What The West Needs To Learn About Democracy From Thailand

[sassienie]

If taking on a bet to what is the political persuasion of the OP, I would put my money on Communist; the same group that I have no doubts are the main core of PAD.

Thailand on the face of it, only gives the semblance of being a democracy, no way is it a democracy in the true sense.

[gregb]

Dear gregb, you don't know me but please could you send me some of the stuff you've been smoking as I have been unable to find anything locally. It must be good gear to induce you to believe that the west has anything whatsoever to learn from Thai politics except how to play musical chairs around the trough.

Actually, it is what I HAVE NOT been smoking that is at issue here. If you really want to see what is happening, the first thing you need to do is leave your cultural bias at the door. Until you do that, you are just being manipulated along with everyone else.

Ego is an amazing thing. It never ceases to amaze me how often farangs denigrate Thais for things, while at the same time supporting cultural narratives which have long since passed their expiry date. Yes, the West has much to learn from Thailand. I am constantly amazed at how the people here solve problems in ways that farangs simply refuse to consider. (Note: not can not understand, but refuse to understand.)

Keep in mind, the world is changing, and Thailand in particular will fare much better than the West during the long energy descent before us. The future will not be like the past. This is a great opportunity for the West to learn how to deal with a situation like this, which will be coming to a theater near you in the next few decades.

[gregb]

If democracy offers nothing else, at least it cycles the crooks out of power without lots of people having to be shot first.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really do that. An individual yes, but not the group of powerful people behind that individual. There is the source of the cultural myth that I have been referring to. Thank you for bringing this up.

To expand further on this topic, the human brain has what's called a "discount function." This is what allows people to value immediate gratification over long term benefit, even when they will get much more over the long term. Obesity is a perfect example of this. Every obese person knows not eating that candy bar will lead to prolonged health later in life, but our brain tells us to get immediate satisfaction now. In politics, this primal instinct can be manipulated by well run groups, to get people to do things that are not in their long term best interest. People on this forum talk about vote buying, but it isn't only money that it used. All methods of pressures and inducements can be used to leverage this basic human condition. Money is only one obvious example of this.

As such, universal suffrage is not necessarily a laudable goal that leads to maximum happiness. If people have not been trained or educated on how to recognize this trait, then their opinion is suspect. It just so happens, that people who are wealthy and educated, are in a much better position to see this, as they already have most of their immediate needs met. Please note: Not all wealthy and educated people are necessarily good candidates, just as not all destitute people are necessarily poor ones. But as a group, wealth and education allow you to overcome the discount function to a higher degree.

The problem then comes from the fact that the poor have real needs too, and their needs will be neglected if they have no input. This is the basis of a republic. Universal representation, NOT universal suffrage. A properly trained representative who understands and has a repore with the community is arguably a better proponent of long term prosperity than someone who was simply voted for by a group who was manipulated. A person such as this needs to be of impeccable moral standard....a politician generally is not a good match for this position. However, what a politician does have is the ability to organize people to his viewpoint, and that is important for representation. So there are clearly conflicts here, and it requires some finesse to find the right match. Not every group will be lucky enough to find or be assigned the right person, just as historically there were good kings and bad kings.

In fact, the ideal form of government is in fact a benevolent dictatorship. The problem, of course, is in finding a good selection of non corruptible benevolent dictators. It is this perspective that historically led to the idea of a republic, where groups of responsible, knowledgeable people attempt to find a acceptable solutions to difficult problems, and where peer pressure can be used to keep people free from corruption. It is an attitude that needs to be cultivated....an attitude clearly missing from all democracies in existence today. The closest institution to something like this you will find today in Thailand is in the judiciary. Today, "repsonsibility for the people" you represent has been replaced by the term "mandate from the people" you represent. The two are not the same thing.

What happens today is that powerful groups behind the scenes corrupt politicians, and then use their vast arsenals of experience to manipulate voters into selecting these sub optimal choices by leveraging the human discount function. While that may not be what we have been taught or like to hear, it is in fact the truth, and the only way to break out of this cycle is to fundamentally change democracy.

This will happen over the course of time. no doubt. Things have only worked so far because the industrial age has led to increased affluence. As the deindustrial and new dark ages come into being over the next few centuries, the situation will cause the political landscape to change. The question is, will we learn what we can and try to help, or obstinately stick to our cultural bias because we are unable to see the truth. Here is my hope that Thailand can find a new and better solution from this conflict which will be an example for the rest of the world to follow.

I for one, will consider it a tragedy if Thailand doesn't use this opportunity to fix their government and throw off the shackles of "democracy".

By the way, keep in mind, all of us farangs living in Thailand have no vote. I assume everyone here believes that this is therefore a tragic injustice, and we're all going to leave to voice our displeasure? I won't be leaving. I don't think this is true, and I don't need a vote. We are being treated just fine for the most part, even without the right to vote. So would others, as long as there were mechanisms in place to make sure their voice would be heard.

Edited September 6, 2008 by gregb

[JohnC]

What is not publicised is that people from P.A.D. are actively recruiting for people to join the demonstration by offering 1000 baht a day.

[steveromagnino]

What is not publicised is that people from P.A.D. are actively recruiting for people to join the demonstration by offering 1000 baht a day.

not one of my friends on the PAD side has taken cash (although some have been offered). At a guess, more than 50% are there of their own voalition.

The opposite side which is far fewer people are for the most part paid, and there are very very few volunteers. I would say more than 75% are paid.

