A (potential) Political Solution

[thaigene2]

OK - it's just my humble suggestion..so flame away at it, pick it apart, whatever..

I am asking you to put aside the emotive issue of Thaksin for a moment (just for a moment ok?)

My Theory:

I am of the view that Thaksin and his populist policies have shaken the elite/fuedalist old-rich families, call them what you like -- right to their core. But it wasn't Thaksin or corruption that scared them - it was one-person-one-vote - an awakeing majority. And that's why we're seeing the 'untouchable' minority getting away with their occupation of Governments House etc. These rich people who run this closed-shop country (I don't know how many - 1,000 families? Just a guess) are terrified that populist one-person-one-vote politics will be their doom, if not this year then next, or the year after. They PAD demonstrators are their proxies - and Thaksin is the easy target given his obvious excesses.

So since we see that the Sakdinas can command the military and the other established elements in the country to ignore the wishes of the majority, and since they are threatening to bring democracy to an end, there clearly needs to be a compromise between the Sakdina and Democracy to avoid the unthinkable.

My suggestion, as unworkable as you may think..

A British style bi-cameral Parliament. This means abolishing the Senate but continuing one-person-one-vote lower house (as there is now). The Senate is replaced with a British-style House of Lords, House of Sakdina, whatever you want to call it, appointed by a combination of Government recommendations to the Palace and Privy Council recommendations. Maybe 50/50? 70/30? 30/70?

In this theory, and as in the UK, the House of Lords does not have the power to bring down an elected Govt, but they can make it difficult for a tainted parliament to pass laws - send them back for another go, etc.

This is the logical and noble way forward. It allows the aristocrats to maintain their place in society (as was the compromise reached in Britain all those years ago) whilst allowing the majority of voters (the Commoners) to decide who Governs their country.

It's a compromise. Better than one side winning over the other..

Edited September 22, 2008 by thaigene2

[Monroe]

I'd like to see a Thaksin-Samak vs Sondhi-Sondthi match up:

Bare-knuckle

Broadcast live from Siam Paragon

Winner takes all

Any bets?

[JohnBanPrang]

Good thinking!!

But don't tell me, you will ever lift a stone???

For the name of a free Thailand!!

ONE FLAG, ONE NATION!!

My son take care of that for you!!!

Cause he Thai!!!!!!

I farang!!!

[jdinasia]

OK - it's just my humble suggestion..so flame away at it, pick it apart, whatever..

I am asking you to put aside the emotive issue of Thaksin for a moment (just for a moment ok?)

My Theory:

I am of the view that Thaksin and his populist policies have shaken the elite/fuedalist old-rich families, call them what you like -- right to their core. But it wasn't Thaksin or corruption that scared them - it was one-person-one-vote - an awakeing majority. And that's why we're seeing the 'untouchable' minority getting away with their occupation of Governments House etc. These rich people who run this closed-shop country (I don't know how many - 1,000 families? Just a guess) are terrified that populist one-person-one-vote politics will be their doom, if not this year then next, or the year after. They PAD demonstrators are their proxies - and Thaksin is the easy target given his obvious excesses.

So since we see that the Sakdinas can command the military and the other established elements in the country to ignore the wishes of the majority, and since they are threatening to bring democracy to an end, there clearly needs to be a compromise between the Sakdina and Democracy to avoid the unthinkable.

My suggestion, as unworkable as you may think..

A British style bi-cameral Parliament. This means abolishing the Senate but continuing one-person-one-vote lower house (as there is now). The Senate is replaced with a British-style House of Lords, House of Sakdina, whatever you want to call it, appointed by a combination of Government recommendations to the Palace and Privy Council recommendations. Maybe 50/50? 70/30? 30/70?

In this theory, and as in the UK, the House of Lords does not have the power to bring down an elected Govt, but they can make it difficult for a tainted parliament to pass laws - send them back for another go, etc.

This is the logical and noble way forward. It allows the aristocrats to maintain their place in society (as was the compromise reached in Britain all those years ago) whilst allowing the majority of voters (the Commoners) to decide who Governs their country.

It's a compromise. Better than one side winning over the other..

