Are Thai Govt' Populist Policies A New Formula For Success?

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Are populist policies a new formula for success?

By Piyanart Srivalo

The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has voiced plans to hold an early general election, signalling that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was likely in March or April once constitutional amendment is completed.

However, Abhisit's plans are getting strong opposition from Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban, a Democrat Party heavyweight who is getting backing from the coalition partners. A government source said Suthep was reportedly unsure about his party's chance of winning the elections.

Yet, according to a source close to the PM, Abhisit has not been paying much attention to the pressure from Suthep and coalition partners. In fact, the PM has even threatened to withdraw the constitutional amendment from a second reading in Parliament so the next House of Representatives can deliberate on it.

Rather than haggling with Suthep, Abhisit is instead focusing on his populist policies, especially those that benefit the grassroots level and people with low income. Many consider this as a move to prepare for the next election.

One of the measures Abhisit is launching is increasing the minimum daily wage by Bt8 to Bt17 for low-skilled workers nationwide effective from New Year's Day. Also, from April 1 bureaucrats will get a 5 per cent salary increase and MPs and Senators a 14 per cent hike, which will need a budget of Bt13 billion.

In addition, if the Interior Ministry gets Cabinet approval, members of tambon administrative organisations will see their salaries double - from Bt9,000 to Bt18,000 - from January 1. This hike will cover some 86,000 TAO officials nationwide and require Bt3.4 billion in state funds.

Abhisit is also set to announce his government's "big populist package" on Friday, which will involve measures to reduce social and economic inequity. Some, however, see it as a tool to please grassroots people and those with low income.

The package includes subsidised diesel, free electricity for households using less than 90 units of power and cheaper cooking gas. Also, motorcycle-taxi drivers will be registered and given a special ID to protect them from corrupt officials. They will also be given easy access to bank loans, and their motorbike-taxi stands will be improved. The goal is to increase their monthly income by Bt1,200.

Taxi drivers will also benefit under a project that allows them to purchase new taxis by paying small instalments, while street vendors will be given more sites to sell their wares from.

Small-time producers of food, such as egg, chicken and pig raisers, will be encouraged to unite to improve their bargaining power against middlemen or large retailers.

Meanwhile, the opposition Pheu Thai Party is criticising these policies, saying they are poor copies of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's ideas.

Pheu Thai spokesman Promphong Nopparit said Thaksin's populist policies were more effective because they allowed the poor to access the capital. "That way, they can 'catch the fish' themselves, which is the heart [of populist policies]. This government's populist policy just gives away the fish, without teaching them how to fish for themselves," he said.

In reality though, populist policies have been adopted and practised by many a government, though few have been successful enough to be remembered. Perhaps populist policies are indeed becoming a formula for success.

-- The Nation 2010-12-15

[SamritT]

Yes it is. BTW, free petrol coupon please.

[asiawatcher]

Whilst some of the policies look to be hair-brained schemes, it would be a gesture of levelling the playing field but to increase areas for street vendors to add to the quagmire of pedestrian interruption (and safety) would be stupid, and whilst I agree with regulation of Taxi Motorbikes, perhaps building them areas is also fine but the last thing we need is more nut cases driving into oncoming traffic with total disregard to traffic rules. Yes, it will assist votes so that is the positive side to keep the Red thugs and PTP at bay. But ... infaction fighting and disagreements would tend to make me believe the PM should remove the rogue element in Suthep.

[chainarong]

Every country throws popular items around at election time , the opposition can only sit and see votes go sailing out the window, the pigs at the trough , gets them in everytime, suckers.

[whybother]

Meanwhile, the opposition Pheu Thai Party is criticising these policies, saying they are poor copies of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's ideas.

Are they criticising them because they don't work?

[TAWP]

The failure of democracy is that elections are more important than the well-thought out planning of the governing of the nation. Populist policies never have and never will be for the better for the people - but in general the populace is also too stupid to know this or too selfish to care.

[TAWP]

Meanwhile, the opposition Pheu Thai Party is criticising these policies, saying they are poor copies of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's ideas.

Are they criticising them because they don't work?

They think one can copyright an idea.

(And ofcourse forget that all of Thaksin's ideas was stolen from other people / parties from the beginning...)

[Northman061]

Its never about long term plans or policies in Thailand.

It is always short term.

The opposition hates everything that those in power suggest.

Most Thai MPs dont bother to go to work, most dont vote. most dont care.

Yellow/Red, Pro/Anti, Military/Civil etc etc

It is so sad that "Amazing" Thailand is self destructing on so many levels.

[SomTumTiger]

At least there is no 'One Family, One Cow" or "Rubber trees for Everyone", Thailand Elite Monkey policy on the list....Remember those stupid ideas? (not stupid in design, stupid in that people actually thought they would happen, and that the money would not end up in Thaksin and his cronies pockets...)

[hanuman1]

The failure of democracy is that elections are more important than the well-thought out planning of the governing of the nation. Populist policies never have and never will be for the better for the people - but in general the populace is also too stupid to know this or too selfish to care.

Are they too stupid/selfish or are you too intelligent/unselfish? Either way, you're in the minority, pal. Blame the policies of successive past governments for that.

[animatic]

Meanwhile, the opposition Pheu Thai Party is criticising these policies, saying they are poor copies of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's ideas.

Are they criticising them because they don't work?

No, they are criticizing them because they MIGHT work and they won't get the credit.

Thaksin didn't get these talking points from thin air, he got them from existing suggestions.

But the question should be: What did Thakins Inc. do with those ideas that actually worked?