Exactly the same as the protests by pro taksin supporters in Jatujact park 2 years ago, where almost 100% of them were paid (yes, I asked them).

It is a lot easier for someone from BKK to show up and protest for a few hours then go home than someone with no money to drive in from Buriram to protest; luckily kind people like Newin are willing to cover the expenses for that and for the displays of solidarity at the day when the airport was officially enjoying its first flight and Thaksin et al all walked around the large concrete bunker while the press attending got an improvised spur of the moment 'buses just drove in from Udon, 300 rural farmer folk just decided to show their love' magical moment of Thaksin Su Su chants.

The foreign media were pretty annoyed, the local media were even more angry; instead of this being an airport opening, it was a party political. And yes, all the 'supporters' definitely paid and organised to come in.

One month later.....the goon was out.

[Plutarch]

A functioning democracy is utterly reliant upon the rule of law.

With the latest court ruling upon the validity of Samak's government Thai democracy is perhaps indeed maturing into something approximating to what the ideal is all about as currently defined by Westminster and Washington.

[sgtpeppers]

great posts on this thread, some from steve, I learned something. Thanks.

and some creative thinking from the OP, don't worry about the uptights.

[Shotime]

I'm an anarchist. So I say "Off with their heads."

[scorecard]

Can I offer my thoughts about the big picture, and a view to what the PAD are ultimately trying to achieve. You don't have to accept it.

I don't agree with everything the PAD has done, but I do strongly agree with their ultimate aims.

This country has a long and bad history of very currupt governments and very ruthless thug godfather corrupt politicians who are not interetsed at all in the development of Thailand, or making policy to faciliate sharing the wealth of Thailand. And they would have no hesitation to remove anybody who gets in their way.

They are interested in one thing only, stealing the common wealth of Thailand , blatantly, and with zero conscience. Two examples, some folks now in UK, and the man now living in Cambodia.

Rightly or wrongly Sondhi and Chamlong, and there are other strong people in the PAD leadership group who are well respected by the balanced thinkers in Thailand, have attracted many Thais who have had enough of the curruption etc., and are trying to make a stand, warts and all, to try to get Thailand into a better picture. Also to bring to justice some thieves; 1) Because they have broken the law and should be punished, and 2). to set precedence to show others that the Thai courts have regained some ethics and credibility, and fair process.

The PAD followers are strongly principled people, why else would they brave the rain etc., etc., day after day. Are there some who don't really understand what they are involved in? Of course there will be, but I suggest this is a minority, and this sector are unlikely to stay long in the rain and whatever without strong & realistic principles driving them.

Again and again I read 'Samak leads a democratically elected government'. This goverment is not democratically elected. Their victory was totally bought. One of their leaders has recently been convicted of electoral fraud, and the Electoral Commission has recommended that the whole PPP party be disbanded. This will be the second time this party has been disbanded, surely that says something about the ethics and values of a very large number of the party members. The Electoral Commission wouldn't recommend disbandment if the evidence showed that the convicted one acted alone and in isolation of the party.

What's even worse, in fact despicable, is that the TRT, now PPP, totally manipulates the Essan masses. They take advantage of the Essan peoples lack of education and their naivity and their poverty. Many Essan people are in fact quite frightened of the manipulators. They wouldnt dare buck the directives given by the Kumnan (the appointed Village Headman - appointed by pressure from godfathers).

It's also sadly true that many of the nasty godfather manipulators are great strategists. They calculate the right time to arrive with a bag of rice, some phone cards, a large scale chinese banquet, etc. Don't underestimate the cleverness of these godfathers.

And please don't tell me that T gave a voice to Essan. He (and his wife) are the greatest strategists of all. Their strategy is in fact very simple, identify very large groups of people who you can easily and totally control.

The godfathers are not going to let go of their gravytrain without a big long battle, and the reality is that until the middle classes demand and fight for change, then nothing will change.

The same think has happend in almost every country in the world in it's path to real and balanced democracy. It's only 200 years ago, mabe less, that the same picture existed in England. How did it change - strong long term pressure from the middle classes who eventually rose up, gained courage and a voice.

It's also true that the middle class who get brave and strongly demand change will not be a perfect picture, there will be warts, and it will take a long time. We're seeing this starting to happen before our eyes, warts and all. PAD does in fact have a large group of followers who are educated, well infomed, and balanced people -PAD is not a group of brainless thugs.

S has admitted publically that he is a nominee, a puppet, of T. There are rumours that the man collects one billion Baht if the other man goes free and gets his funds back.

Surely nobody could honestly suggest that S is a good PM! On a scale of 10 he scores zero. His speeches, all of them, contain zero insight, strategy for the development of Thailand, zero strategy to take Thailand back to a peacefull happy productive and developing society. If he doesn't have a productive insightful answer he abuses the journalist. His main policy is 'massive & very expensive infrastructure projects'. Surely anybody can see why - create lots of bags of big money to get your fingers into.

The PAD has it's warts, however they do have the right, under the Thai law and well accepted international principles of democracy, to free speech, and to protest about what they see as wrong and to be a voice for change, and for justice.

Hope I can convince you.

[scorecard]

My 28 year old son has been to the PAD rally several times. He's a thinker and like to explore and analyse situations.

He's mentioned that every time he's been to the PAD rally hes (deliberately) asked who to talk to to to get the PAD payment for joining the protest.

He says that the answer every time is 'there is no pay', but there is free food, water, simple medicines, etc.

[think_too_mut]

Thailand

Worse than a coup

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit.

Well thought out and written summary of the current situation and the resolve that Thailand needs to find within itself.