Just saw this and thought it was a hoot considering the OP's other political stances!

[geriatrickid]

Not such a bad idea and certainly more constructive than the usual grunts from some of Thaksin bad, PAD bad, Farang bad blah blah blah.

The major issue with an unelected Senate as demonstrated by Canada is that it becomes a place for cronies, hacks and party retirees. It becomes a lightening rod for discontent. No doubt the Senate idea might be beneficial as the Canadian Senate has been at times but it being Thailand, I doubt it will do any good.

[Scott]

The idea is good. I don't know enough about the realities of the situation to know if it would work. I don't know if anyone is willing to compromise. Personally, I prefer to see a full-fledged democracy, but in the end it's up to the Thai people to decide what they want and what is best for the whole country.

[Heng]

It's not unlike what they are already suggesting (they want a 70-30 split of control as it is... which any good CEO will tell you isn't so different from complete control), just calling it by nicer names. Two houses, sure? As long as your house only gets sticky rice, fried chicken (no waffles), and som tam, and our house gets the usual wasteful but delicious buffet that we are used to...

[Andrew Hicks]

The idea is good. I don't know enough about the realities of the situation to know if it would work. I don't know if anyone is willing to compromise. Personally, I prefer to see a full-fledged democracy, but in the end it's up to the Thai people to decide what they want and what is best for the whole country.

How would it be possible ever to negotiate the extent of the powers given to the upper house? That would be a battle royal.

Remember that the present constitution was proposed by the interim military government and approved by referendum. A new constitution replacing it should logically also be approved by referendum.

Why would the ordinary voter give away too much to the upper house vested power interests?

I find it difficult to see a way out.

[GENeIsUS]

Nice thought, but in my opinon, It won't play.

One of the reasons for Thaksins troubles is he only took 80% of the available corruption money. The other 20% went back to the people. The Sakdinas/other politicians want the whole 100%. Thus the problem as it stands today. The poor people now understand they should get some back instead of just getting the back of the hand. He also took money out of the mouths of the druq runners, underground lottery, and doctors clinics around the country, which I believe is where the backing for the PAD is coming from.

[citizen33]

Nice thought, but in my opinon, It won't play.

One of the reasons for Thaksins troubles is he only took 80% of the available corruption money. The other 20% went back to the people. The Sakdinas/other politicians want the whole 100%. Thus the problem as it stands today. The poor people now understand they should get some back instead of just getting the back of the hand. He also took money out of the mouths of the druq runners, underground lottery, and doctors clinics around the country, which I believe is where the backing for the PAD is coming from.

Agree with the underlying analysis but don't think the proposed solution will work, nice idea though it is. Where power is at stake it takes a lot to get people to compromise. That is why revolutions happen. My guess would be that in the short run the traditional interest groups come out on top, but that time, economics, global pressures and the transition from one generation to another (especially at the top of the elite) will eventually result in something closer to a Western democracy and a Western constitutional monarchy.

[steveromagnino]

Nice thought, but in my opinon, It won't play.

One of the reasons for Thaksins troubles is he only took 80% of the available corruption money. The other 20% went back to the people. The Sakdinas/other politicians want the whole 100%. Thus the problem as it stands today. The poor people now understand they should get some back instead of just getting the back of the hand. He also took money out of the mouths of the druq runners, underground lottery, and doctors clinics around the country, which I believe is where the backing for the PAD is coming from.

IMHO the level of corruption in the TRT administration was not only larger in percentage terms, but the budgets and mega projects plus rate of change in law was far higher, so it was a higher percentage of a larger pie.

The OP suggestion is not really going to work because it doesn't address the fact that the poor are voting for the same people as always under TRT or the governments before it.

Until the jao por regional strongmen are out of the system, then we are stuck with the 'democracy' we have now.

With the upper house system, we add on a ton of cost, and there is still no MP representing the common farmer, and getting that farmer sustainable healthcare (not the 30b system which every medical professional, former minister of health and hospital tells me is non sustainable despite what one poster here says and which doesn't cost 30b anyway as you need to pay more for many operations anyhow) ; decent education; decent infrastructure; transparent markets and a better life - you just have the freebies that don't create sustainable value.

