 20% on average of most govt contracts (alledgedly). Under TRT it rose to as high as 40% towards the end as most again alledgedly of course as we all know the Shinawatras are fairly litigious (alledgedly) because the factions and families demanded more and more for their allegiance.

As a member of the opposition the pay off is zero.

And that's also why the most sought after posts are the ones where you get to spend loads of cash. Defense, tourism, interior, agriculture, education, finance, commerce - all quite popular posts.

The clearest description of Thai politics I have ever seen - a classic kleptocracy. If true then the current machinations in BKK are merely an internecine power struggle within a criminally corrupt system - a system that the majority of citizens have appeared to accept for reasons unfathomable to me as a Westerner.

Very interesting post. Can you share your sources ?

[steveromagnino]

[Very interesting post. Can you share your sources ?

I would love to answer you, but suffice to say, through my work I get to meet some of the people mentioned through a variety of sources including working for them (one of the banned 111, also a deputy PM on the other side of the house).

I doubt anything I have said would be remotely controversial as virtually everything has been mentioned in the public press at one stage or another.

The figures are based on an approach to my own family (on the Thai side) to get into politics, and I have also in the past done small amounts of advising on very specific aspects of this and that for both sides of the house, mostly with regards to PR and research.

There are a few books now mostly out of date that explain some of this, I would draw your attention to story teller McCargo for instance (huge grain of salt recommended) and the better Baker story of Thaksin which explains some of this.

Thai people like to think in terms of us and them; what TRT did for the first time was paint politics in those terms and is continuing to do so - you can have us the new blood, or you can have them, the old cr*p way of doing things.

When you see it is the same people now and then - fine upstanding people such as Wattana Asavahame still I understand banned from travelling to USA for his various past alledged transgressions in drugs, Banharn , etc - you start to think of the Who song meet the new boss.....same as the old boss.

The only thing that is changing is the packaging.

Even the idea that somehow this is 'Bangkok elite' vs. the rural poor is crazy, when you consider that about 1/2 of the so called Bangkok elite and probably pro PPP even at the highest possible level.

The rural poor are simply a pawn in Thai politics, and with no party ideals or true manifesto, then the king pin are the MPs and factions, not the voters themselves, since currently whoever has the factions.....has the government. That's why nice people such as Sakaew strong man Sanoh is referred to as the guy that makes or breaks governments. Since the poor have not changed who they voted for in the elections (for the most part) since 1992 and even prior to that, then you do have to admire the brilliance of the first politician to swing the balance ever so slightly away from the strongmen, and instead directly onto just himself.

but of course....unlike many I am actually a political optimist ;-)

[thaihome]

Steve,

Great summary of what happened to Thai politics with the 1997 constitution. You do have to give Taksin credit for being able to see that the decentralization movement could be used to bring all the upcountry factions (actually fiefdoms) under one umbrella party and easily win the elections. Also, don’t forget that with strengthening of the local tamboon organizations and the large budgets they were given, for the first time there was local control of the government funds. This gave the local strongman a huge opportunity to skim off the contracts and at the same time, give the people some benefit. No telling how many water towers and paving jobs that ended up costing twice what they should have were done. But the people loved it as instead of huge highway projects they never used, they got a concrete road in front of the house and running water. Never mind that the TAO chairman got a new truck at the same time. Ever notice everyone of these families owns a construction company?

TH

[steveromagnino]

Steve,

Great summary of what happened to Thai politics with the 1997 constitution. You do have to give Taksin credit for being able to see that the decentralization movement could be used to bring all the upcountry factions (actually fiefdoms) under one umbrella party and easily win the elections. Also, don’t forget that with strengthening of the local tamboon organizations and the large budgets they were given, for the first time there was local control of the government funds. This gave the local strongman a huge opportunity to skim off the contracts and at the same time, give the people some benefit. No telling how many water towers and paving jobs that ended up costing twice what they should have were done. But the people loved it as instead of huge highway projects they never used, they got a concrete road in front of the house and running water. Never mind that the TAO chairman got a new truck at the same time. Ever notice everyone of these families owns a construction company?

TH

Of course. all this is alledged, and some might say that......

construction is the best skim, but building IT infrastructure, supplying equipment for mega projects such as er, airports, sewerage, deep sea ports and of course being a distributor for low cost medicine, fertiliser, trees, low cost housing or perhaps being a consultant for TV production, film festivals, new elite business card programs....really TRT were quite imaginative in that every single program of theirs BAR ZERO seems to have some odd connections with the people involved.

Alternative fuels and energy....hmmmm.....well first other than selling off PTT to themselves we also have the immediate connections of the various alt fuel sources companies and of course the attempts to get hold of TPI and other deals.

Medical hub? Well obviously the buy up of most of the private hospitals coupled with the rather acrimonious ousting of Dr Arthit from his own Phayathai enterprise then the 30b healthcare program which also provided a good source of doctors fed up with the public healthcare system and of course govt money to promote their hospitals abroad. And of course....healthcare is good for 30b so long as you are the one selling the medicine at whatever price at a profit to the scheme.

