Have The Floods Degraded The Idea Of Decentralisation?: Thai Opinion

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Have the floods degraded the idea of decentralisation?

The Nation

According to some politicians, crisis relief can only work effectively if central and regional leaders belong to the same political party; a dangerous platform upon which to proceed

Last week, a personal secretary of under-fire Justice Minister Pracha Promnok raised anew an issue that had been hounding the flood-relief efforts of the central government and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. Thirachai Wutthitham, reiterating that he was only airing a personal opinion, said it would have been easier to handle the flood crisis had the government and the Bangkok governor belonged to the same political party.

It was an interesting comment, to say the least, coming from someone in a political camp that purportedly advocates decentralisation. By Thirachai's logic, every flooded province must be governed by a pro-government governor so as to ensure smooth emergency operations. And since we barely know where possible future flooding is going to hit, basically every province in the Kingdom must be governed by a pro-government governor. This is where the desire for "absolute power" usually stems from.

To be fair to Thirachai, Thailand's provincial administration system is still centralised, except for a very few cases like Bangkok. Admittedly, conflicts between the Pheu Thai government and the Democrat-controlled Bangkok Metropolitan Administration complicated the flood situation in the northern outskirts of the capital. To blame it squarely on the fact that the Bangkok governor comes from the main opposition party is, however, too convenient.

First, the government rejected calls for a declaration of a state of emergency, which could have pre-empted some political problems. Then the prime minister invoked a law that gave her concrete leverage against the Bangkok governor, but coordination still did not seem to improve. While some delays can be blamed on the disagreements between the government and the Bangkok authorities, whether or not the prime minister has been decisive enough is also a big question.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's key failure in this crisis concerned mobilisation. The Flood Relief Operations Centre (FROC) was supposed to be a "war room" where every issue was thoroughly discussed, differences were ironed out, collective decisions made and responsibility shared. FROC was supposed to be a place where vested political interests were put aside in the name of bringing under control a public emergency. None of these things happened.

Bangkok has been searching its soul. Issues like the "big bag" flood barriers and the prolonged suffering of many inundated residents are making many Bangkokians take a long hard look at themselves. But the capital doing it alone will never be enough. Understanding is a mutual thing, and it's the government's job to try and help the country achieve this understanding. It doesn't matter where the political base of the government is. Like it or not, the Yingluck administration has only two choices - keep the national divide wide open and benefit from it during elections, or try to forget its "party hat" and put the "government hat" on. The latter option won't bear immediate fruit, but it's something a real leader should aspire to.

Of course, it would have been easier for Yingluck had the Bangkok governor been someone from her own Pheu Thai Party. That doesn't mean it would have been easier for Thailand - unless Pheu Thai can put its hand on its heart and say that centralisation is better than decentralisation, that is.

As the flood crisis spreads to Thailand's South, what will Thirachai say now? A smooth relief operation in his context would require a purge of local and community leaders in most, if not all, of the affected areas in the South, and their replacement with people installed by the government.

A misconception stemming from this flood disaster seems to be that if everyone sings the same tune, things will be all right. The truth is, singing the same tune cannot guarantee the right decisions will be made. What is best for Thailand has to be constructive differences, understanding of those differences, followed by compromises based on that unbiased understanding. That will not just ensure the country's survival when a crisis of this magnitude strikes again, but will serve as the real foundation for democracy and decentralisation.

-- The Nation 2011-12-07

[noitom]

This was a very convoluted opinion piece seeking to raise the question as to whether the floods have degraded the idea of decentralization. Using a low level bureaucratic secretary making a random comment characterized as "interesting, to say the least" as a reference point to examine the question, the editor rambles on about PM Yingluck's shortcomings and "failure", the BMA, and other convoluted discussion. None of the discussion effectively explains the case in question, a "dangerous platform on which to proceed" as was highlighted in the sub heading. The sub-heading didn't make too much sense either as a "platform." What platform for what?

The Nation's editors seem to thrash about for some sort of subject matter point of view here. In the thrashing, they have again resorted to using low level bureaucrats with offhand comments as the framework for editorial insight. The Nation regularly appears helpless to actually interview anyone of authority. Politicians and officials in actual decision making positions are rarely if ever interviewed and used as the basis of an opinion piece by The Nation. So, the big question is which comes first the chicken or the egg? in other words, do the people who count for a real opinion in government and commerce run down the hall to get away from The Nation's editors, or do The Nation's editors avoid anyone in a position of authority and seek out low level bureaucrats and academics to support their own disjointed convoluted effort to express a point that they feel is important?

[hammered]

National problems need national solutions and local ones local. The floods were a national issue in that they affected multiple local buraeucratic areas and a national body should have had total control. They didnt. This needs to be addressed. It isnt about centralization versus decentralization. Period

[Orac]

A ridiculous piece of journalism using a non-subject to pen yet another anti-government editorial.

The article starts with this statement based on a personal comment from a beauracratic underling

it would have been easier to handle the flood crisis had the government and the Bangkok governor belonged to the same political party.

which it then twists in to

To blame it squarely on the fact that the Bangkok governor comes from the main opposition party is, however, too convenient.

then contradicts itself by agreeing with the original statement

Of course, it would have been easier for Yingluck had the Bangkok governor been someone from her own Pheu Thai Party.

[GoonDizzy]

This is where the desire for "absolute power" usually stems from.

===================================

No it doesn't!

In a full blown emergency like this one I feel the best option is for the government to appoint a team of REAL experts who know what they are doing. If you don't have them...pay for some of the Dutch experts. This team could liase with the local governors and give advice, listen to problems and work out a solution. But the final decison MUST rest with the 'crisis team'. Not with umpteen commitees going back and forth and doing nothing but help their own communites at the expense of others. The only problem I see with this is Thais don't like to get in 'outsiders' for things they feel they can do. Nothing wrong with that...but can they deal with this problem alone? After seeing first hand the damage and suffering I feel it is time to take the issue very, very seriously. .

What is clear to me is that the obvious split between the Governor of BKK and the government DID NOT help Thailand. It has caused folks in the Pathum Thani and Nonthanburi districts to feel used. The crisis was not handled very well and unity is important in a crisis.

Come on Thailand...you've lost billions, hundreds have died, thousands homeless, jobs have been lost, schools closed, communities divided....no more 'mai pen rai' with this please.

It's far to serious an issue to leave to the disjointed and unqualified.

[DocN]

"....no more 'mai pen rai' with this please."

Yeah! Good luck with that one!