I normally enjoy the Economist, but this is a bit of a strawman article, given that the Dems govt prior to Thaksin already had cheap healthcare, and all parties in the last election promised both cheap healthcare and credit.

It also of course fails to point out that both schemes were mired in corruption and totally non sustainable. It doesn't mention the miriad of rather undemocratic things that TRT/both the PPP coalition and the TRT governments engaged in - removing almost all checks and balances e.g. NCCC, NTC, influencing all non elected appointments, buying the supposedly non partisan senate, massive media intimidation.

And of course, it doesn't mention that PPP was NOT elected by the majority of voters; the current coalition indeed was elected by the majority.

If they held another election again, it is quite possible that PPP would not be able to form a coalition; after all theoretically there could have been a non PPP government had all smaller parties not joined with PPP, they did not have an absolute majority as this article would imply.

The Economist sees this as a PAD vs. elected majority argument. I think it is better to describe this as a PAD minority vs. PPP minority vs. the rest of us majority many of which who:

- don't like that the only major action from the PPP coalition to date has been to try to ammend laws to protect themselves from their own cheating endeavours in the last election, and to reinstate the former PM by manipulating a constitution that was voted for by the majority of Thais in the referendum held on that subject

- don't like that the PAD are trying to claim royal/popular backing and trying to eliminate true democratic process (incidentally one likely outcome of which would be the dissolution of PPP and other parties for many of their transgressions in the last election) with an unelected majority

- don't like that Samak has chosen to issue a state of emergency which was not required, and has proven that he does not know how to run a country

- don't like that both the PAD and the UDP/PPP are paying people now to form mobs (fact: several of my friends have been earning a nice income just by wandering around with the right coloured shirts)

- don't like that for the last 8 years we have had successive governments that have failed the electorate with non sustainable popularist policies rather than genuine attempts to create long term sustainable competitive advantage in industry, health, education and the well being of the Thai people and the Thai economy

- don't like that we have had almost the same rural political clans in power since 1992; factions that show no allegiance to any political ideology, but merely to maximising their own personal benefits and aligning themselves with the political powers that are willing to give them the largest skim

- don't like that known criminals and criminal families such as alleged drug dealer Watana Asavahame, alledged casino boss Chalerm Yoobumrung, alledged vote buyer and organiser of multiple riots Newin Chidchob have remained major political forces under successive governments and continue to be able to intimidate their electorates to continue voting for them with no effective check in balance since democratic process does not exist in their electorates with no serious oposition figure willing to stand against them

When the Economist starts becoming more Charlemagne and a little less Fox Channel, I might start reading anything they write about Thailand and stop laughing while doing so.

To buy a vote, it's 200B per head, upcountry.

All the parties do that. Someone just slipped out of grace to be pinpointed.

Before you sling at the Economist, just remember : Your country, Thailand, that's a mickey mouse democracy where it is possible.

[Johpa]

The point missed by the OP is that the problems being faced by the current Thai government are a direct result of the poor in Thailand having democratically elected a government that is (like it's predecessor TRK) poised to shift the balance of power in Thai society.

I disagree that it is the poor having elected a government that is then going to shift the power in Thai society, the poor will remain irrelevant in the halls of power. I agree with Handley that it is the various sub-groups within the elite that are, with or without the titular blessings of the poor, busy jockeying for a position of relative strength for when the balance of power will structurally change from within the elite, a change as inevitable as the rising of the sun in the eastern heavens.

As I have long, yet perhaps poorly, argued here on Thai Visa, but as Giles Ji Ungpakorn has been arguing far more effectively (example gratis) arguing in the print media, both sides of the current political conflict are but mirror images of each other. Both sides are striving for future legitimacy. One side is seeking legitimacy by attempting to woo the votes of the "poor" and their opponents are fighting back by wooing the nouveau middle classes while denigrating the poor as being uneducated. My own experience is that the "poor", even the rural "poor", have pretty much the same education as the Thai middle class with the only difference being little else than "there but for the grace of god go I". Of course there are more poor than there are middle class so the one side needs to argue that the "poor" need to have their voter share reduced. But neither side gives a whit about the poor nor the middle class, nor even the Farang (s)ex-pat crowd here other than how they can be exploited for personal financial gain.

[Slip]

Steve,

This post and your others are truely great posts. You are really good at explaining the true issues. My mother-in-law (and everyone else in the district) have voted like Sanoh have told them to for the past 20 year and will continue to do so forever. I think their vote is meaningless and that is not democracy.

TH

What he said- there is more insight in your two posts than in all the relentlessly circular PAD Threads on this board. This should be a sticky for any of us who even want to think about Thai politics.

[Plus]

I've read an interesting article by a former US pollster. If what she said is true, the picture there looks like this:

Power brokers are devoid of all ideology altogether, they run constant polls to determine popular opinions, and they run polls to determine which policies will be most suitable in the future, and they run sophisticated models to predict what kind of input they have to make to turn certain policies into winning ones, and they even match prospective candidates to "champion" these winning causes.

It's a intricate and expensive mechanism, and generally those who have more money are better at it - they collect better data, they run better estimates, they can attract better people to run and so on.

Every now and then someone like Barak Obama comes along and everyone goes "wow", but for each Barak there are hundreds if not thousands of faceless races that have been precalculated and successfully run according to the plan from start to the end.

Here in Thailand, Thaksin was perfect at this kind of manipulation, uncle Prachai, on the other hand, was a total failure.