So, it is better to persavere with the existing system and hope it improves; it isn't anything to do with the poor people are one person one vote; and everything to do with decent MPs. If they keep chucking out the boneheads like Yongyuth etc then eventually all the crooks will be barred and we may have a shot of getting some decent MPs to represent the rural poor; there are certainly enough representing business these days, some are even almost ok.

[Plus]

...abolishing the Senate but continuing one-person-one-vote lower house (as there is now). The Senate is replaced with a British-style House of Lords, House of Sakdina...

What makes the OP think that the current Lower House is not a House of Sakdina already? Or rather a more perverted version of it. Than we would have Upper and Lower Sakdina.

If "new politics" with manadorty representation of farmers/taxi drivers/handicapped etc is not to the OP's taste, then perhaps mandatory decentralisation and separate elections for local bodies and national House would do the trick. That way the majority of MPs would have a real go at the governing instead of legislating they all hate, and national politics will be decided on the basis of ideology, overall cridibility, and concrete policies.

Also some sort of transoparent process for appointment of the government members is absolutely necessary.

[sylviex]

Two houses, sure? As long as your house only gets sticky rice, fried chicken (no waffles), and som tam, and our house gets the usual wasteful but delicious buffet that we are used to...

Yes. Like the others, I think it's a good idea, but ...

The crux of it is that values have to change. The cause of Thailand's problems is deeply rooted in cultural attitudes and values, I think. Elitism, hierarchies, face, tolerance of "untruths" ... a very potent combination that allows the status quo to exist and continue.

Can ordinary Thais eventully become so angry that they will not only demand change in the system but see the need for change in themselves, if a new system is to work ?

(This is why the dispute we had in the News Clippings section over the ethics of the doctors' announcement of refusal to treat police or members of the government does matter, I think. Please don't derail the thread by reviving that particular issue here, though. My point is a general one.)

Edited October 13, 2008 by sylviex

[Plus]

The crux of it is that values have to change. The cause of Thailand's problems is deeply rooted in cultural attitudes and values, I think. Elitism, hierarchies, face, tolerance of "untruths" ... a very potent combination that allows the status quo to exist and continue.

Jakrapob was talking about replacing the old patronage system with TRT, but the values they offered instead were so terribly low that no one took Jakrapob seriously. Thaksinocracy practically emodied everything wrong that exists in Thai society and perfected it to absurdity, and cleaned it of any trace of guilt or shame.

Besides, blank rejection of traditional Thai values is implausible, no one would go for it. What they need is a vigorous weeding process.

[sylviex]

Besides, blank rejection of traditional Thai values is implausible, no one would go for it.

Agree -- does not seem possible.

What they need is a vigorous weeding process.

So, how would/could this take place ?

[citizen33]

Nice thought, but in my opinon, It won't play.

One of the reasons for Thaksins troubles is he only took 80% of the available corruption money. The other 20% went back to the people. The Sakdinas/other politicians want the whole 100%. Thus the problem as it stands today. The poor people now understand they should get some back instead of just getting the back of the hand. He also took money out of the mouths of the druq runners, underground lottery, and doctors clinics around the country, which I believe is where the backing for the PAD is coming from.

IMHO the level of corruption in the TRT administration was not only larger in percentage terms, but the budgets and mega projects plus rate of change in law was far higher, so it was a higher percentage of a larger pie.

The OP suggestion is not really going to work because it doesn't address the fact that the poor are voting for the same people as always under TRT or the governments before it.

Until the jao por regional strongmen are out of the system, then we are stuck with the 'democracy' we have now.

With the upper house system, we add on a ton of cost, and there is still no MP representing the common farmer, and getting that farmer sustainable healthcare (not the 30b system which every medical professional, former minister of health and hospital tells me is non sustainable despite what one poster here says and which doesn't cost 30b anyway as you need to pay more for many operations anyhow) ; decent education; decent infrastructure; transparent markets and a better life - you just have the freebies that don't create sustainable value.

So, it is better to persavere with the existing system and hope it improves; it isn't anything to do with the poor people are one person one vote; and everything to do with decent MPs. If they keep chucking out the boneheads like Yongyuth etc then eventually all the crooks will be barred and we may have a shot of getting some decent MPs to represent the rural poor; there are certainly enough representing business these days, some are even almost ok.