Answer: use them just enough to gain some loyalty and control over the masses, and no more than needed for moving forward that concept of control in their own TRT/PPP hands. PTP clearly is squandering that control willy nilly.

I though much of the points fought furiously over recently was to improve the lot of the majority of Thais with better opportunities and possibilities to raise their lifestyles, at least some of the Red rank and file seem to think that was their fight.

And yet, when something is done or proposed, it's labeled populist by their political wing PTP, which essentially means it would be popular. Popular because they help the most people. Maybe not all ideas will work, and all change causes other effects not always foreseen, but doing nothing leaves all at square one. That isn't progress, that is national stagnation. PTP calls for stagnation if it doesn't benefit PTP.

Doing somethings to help the poor is laudable, what doesn't work will fall by the wayside. It is uber-ironic to see PTP criticizing populist ideas, since they purport, inaccurately, to be party of the grass roots and common man, and yet fight against things to help them, lest they lose their control over those same grass roots poor.

Edited December 15, 2010 by animatic

[EdDantes]

The failure of democracy is that elections are more important than the well-thought out planning of the governing of the nation. Populist policies never have and never will be for the better for the people - but in general the populace is also too stupid to know this or too selfish to care.

Yep it's panto-politics, vote for representation then hope they honour their words. Same story worldwide with the notable exception of Switzerland which is an interesting case study in participatory democracy.

There's no way ordinary people in most nations are ready to have direct control of policy, the Swiss evolved it over centuries so today they grow up learning what is necessary, but even at that, women there only got the vote in 1971. People can be quite selfish, there's no panacea, I guess at the end of the day it's futile trying to make a perfect system out of imperfect beings.

[AsiaCheese]

The failure of democracy is that elections are more important than the well-thought out planning of the governing of the nation. Populist policies never have and never will be for the better for the people - but in general the populace is also too stupid to know this or too selfish to care.

I almost feel inclined to "vote" for non-democratic rule of countries. The problem is as always: even the best thought-out plans on the part of any party involved in the electoral process get to take a back seat (if that), while the parties' marketing departments take over -- with populist credos and promises. And yes, a large part of any country's population falls for the pretty pictures, just as they do for large headlines and big photographs in the yellow press. "The population" [generic, everywhere] is a collection of raisin pickers -- always has been, always will be -- so how could populist policies/messages not succeed? Democracy has a way of pushing aside real issues while keeping busy with power games.

Yes I know [= I can already hear it]: nobody has yet come up with something "better" than democracy. But democracy the way it's playing out in many countries, all over the world, is just a failed version/plan B of a "good idea". The streets are littered with victims of "failed versions" of originally good ideas -- comunism, religions, you name them...

[SamritT]

What about "One Family One Wife Policy". I will support that.

[TAWP]

What about "One Family One Wife Policy". I will support that.

Your husband might disagree.

[LomSak27]

The Democratic Party screeched to high heaven about these very policies when Thaksin suggested or enacted them. Yet now Abhisit and the Dems enact these very same policies they wept crocodile tears about.

I can see how the Reds are cynical and disdainful of that. I also understand how many here, blinders firmly attached, have no clue as to what the fuss is about.

[whybother]

The Democratic Party screeched to high heaven about these very policies when Thaksin suggested or enacted them. Yet now Abhisit and the Dems enact these very same policies they wept crocodile tears about.

I can see how the Reds are cynical and disdainful of that. I also understand how many here, blinders firmly attached, have no clue as to what the fuss is about.

I think if you look at the detail, the policies are different.

Popular, yes, but not simply cash handouts, or unfunded or unsustainable spending.

[klikster]

Meanwhile, the opposition Pheu Thai Party is criticising these policies, saying they are poor copies of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's ideas.

Are they criticising them because they don't work?

No, they are criticizing them because they MIGHT work and they won't get the credit.

Thaksin didn't get these talking points from thin air, he got them from existing suggestions.

But the question should be: What did Thakins Inc. do with those ideas that actually worked?

Answer: use them just enough to gain some loyalty and control over the masses, and no more than needed for moving forward that concept of control in their own TRT/PPP hands. PTP clearly is squandering that control willy nilly.

I though much of the points fought furiously over recently was to improve the lot of the majority of Thais with better opportunities and possibilities to raise their lifestyles, at least some of the Red rank and file seem to think that was their fight.

And yet, when something is done or proposed, it's labeled populist by their political wing PTP, which essentially means it would be popular. Popular because they help the most people. Maybe not all ideas will work, and all change causes other effects not always foreseen, but doing nothing leaves all at square one. That isn't progress, that is national stagnation. PTP calls for stagnation if it doesn't benefit PTP.

Doing somethings to help the poor is laudable, what doesn't work will fall by the wayside. It is uber-ironic to see PTP criticizing populist ideas, since they purport, inaccurately, to be party of the grass roots and common man, and yet fight against things to help them, lest they lose their control over those same grass roots poor.

I rarely get involved in political debates here on TV because most arguments are so flawed. And I often disagree with Animatic.

BUT, IMO, Animatic is spot on with this reply. Well said!

[jayboy]

The Democratic Party screeched to high heaven about these very policies when Thaksin suggested or enacted them. Yet now Abhisit and the Dems enact these very same policies they wept crocodile tears about.

I can see how the Reds are cynical and disdainful of that. I also understand how many here, blinders firmly attached, have no clue as to what the fuss is about.

I think if you look at the detail, the policies are different.

Popular, yes, but not simply cash handouts, or unfunded or unsustainable spending.

Can you demonstrate exactly how?

Or is it just another example of bending the truth to fit a political agenda?