People who have their own opinions and have genuine interest in contributing to the governance do not fit in this system at all, they screw all statistics with their enthusiasm and their principles and ideologies. Here in Thailand Thaksin managed to isolate and marginalise them - from ivory tower academics to grassroots political activists on the ground. PAD refuses to go away, but for the "democracy" to work, it needs to be crashed. Thankfully that's where "universal suffrage" comes in handy - activists will always be in the minority, and the minority cannot be allowed to impose their ideas on the majority. Put up or shut up.

Some people even cynically suggest that PAD should join the same corrupt game and borrow tons of money, write up a platform, pay to the candidates for their services, pay to the voters and so on.

People with money have figured out this "democracy", they perfected their vote farming methods, after all it's not that differen from selling mobile phones.

What will happen to it in the future? Big question, but one thing is certain - there are no absolute solutions in history, every system has it's heyday and every system eventually dies out. So will "democracy", I hope it will be replaced with something better, but judging by the way things are going, I'm kinda glad I won't be around to see the progress of this degradation.

>>>

Churchill died some fifty years ago, don't you have anything better to say in defence of "democracy"? So many different ideas have been tried since then, by now billions of people are convinced that Chinese got it right, for example.

[steveromagnino]

To buy a vote, it's 200B per head, upcountry.

All the parties do that. Someone just slipped out of grace to be pinpointed.

Before you sling at the Economist, just remember : Your country, Thailand, that's a mickey mouse democracy where it is possible.

Actually, in many areas no requirement to buy votes (e.g. the South, most of Bangkok) and in some areas, the kindness of people like the Chidchobs to alledgedly buy votes (kuen mah hao) is quite generous, since people would probably get executed if the vote went the wrong way.

I sling at the economist because in general they are quite accurate; however their unwillingness to see the mickey mouse democracy we have at the moment as truly mickey mouse is a bit frustrating because they cannot see the true situation of just how mickey mouse Samak is as PM and keep mouthing the untruths that the majority voted for him (they didn't) that as an elected official he has the right to do what he wants and the PAD are being undemocracitic in wanting him out (perhaps so but it certainly was not part of his elected right to summarily start attempting to change a consitution that the majority of the country voted for, and besides which it is quite likely that he no longer has even close to a sizeable chunk of the house now, he has lost almost every branch of government support left).

I am not sure who the Economist's reporter is out here, and have considered approaching them to lend a bit of a hand...but they seem like a lost cause at the moment. I know it isn't that they are getting paid out to do so; just their blinkers regarding how the world works.

They keep talking about how small and isolated the PAD is and how it represents the interests of this so called BKK Elite conspiracy tripe stuff that Duncan McCargo and the like might dream about, but at the end of the day they cannot answer why we now have so many people from all echelons of society willingly going along to support (I am not one of them) while the counter group are pretty much mostly employed thugs and people to make up the numbers; even pro PPP BKK Post was willing to write about that. Samak's use of the nuclear option of a state of emergency is uncalled for, I'll wait the next issue to see if they even mention it.

Mind you, I've seen the Economist write about sailing and NZ as well; both laughably inaccurate also; so they probably should just stick to Europe and USA business.

Plus - as you may know, I did some consulting work to a few politicians on both sides of the house; while polling is important, neither party has EVER had a philisophical platform as such to stand on; let's bear in mind that Samak began as a Democrat himself. Neither PPP nor TRT ever stood really for anything other than short term electoral promises (which I give credit to TRT they delivered in the first year).

[think_too_mut]

The PAD followers are strongly principled people, why else would they brave the rain etc., etc., day after day. Are there some who don't really understand what they are involved in? Of course there will be, but I suggest this is a minority, and this sector are unlikely to stay long in the rain and whatever without strong & realistic principles driving them.

Pretty much the planet does not understand what the so called "PAD" wants. Their ill concieved name is like DPR of Korea.

Elections? The PAD gang stands no chance. Nobody, other than a few thousand BKK elite would ever notice them.

That blunt man, Samak, gave them an gracefull exit - a referendum.

If that does not work, then we know the country of stray dogs and dump cities is - just that. A dump.

[steveromagnino]

The PAD followers are strongly principled people, why else would they brave the rain etc., etc., day after day. Are there some who don't really understand what they are involved in? Of course there will be, but I suggest this is a minority, and this sector are unlikely to stay long in the rain and whatever without strong & realistic principles driving them.

Pretty much the planet does not understand what the so called "PAD" wants. Their ill concieved name is like DPR of Korea.

Elections? The PAD gang stands no chance. Nobody, other than a few thousand BKK elite would ever notice them.

That blunt man, Samak, gave them an gracefull exit - a referendum.

If that does not work, then we know the country of stray dogs and dump cities is - just that. A dump.

I could not care less about what the planet thinks.

It is highly unlikely Samak can get reelected.

Why call a referendum and waste money? He played his hand (change the constitution, appoint his mates as cabinet, attempt to get megaprojects going, call a state of emergency) and right now he has no support from his own colleagues, his nominated leader is MIA, army and police won't back him, he has acheived sweet FA in 6+ months and he has no support from the civil service or most government workers who want to strike.

he is the only person wanting a referendum. ironic that he should try to fiddle the constitution that was voted for by the majority in a referendum (i.e. ignores it) but now he wants people to put their hands up - we all know he would lose, it is simply a question of time delay.

He clearly doesn't have the support of BKK despite being BKK governor in the past (actually that is how BKK people knew how bad he would be) and he NEVER had a majority in the country anyhow. PPP did not win a majority; actually they got a similar amount of the popular vote to the Dems and a minority in the house...from there they were able to buy the coalition partners needed to form a government. Not exactly rocket science. The coalition is still standing....but for how long?