Or perhaps housing? Ah yes, just be a property developer and develop things like say airport skytrain with a stop right outside your own development. Or award yourself a ton of work with the low cost housing schemes, then cut corners on all of them.

How about retail? that's tricky, perhaps create a big song and dance for Thai nationalism to block the hypermarkets, and then help your own party backer CP to have a mega 7-11 expansion totally easily.

Telco deregulation (one of the biggest reasons for launching TRT?) Just change the laws around and then fiddle with the commission in charge of deregulation. And appoint a pro TRT colleague to win the CDMA system bid launched by the dems in the previous govt, with the express purpose of first skimming the contract and also to drive it to failure.

Airport - dear god you could write a book of like 200 volumes on that one.

There is a very good reason why none of their cabinet meetings had minute takers or written notes.

There are so many clever ways in which TRT managed to completely dupe the 1997 constitution, and some take their hat off to them for their smarts.

I guess that is part of the reason why I was so disappointed, since if they were so smart to do this, what a pity they didn't at least do some good for the country along the way.

And when you don't have political platforms, then you will end up with the next smart guy coming along and doing the same thing if they can get the support of the regional factions - something that leaves very few legitimate people able to run for politics as most never have generated sufficient cash to do this; the only way forward really is to reduce the power of the regional factions, and simultaneously encourage actual party platforms and thus purposeful directed voting by the populace for the parties they like on the one hand, and a personal area representative on the other. This also involves pushing more power into the provinces, and first off, the politicians are all against this unless it is into their faction friends' hands, but also because there are not many people set up in many provinces to deal with a windfall and responsibility of looking after, say 20 billion baht. Truth be told, there aren't many people set up in BKK to do it! Essentially, the Thai parliament doesn't want to give away any power, no political machine does because 20% of whatever number...the bigger the number the better.

If you give it to BMA, then they play with the 20%, and worse still, they might be a different political party to you! Which is what has occurred in the mid 2000s and the reason why BKK is still without much infrastructure other than the overpriced firetrucks built in Thailand, theoretically exported the imported again at several times the price. BMA is a proxy fight between the Dems and the PPP/TRT at quite high levels. The BMA governor is therefore charged with picking up garbage and street vendors. The govt looks after the rest, and pretty badly as anyone who lives in BKK can see. It succeeds despite the enormous drag factor of having the govt involved at all.

And of course any true democracy that has to be balanced with a free press (of which the worst two periods I've seen since I work at least part of the time in this industry/media would be the TRT and PPP years, but but that is partly due to the network I am involved with), independent authorities and all the so called checks and balances including the ability to protest even by minority groups. It also requires a judicial system willing to go after all who break the law.

Without the checks and balances, then people start to misunderstand the costs of their decisions, and start to believe, for instance, that money wasted on free parties/good times/cheap trinkets is actually coming from a person's pockets rather than understanding that it is actually 125% of the real cost coming directly from the government budget (with the other 25% being stashed away in some person's pocket).

Certainly Thailand is a long way from true democracy; each coup/election/idiot in charge cycle seems to however move things forward slightly. Certainly, the Thai economy has proved remarkably strong, given that since late 2005 you could argue that no politicians have actually paid any real attention to it other than to give poor people free stuff or make horrendously idiotic decisions (but I am sure very calculated none the less with regards to getting their own share).

Edited August 27, 2008 by steveromagnino

[12DrinkMore]

Certainly, the Thai economy has proved remarkably strong, given that since late 2005 you could argue that no politicians have actually paid any real attention to it other than to give poor people free stuff or make horrendously idiotic decisions (but I am sure very calculated none the less with regards to getting their own share).

It is probably far better when the policians don't get involved in running the economy, might explain why things are still running around here.

[lannarebirth]

Steve,

Great summary of what happened to Thai politics with the 1997 constitution. You do have to give Taksin credit for being able to see that the decentralization movement could be used to bring all the upcountry factions (actually fiefdoms) under one umbrella party and easily win the elections. Also, don't forget that with strengthening of the local tamboon organizations and the large budgets they were given, for the first time there was local control of the government funds. This gave the local strongman a huge opportunity to skim off the contracts and at the same time, give the people some benefit. No telling how many water towers and paving jobs that ended up costing twice what they should have were done. But the people loved it as instead of huge highway projects they never used, they got a concrete road in front of the house and running water. Never mind that the TAO chairman got a new truck at the same time. Ever notice everyone of these families owns a construction company?

TH

A good book on the subject, which you may find enlightening:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-gW9Z0-q_...4&ct=result

[steveromagnino]

A good book on the subject, which you may find enlightening:

mate - I owe you this is frigging awesome.

And no, I didn't read it prior to writing my first post either ;-0