Didn't spend the time the other week to do that extra reading did you? It doesn't even seem to have sunk in yet that the 30 baht co-payment was phased out nearly two years ago and was in any case never the mechanism through which the cost of operations was reimbursed. Take a look in this link and then have a look at the academic literature.

http://www.nhso.go.th/NHSOFront/FrontWebIndexAction.do

I think the technical term for your condition may be perseveration

[Plus]

What they need is a vigorous weeding process.

So, how would/could this take place ?

I'm afraid it's down to government propaganda. There's no better way reach the masses.

Now, there's a problem with Thaksin and co - they've been telling people that it's ok to be corrupt as long as you hold your end of the bargain. Democrats and academics have warned about it long long time ago, no one listened. Now it's become a deeply entrenched thinking.

I have not idea, really, about re-educating people who think that everyone steals, it's perfectly ok, Bangkokians shouldn't protest against Thaksin's corruption, and so on.

One thing that would help is getting the facts straight - because corruption has its costs even for the farmers, but Thaksin sucessfully managed to convince his supporters that everybody else in this country is their enemy, they won't trust any other source that Thaksin himself.

Coming out of this hypnosis will take time.

[jdinasia]

The whole concept of using sakdina (a fluid caste system) as a title for the elite strikes me as a bit odd. All people HAD a place in that system and it was in fact fluid. However, to think that anything the Thaksin regime did was having any changes to the dregs of that system that still exist in Thailand is just plain silly. Thaksin's people reinforced the remnants of that system by using/increasing the strength of it in rural Thailand using vote-buying etc through the existing remnants of that system.

Give the local political machine money to ensure that the locals vote the way they are told etc. Limit political education by controlling the free press as much as possible. etc etc etc etc All served to keep the status quo in the local scene.

[sylviex]

I'm afraid it's down to government propaganda. There's no better way reach the masses.

Yes, or perhaps a Mao (though I find it hard to imagine one emerging here).

Better education has to help (but is, of course, not in the interests of the power groups).

One might think that the internet & greatly increased contact with the rest of the world would be bringing changes, but if it is, it's very slowly.

(I believe I read that most internet use in China is to play games -- and they are a knowledge-thirsty lot, constantly reading newspapers. Perhaps they just trust words on paper more, but it astounded me that once that door was open, it was rather ignored by many. And perhaps the lot in life of many Chinese has improved sufficiently to not care so much any more. But again, there's the "Middle Kingdom" mentality that Thailand shares.

What cultural differences distinguish China from Thailand ? China dealt with all this some decades ago -- not always prettily, of course, but I believe they have shown massive change is possible.

[jdinasia]

google: internet censorship china

[sylviex]

google: internet censorship china

jd, do you think I don't know about that ?

I do know that, as imperfect as conditions in China may be, the average citizen no longer regards him/herself as a serf.

P.S. You can read anything you want to from China by using a proxy.

Edited October 13, 2008 by sylviex

[citizen33]

The whole concept of using sakdina (a fluid caste system) as a title for the elite strikes me as a bit odd. All people HAD a place in that system and it was in fact fluid.

Deep waters here, which probably only the historian or Thai culture specialist fully understands. I thought this concept came back into currency as a result of the efforts of M.R. Kukrit to articulate the idea of ‘Thai-style governance’ in the 1950s. A related idea from Kukrit is “na haeng sakdhi” - the property of prestige or - as I interpret this - ascribed rather than achieved social status. This was certainly partly about hierarchy and ‘knowing your place’. At face value it represents the opposite of social mobility or ‘fluidity’. Where does the link between the term 'Sakdhina' and 'fluidity' come from? I cannot see this but do not pretend to be an expert here. Of course, we cannot mention the related issue proscribed by board rules but crucially important to understanding the present situation.