So no. PAD doesn't need to a party. He has lost his mandate to rule. Stand down, and let's run another election; but any parties cheating in the last one need not apply and the politicians involved should be banned. Both sides of the house if needed.

Only Banharn or Chavalit could be worse than this guy.

As for your insults regarding Thailand, what a pity you think it is a dump. Based on your past commentary, I cannot say it really surprises me that you would resort to such clever wit.

[Spee]

Thailand

Worse than a coup

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit.

Well thought out and written summary of the current situation and the resolve that Thailand needs to find within itself.

I normally enjoy the Economist, but this is a bit of a strawman article, given that the Dems govt prior to Thaksin already had cheap healthcare, and all parties in the last election promised both cheap healthcare and credit.

It also of course fails to point out that both schemes were mired in corruption and totally non sustainable. It doesn't mention the miriad of rather undemocratic things that TRT/both the PPP coalition and the TRT governments engaged in - removing almost all checks and balances e.g. NCCC, NTC, influencing all non elected appointments, buying the supposedly non partisan senate, massive media intimidation.

And of course, it doesn't mention that PPP was NOT elected by the majority of voters; the current coalition indeed was elected by the majority.

I understand your opinions and the points you are trying to make, although I don't necessarily agree with all of them.

From my western perspective:

- A democracy must be allowed to evolve. All stable democracies are far from perfect, but they are evolutionary in nature. As someone once said, there are two ways to initiate change, evolution or revolution. PAD is trying to enforce change through revolution. This is wrong at the core.

- Democracy is about an elected government. PAD would prefer that a large part of the government be appointed. This too is wrong at the core.

- Democracy is about the right of all citizens to vote regardless of whether they choose to vote or not, whether they are educated or not, etc. PAD believes that some people should not have the right to vote, for whatever reason. This too is wrong at the core.

- Successful western democracies are successful because they have rules about separation of powers and systems of checks and balances. Thailand's democracy has none of these things and will continue to be unstable until such changes evolve into being. In this instance, I think there is plenty of blame to be spread around to all leadership.

- In successful western democracies, the military is completely subservient to a civilian commander-in-chief. This situation does not exist in Thailand and in addition to the point made above, is at the root cause of instability in Thailand's democracy.

- Core segments of the Thai economy are state run enterprises. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Governments should be in the business of governing, not in the business of running businesses. There is not a single instance in all of history where government has done a better job of running a business, than the business could do in the hands of private or public stockholders.

I don't think these things have anything to do with comparisons of Thailand being an Asian culture or the UK or US being western cultures. These are choices that peoples and governments have made over time and continue to make today. These are the choices made by the largest segments of the world economy.

While I don't agree with a lot of the way Japan operates, it is an Asian culture and it is probably the closest "hybrid" form of democracy between what one sees in the west and what one sees in a place like Thailand. Many state run enterprises are now divested into the private sector, although the government and private sector are more closely linked than in other countries. I think in some ways, Japan could be an evolutionary model for Thailand.

At the core, Thailand's issues are 100%, without a doubt, a power struggle amongst the few to the detriment of the many. It does not take courage to stand up front and fight for power. It only takes will and ego.

It does take courage to stand up for change through evolution rather than revolution, divestiture of the highly centralized power structure, and for a subservient military. It also takes courage to stand up for change through evolution without trying to also line one's pockets at the same time. It takes courage to put the values of society and country ahead of the values of one's self.

To date, there are few if any people or groups of people in Thailand with such courage. I for one, hope to see such people and groups emerge and become successful in my lifetime.

[PeaceBlondie]

Most modern revolutions - violent and non-violent, Communist, Nazi, otherwise - are started by the disenchanted members of the elite who have been excluded from running the show. Then they rouse the rabble to staff the barricades, and maybe feed them during the revolt. But it is usually small portions of the elite changing hands at the steering wheel and the feeding trough.

[Plus]

I just learned about Hong Kong, the beacon of democracy in Asia. Half of their legislature is selected, half elected. Seems to work a lot better than any other democracy in the region.

I'm sure fine folks at the Economist are aware of this, but they have been on the PAD bashing mission ever since they protested against Thaksin's corruption, they stood with that money laundering tax dodger through think and thin, they are not going to admit that "new politics" might actually strenghten Thai democracy to Hong Kong levels.

>>>>

PAD is not going to take away anybody's right to vote, where do people get that strange idea?

[citizen33]

I normally enjoy the Economist, but this is a bit of a strawman article, given that the Dems govt prior to Thaksin already had cheap healthcare, and all parties in the last election promised both cheap healthcare and credit.

It also of course fails to point out that both schemes were mired in corruption and totally non sustainable.

Really? What was this cheap healthcare provision? If you mean the 500 baht voluntary health care card, coverage was very limited and many millions of Thais still lacked health insurance. The SSS and the CSMBS were in place but did little to help the rural poor. If there was no break with the past in health policy in 2001, why was there so much heat about the issue at that time? The truth is that the Democrats, like all past governments, argued that universal coverage of health care was unaffordable. You seem to acknowledge as much when you call the UC policy unsustainable. You are wrong about that, just as your rewriting of history is wrong. The cross party support for low-cost health care at the time of the last election reflected the success and popularity of the UC policy. A lot of the problem now is that the urban elite is opposed to redistributive social policies that they perceive as costing them money without much personal benefit.

[mcombes]

On a side note of the current political debate/debacle, let's not forget that Thailand is not a democracy or a republic, and will never be either, but remains a monarchy. Granted, with a bit of military flavoring, à la South American countries. No idea if anybody here on TV feels the same, but many things in Thailand remind me so much of Mexico (minus the kidnappings and point blank robberies).

Specifically, my point is that Thailand is a country where a vast part of the population is poor, or impoverished, or uncultivated, or whatever. Yet some latest interesting Forbes ranking points to massive riches. In fact, such a gap between top down, it puts the vote/demonstration buying figures and other skims to the level of mere pocket change by comparison. Or brings Thailand to the level of some bananafrican countries.

Coming from a Western European country where people fought to abolish privileges some 200 years ago (even if, well, our former president is rumored to have stashed away quite a few on a bank account in Japan), I personally find such a gap absolutely unacceptable nowadays. Yet, people don't seem to mind... most likely, they're not aware.

[wintermute]

Specifically, my point is that Thailand is a country where a vast part of the population is poor, or impoverished, or uncultivated, or whatever. Yet some latest interesting Forbes ranking points to massive riches. In fact, such a gap between top down, it puts the vote/demonstration buying figures and other skims to the level of mere pocket change by comparison. Or brings Thailand to the level of some bananafrican countries.

The larger the wealth gap the more political instability. This is a salient point that is lost on much of Thailand's elite. They understand it but only from a very insular view of control. Thailand relies on mostly cultural factors to keep the people in check. They don't realize that if the people become poor and desperate enough then true upheaval will come to pass. Just look at countries like the Phillipines where they have serious political violence.

[Spee]

On a side note of the current political debate/debacle, let's not forget that Thailand is not a democracy or a republic, and will never be either, but remains a monarchy.

Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, which is a form of democratic goverment. The UK is also a constitutional monarchy, althought the form of democratic government is different. In comparison, the US is a constitutional republic with another form of democratic government.

No idea if anybody here on TV feels the same, but many things in Thailand remind me so much of Mexico (minus the kidnappings and point blank robberies).

Would you care to articulate? What things in Thailand are like Mexico?

Specifically, my point is that Thailand is a country where a vast part of the population is poor, or impoverished, or uncultivated, or whatever. Yet some latest interesting Forbes ranking points to massive riches. In fact, such a gap between top down, it puts the vote/demonstration buying figures and other skims to the level of mere pocket change by comparison. Or brings Thailand to the level of some bananafrican countries.

There is a huge difference between being poor and being impoverished. It's not a matter of "whatever." IMHO, to compare Thailand with "some bananaafrican countries" is a ludicrous conclusion. Would you care to articulate how you arrived at it? Which African countries is Thailand even remotely similar to?

[NanaFoods]

Methinks the OP was on some kind of hallucinogen - or simply off his rocker.

IMHO, the problem in Thailand boils down to priorities - who determines these priorities may be another debate. But, I think certain level of general population education is required for democracy to work with reasonable outcome. And not just any education either (I'm talking the sciences, logic, ethics, etc.) as is exampled by the "Palestinians" democratically electing a terrorist organization for government.

It seems education just isn't a high priority for most Thais - you can see temples, from basic to lavish, being built all over Thailand...constantly. How many schools do you see under construction?

From what I understand from my wife, these temples are primarily built with locally donated funds - suggesting the priority problem is down to a grass-roots level, not just a government phenomenon. She even complains, "Thailand has more than enough temples, why do the people not donate to building more schools or hiring more teachers?"

Indeed.

[steveromagnino]

Specifically, my point is that Thailand is a country where a vast part of the population is poor, or impoverished, or uncultivated, or whatever. Yet some latest interesting Forbes ranking points to massive riches. In fact, such a gap between top down, it puts the vote/demonstration buying figures and other skims to the level of mere pocket change by comparison. Or brings Thailand to the level of some bananafrican countries.

The larger the wealth gap the more political instability. This is a salient point that is lost on much of Thailand's elite. They understand it but only from a very insular view of control. Thailand relies on mostly cultural factors to keep the people in check. They don't realize that if the people become poor and desperate enough then true upheaval will come to pass. Just look at countries like the Phillipines where they have serious political violence.

Indeed.

Actually, the wealth gap measured in terms of the GINI coefficient or Lorenz curve is a spitting image of USA; very similar pattern of wealth distribution.

I am willing to bet big money that if you actually had accurate data, that the wealth distribution became MORE distorted during the TRT years than most other elected Thai governments. Certainly their policies massively increased their own personal wealth at the long tail end of the wealth curve.

The Shinwatra family alone increased their net value within I think it was 2005 by 3X. If you add in the CP group, TCC, etc etc and then couple that with the wealth reducing impact of legalising the lottery, micro credit etc I think you will find that yes the poor actually advanced slightly, but the bulk of the good years from 2003 - 2005 accrued to a few specific very affluent families. A fairly decent amount also went to a few larger companies in specific industries e.g. property.

If pushed you would have to ask the cabinet and supporting companies as they were the largest recipients of mega project money and government subsidies, whether in the form of FTAs, trade negotiations or chicken for planes type deals.