Here’s an interesting link that discusses Kukrit's ideas:

http://www.fringer.org/wp-content/writings/thainess-eng.pdf

[steveromagnino]

Didn't spend the time the other week to do that extra reading did you? It doesn't even seem to have sunk in yet that the 30 baht co-payment was phased out nearly two years ago and was in any case never the mechanism through which the cost of operations was reimbursed. Take a look in this link and then have a look at the academic literature.

http://www.nhso.go.th/NHSOFront/FrontWebIndexAction.do

I think the technical term for your condition may be perseveration

I am too stupid to know what perseveration is. I am too stupid.

My point is that the 30b never did cover the cost of the healthcare provided; despite your kindness in giving articles, I still struggle to see how it was anything other than a new way to pour money down the toilet in a social welfare program. It is dead now, and a classic example of a bribe for the poor paid by the tax payer, which is how it is funded - government budget and we all know where that money comes from.

I believe in user pays for the most part with social welfare reserved solely for those who genuinely cannot afford something, so I never understood the concept of giving away virtually free healthcare to people who could afford to pay; much of the coverage went (according to at least one of the reports I've bothered to read) to quartiles not right at the bottom end of society. And in terms of believing, well neither did many of the doctors, which is why someone wanting an appendix out had to also pay 7,000b on top to cover the true cost of the work - I had to fund an appendix for one of the staff at the rubber plantation we own. In other words, it wasn't really 30b ever.

For instance, let's compare 2000 to 2005 for Thailand; thanks to the new program of that TRT era (since dead, yes we know):

Per capita government expenditure on health(PPP int. $) ? 127.0 207.0

Total expenditure on health as percentage of gross domestic product ? 3.4% 3.5%

Private expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 43.9% 36.1%

In other words, as i understand, the amount being spent on healthcare increased, while the amount being paid for by non government dropped like a frigging stone from 43.9% to 36.1% - i.e. someone (the government) started ramping up the amount of funding for healthcare and as a result the amount being paid for by individuals proportionately dropped.

All data readily available from www.who.int.

Or perhaps you want a quote:

'as long as [universal coverage] depends on general revenue financing, it will remain vulnerable to budgetary competition and political manipulation rather than evidence on utilisation and cost of services...'

Taweesri Greetong, NHSO 2007

with a ton of scenarios calculated to provide something even close to universal coverage at a similar % of GDP as per the defunct 30b scheme.....didn't look too sustainable to this person as it stands now.

Or maybe a pretty picture; see attached.

Happily the program is indeed dead. Like many other TRT initiatives.

Some people seem to believe the public purse funds something, that therefore it is sustainable. On that basis, maybe 0% tax, free education for all and debt forgiveness are all perfect solutions for the rural poor ;-)

But maybe with enough abbreviated names and layers of admin, we can cover up the very real fact that a increasing chunk of government budget (excluding all the soft money that was never accounted for) went to fund it.

I admit that I am not a healthcare professional, I have never consulted to TRT on anything to do with healthcare. I might be too stupid but the information you've provided seems to merely show a new way for the money to pass from state to individual; I consider that to be mostly irrelevant and prefer to look at the total amount of cash no matter how disguised, that tax payers fund the schemes for.

The blue line don't lie; it jumped up and the personal line goes down. Stats is stats. And so for me....any political party that launches iniatiatives like this is on the wrong track if they take it as far as that.

Great concept. Lousy execution. Dead now. Good job.

Edited October 13, 2008 by steveromagnino

[citizen33]

And....I am too stupid.

Well errm... you may very well think that but I couldn't possibly comment You don't seem to have grasped that the health care system still in place is essentially still the 2001 scheme (which TRT picked up but was largely devised by planners in the MoPH). The co-payment has gone but pretty much everything else is progressing on track and roughly in line with the Act. It is perfectly possible to construct an argument about the unsustainability of taxed-based funding for UC in a lower-middlle income country, but you seem incapable of doing so without putting your foot in your mouth every third sentence - i.e. getting basic facts about the system wrong. Who are the ex-MoPH Ministers who now criticize the scheme? Surapong Suebwonglee, the one driving the reforms early on, or Mongkol Na Songkhla, a staunch supporter? I don't think so. Actually the latest research findings are quite positive for the UC scheme. Hospital deficits are down; it is reported that there is little evidence of an increase in under-the-table payments, and analysis of utilisation patterns indicates that people not previously covered by an insurance scheme have been the main beneficiaries (i.e. poorer people). The kind of aggregate data you quote above will just elicit a wry smile from anybody who knows this sector. Hint, re private/public breakdown, look at the trends in the private health care sector following the 1997 crash. Still I don't claim to know anything about the economics of rubber production!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseveration

[Ricardo]

Interesting OP ! Although I don't believe it works terribly well in my native UK.