As for universal healthcare, yes I was referring to the 500b voluntary card scheme which then incurred 72b cost per visit and as I understand had a number of cards given away for free to the most needy; and although very poorly communicated and implemented, it would have been better to use this scheme as the basis of sustainable healthcare rather than the 30b scheme which was designed to allow more people (even those with cash) to get 30b healthcare at a point that it became impossible to subsidise long term (I think that basically every Thai person is eligible, hel_l a lot of my look krueng friends have the card and they didn't even have a Thai passport); flight of medical personel to private hospitals coincidentally now owned by mostly TRT families; significant volume of drug sales by specific distributors, alledgedly the then minister of health's family; and perhaps importantly; the fact that people had to accept substandard care at selected hospitals and often to pay bribes so that the doctors would actually do the work. I had to pay a 3,000b 'payment' for an appendix out of the daughter of a maid. So....not exactly 30b healthcare.

The reason all parties now offer this as standard with different flavours is exactly my whole point; there are no political ideologies, the Dems and PPP have almost the same policies about everything and if they formed a government (since both are equally supported currently by about 14m voters in the popular vote) they have to make deals with the same people so effectively the only real difference is that PPP wants to change the constitution and get Thaksin off by declaring the courts illegal whereas the Dems don't.

The annoying thing for anyone who actually pays tax is the universal healthcare schemes and system of govt we see now is actually not helping the poor much at all; and a HUGE amount of the cost is skim by layers and layers of inept management and actual corruption.

Here's hoping one day we get a government that is actually decent. (i.e.....me).

Edited September 9, 2008 by steveromagnino

[thaihome]

I understand your opinions and the points you are trying to make, although I don't necessarily agree with all of them.

From my western perspective:

- A democracy must be allowed to evolve. All stable democracies are far from perfect, but they are evolutionary in nature. As someone once said, there are two ways to initiate change, evolution or revolution. PAD is trying to enforce change through revolution. This is wrong at the core.

- Democracy is about an elected government. PAD would prefer that a large part of the government be appointed. This too is wrong at the core.

- Democracy is about the right of all citizens to vote regardless of whether they choose to vote or not, whether they are educated or not, etc. PAD believes that some people should not have the right to vote, for whatever reason. This too is wrong at the core.

- Successful western democracies are successful because they have rules about separation of powers and systems of checks and balances. Thailand's democracy has none of these things and will continue to be unstable until such changes evolve into being. In this instance, I think there is plenty of blame to be spread around to all leadership.

- In successful western democracies, the military is completely subservient to a civilian commander-in-chief. This situation does not exist in Thailand and in addition to the point made above, is at the root cause of instability in Thailand's democracy.

- Core segments of the Thai economy are state run enterprises. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Governments should be in the business of governing, not in the business of running businesses. There is not a single instance in all of history where government has done a better job of running a business, than the business could do in the hands of private or public stockholders.

I don't think these things have anything to do with comparisons of Thailand being an Asian culture or the UK or US being western cultures. These are choices that peoples and governments have made over time and continue to make today. These are the choices made by the largest segments of the world economy.

While I don't agree with a lot of the way Japan operates, it is an Asian culture and it is probably the closest "hybrid" form of democracy between what one sees in the west and what one sees in a place like Thailand. Many state run enterprises are now divested into the private sector, although the government and private sector are more closely linked than in other countries. I think in some ways, Japan could be an evolutionary model for Thailand.

At the core, Thailand's issues are 100%, without a doubt, a power struggle amongst the few to the detriment of the many. It does not take courage to stand up front and fight for power. It only takes will and ego.

It does take courage to stand up for change through evolution rather than revolution, divestiture of the highly centralized power structure, and for a subservient military. It also takes courage to stand up for change through evolution without trying to also line one's pockets at the same time. It takes courage to put the values of society and country ahead of the values of one's self.

To date, there are few if any people or groups of people in Thailand with such courage. I for one, hope to see such people and groups emerge and become successful in my lifetime.

Historically, most western democracies were founded by the elite and originally contained provisions that made sure they stayed in control. Over time, these controls were relaxed through various means.

In the US, this was done by originally only having white landowners be able to vote (maybe 15% of the population at the time). In fact, it was only in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act that the last barriers to poor people being able to vote were fully eliminated in the US. US Senators were originally selected by state legislatures, and the electoral college that actually elects the president, originally had all electors selected by the state legislature.

I don't claim much knowlegde of English history, but didn't the House of Lords have much more power in the past?

Thailand should be allowed to evolve into it's own form of democracy at it own pace. The PAD plan for appointed members of parliament should not be so readily dismissed, as this is an attempt to take the control away from people like Sanoh and put it in the hands of people who [might] have the greater good in mind

TH

[citizen33]

As for universal healthcare, yes I was referring to the 500b voluntary card scheme which then incurred 72b cost per visit and as I understand had a number of cards given away for free to the most needy; and although very poorly communicated and implemented, it would have been better to use this scheme as the basis of sustainable healthcare rather than the 30b scheme which was designed to allow more people (even those with cash) to get 30b healthcare at a point that it became impossible to subsidise long term (I think that basically every Thai person is eligible, hel_l a lot of my look krueng friends have the card and they didn't even have a Thai passport); flight of medical personel to private hospitals coincidentally now owned by mostly TRT families; significant volume of drug sales by specific distributors, alledgedly the then minister of health's family; and perhaps importantly; the fact that people had to accept substandard care at selected hospitals and often to pay bribes so that the doctors would actually do the work. I had to pay a 3,000b 'payment' for an appendix out of the daughter of a maid. So....not exactly 30b healthcare.

The reason all parties now offer this as standard with different flavours is exactly my whole point; there are no political ideologies, the Dems and PPP have almost the same policies about everything and if they formed a government (since both are equally supported currently by about 14m voters in the popular vote) they have to make deals with the same people so effectively the only real difference is that PPP wants to change the constitution and get Thaksin off by declaring the courts illegal whereas the Dems don't.

The annoying thing for anyone who actually pays tax is the universal healthcare schemes and system of govt we see now is actually not helping the poor much at all; and a HUGE amount of the cost is skim by layers and layers of inept management and actual corruption.

Here's hoping one day we get a government that is actually decent. (i.e.....me).

Wouldn't it be better if you did a bit of basic research before posting things that are not correct? There was no free card under the voluntary health card scheme, and - as mentioned before - the proportion of the population using the scheme was small. What there was was a separate means-tested, discretionary assistance programme for the very poor, but this left millions with no proper health care cover. People don't generally use the term the 30 baht project now when they describe the new programme. The 30 baht co-payment was abolished in late 2006 and that scheme is now known as the UC scheme. As the name implies, this attempts to extend free health care to the whole population, by covering anybody with a valid house registration who is not covered by another scheme (i.e. SSS or CSMBS). You cannot have it both ways by saying that the scheme adds nothing and at the same time that it is unsustainable because it is too expensive. Research shows that the group which has gained most (as shown by ultilization) is the poorer section of the population which previously had no coverage. The stories about abuse that you tell may have happened but break the rules. The latest research shows that the problem of hospital cash crises is diminishing and steps are being taken to ensure that the money for the rural heath centres/PCUs is actually passed on by the community hospitals (another problem in the early days). It is now becoming clear that the cost of the shift to UC has been quite modest by international standards (contrary to what the Democrats and others said before 2001), and as you say all the parties are now jumping on the bandwagon. It is not clear how the Government could have built on the previous means-tested scheme in the way you suggest because reform of coverage had to be accompanied by a bigger reform in the financing mechanism - from block grants to a system of capitation-based funding with hospital care reimbursed mainly via DRGs. Keeping block grants for an expanded scheme would have been a recipe for inertia and money disappearing.

[steveromagnino]

(my post).....and as I understand had a number of cards given away for free to the most needy; and although very poorly communicated and implemented, it would have been better to use this scheme as the basis of sustainable healthcare rather than the 30b scheme which was designed to allow more people (even those with cash) to get 30b healthcare at a point that it became impossible to subsidise long term.....

(your posts)

Wouldn't it be better if you did a bit of basic research before posting things that are not correct? There was no free card under the voluntary health card scheme, and - as mentioned before - the proportion of the population using the scheme was small.

What there was was a separate means-tested, discretionary assistance programme for the very poor, but this left millions with no proper health care cover.

People don't generally use the term the 30 baht project now when they describe the new programme.

I stand corrected; my information came direct from one of the administrators that implemented the Democrat healthcare scheme and I may have confused the intention with the actual work conducted. There certainly were some free cards however, as I know of at least a few people who had them; perhaps freebies for publicity, who knows.

'If there was no break with the past in health policy in 2001, why was there so much heat about the issue at that time?'

You say yourself 2001....back in 2001 TRT were elected on a platform of 30b healthcare and yes, the changes to the system and renaming it prove my argument....30b healthcare as it was implemented by TRT was probably not sustainable in that form. I am talking about 2001.

The program in place now is NOT a TRT initative, it was created from the ashes of 30b healthcare program which like most TRT initiatives were removed in 2006.

As for having it both ways with regards to the 30b scheme (not the scheme in place now), yes it was too expensive for the country and yes i was a poorly thought out system with a lot of room for milking cash out of it that failed to provide true quality healthcare for 30b to the people who needed. Both the being too expensive and the lousy levels of service have been (apparently) improved with the next iteration since introduced.

If we want to talk about the miracle of 2001 healthcare reform, then we should probably not use the existing system in 2008 to justify it. As you say yourself 'The 30 baht co-payment was abolished in late 2006 and that scheme is now known as the UC scheme'

As for whether the current system is sustainable.....why on earth does the entire population need free healthcare??! It is simply another vote buy using tax payer money. The people earning 200b a day, yes they need free healthcare. But someone who earns 10k or 20k a month????

But that's speaking as a tax payer :-) And no, I don't earn 20,000b a month! Subsidised sure, but free?

The only way forward long term for many of these things is means testing; but I think we are now getting into actual philosophy of running a country.

Suffice to say every party now accepts that you have to give away healthcare to be elected, and none have a policy with regards to free market/social welfare that differs to any other party significantly.

If we are to discuss in more detail, then I am sure it would help many that you explain more fully the actual system of funding involved that made the 2001 scheme function and the differences to the 2006 scheme. Actually, I did see the TOR or RFP for the IT system of the healthcare system back in, must have been 2001 or 2002. Not being so familiar with IT TORs or RFPs (can't remember which ) I do recall thinking it was pretty light on detail compared to speccing a billing system for an energy company or the few projects of that sort I had been involved with in the past.

As for the true cost, if it is anything like the economic studies of micro credit and the impact of 1m baht village fund etc etc; let's face it, the data doesn't exist for that and what is around certainly is not conclusive one way or the other; if you have more detail on healthcare reform, then some references and articles would be most useful :-)

Edited September 9, 2008 by steveromagnino

[Plus]

What West can learn from Thai experience is that you can fool enough people all the time to stay in power forever, barring military coups that are not a threat in the West.

If American Republican party concentrates on its support base, McCain will give them four more years in power. To hel_l with liberals and Democrats and gays and the rest of that liberal scum.

It is very doable even after disaster of Bush eight year rule.