The OP suggestion is not really going to work because it doesn't address the fact that the poor are voting for the same people as always under TRT or the governments before it.

Until the jao por regional strongmen are out of the system, then we are stuck with the 'democracy' we have now.

With the upper house system, we add on a ton of cost, and there is still no MP representing the common farmer, and getting that farmer sustainable healthcare (not the 30b system which every medical professional, former minister of health and hospital tells me is non sustainable despite what one poster here says and which doesn't cost 30b anyway as you need to pay more for many operations anyhow) ; decent education; decent infrastructure; transparent markets and a better life - you just have the freebies that don't create sustainable value.

So, it is better to persavere with the existing system and hope it improves; it isn't anything to do with the poor people are one person one vote; and everything to do with decent MPs. If they keep chucking out the boneheads like Yongyuth etc then eventually all the crooks will be barred and we may have a shot of getting some decent MPs to represent the rural poor; there are certainly enough representing business these days, some are even almost ok.

The older controlling-elite are running all parties & factions at present.

So perhaps the elected lower-house would have a maximum age-limit of say 50, and all the old dinosaurs should be retired to face-saving well-paid sinecures, in the upper-house, where they can do less damage ?

[steveromagnino]

Who are the ex-MoPH Ministers who now criticize the scheme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseveration

Obviously i know what perseveration is ;-)

Dr Arthit Urairat is not a major fan of the 30b scheme; you cannot possibly be serious that Surapong would be anti the scheme given he is heart and soul TRT/PPP? He was one of the founders of TRT; 30b was his baby, of course he is not going to be anti it!

That's kind of like asking Ali who the greatest boxer in the world is, and then wondering why he wouldn't answer Sugar Ray Robinson! I'll give you that he is a medical doctor, so at least he would be vaguely suited to something involving health perhaps; certainly better than anything to do with finance.

We probably should not continue this sidetrack of this thread as well; my comment was merely that much of what the farmer really needs - decent education opportunities, infrastructure, transparent market mechanisms - these aren't in place. According to you we now have decent universal healthcare; if it ends this pointless debate then ok, I'll grant you that apparently we now have great universal healthcare.

BTW I don't do the personal insult thing for the most part, however, don't let that stop you from continuing :-).

Getting back on topic.....

My own feeling as I have mentioned before is Isaan and the north need to have a rural farmer's party that has the sole objective of pushing the agendas of these groups; and probably would become a government with a pro business party coming out of Bangkok/South. I do not believe it is possible to have 1 party that will ever be able to appeal to both areas; in a strong 2 party coalition then both business and the rural voter could be properly represented; I would like to see this occur via elections rather than placement of representatives.

The only problem with this is of course that at least in the area my family has land in, one politician family is completely entrenched, and without a fair bit of bravery, I cannot see this generation of voters ever changing their minds and not doing what the family asks for; even though most know the family are a complete bunch of crooks. Money lending, financing, land for farming, the odd road, the lottery - almost every aspect of their lives are touched in some way by the 'jao por' of the province and so as a result.....whatever party the family are part of is the party that will get their vote.

But not giving them the chance to vote won't necessarily change that; it just takes time to wash out.

[citizen33]

BTW I don't do the personal insult thing for the most part, however, don't let that stop you from continuing :-).

You have a perfect right to your opinions and I agree that personal insults are not appropriate. My concern is that health care does have important consequences for people in the real world and shouldn't be used as a political football. The Thai UC scheme unquestionably has helped poor people and they will suffer if it is taken away, as seems quite likely if certain political interest groups return to power. It is far from perfect but a lot of good people - outside TRT/PPP - have worked hard to keep it going. When incorrect statements are used to caricature that scheme, I feel obligated to spring to its defense. That is all.