Thaksin Demonstrates How To Solve Poverty In Roiet

[Jai Dee]

FOREIGN DIPLOMATS FROM 14 COUNTRIES ARE OBSERVING THE PM'S ANTI-POVERTY WORKS IN ROI-ED

Foreign Affairs Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon (กันตธีร์ ศุภมงคล) will lead diplomats from 14 countries to witness Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's anti-poverty mission in Roi Et Province today.

Foreign Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Seehasak Phuangketkaew (สีหศักดิ์ พวงเกตุแก้ว) said diplomats from the 14 countries have been interested in the prime minister's anti-poverty operation in Roi Et’s At Samat District after they watched the live broadcast on television that covered all his activities.

Today, the Cabinet ministers will brief the diplomats about the work process in addressing poverty.

The foreign diplomats will then meet with locals in Roi Et and join Prime Minister Thaksin for lunch this midday.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 20 January 2006

[Jai Dee]

REALITY BITES

The PM may be having second thoughts about 24-hr, warts-and-all TV coverage. Launching his “Backstage Show” reality TV programme in a desperate bid to regain his fast-eroding popularity, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra clearly hoped the good old days would return at a time when a growing crisis of faith had been denting the government’s political stability. Yet by the end of the fifth day of his anti-poverty mission in At Samat district of Roi Et, the whole campaign apparently backfired.

Known as a strong believer in astrology, Thaksin came under suspicion that the need for his visit to At Samat had been read from the heavenly constellations. In the past the district was known as “Ong-At Samat”, which means bravery and great competence.

Ahead of the premier’s visit, some government officials had reportedly fanned out across the district seeking information about revered local temples so that Thaksin could stay there overnight during his visit.

According to Thai beliefs, visiting nine temples during a single day guarantees great fortune. It is speculated that Thaksin’s visits to lo-cal temples were motivated by the same belief.

As his non-stop reality-TV programme gathered momentum, Thaksin achieved his goal of distracting the media from all the controversies dogging his government – from Sondhi Limthongkul’s vociferous movement to speculation of a Shin Corp takeover by Singapore’s Temasek Holdings.

Yet in the end, much of media coverage did not come out quite the way Thaksin might have expected. If the event had been three years ago, news reports on Thaksin’s mission would surely have shown only the positive side in the style of great public relations. Back then the premier was being treated as “a god” who could do no wrong.

Things have changed.

News headlines these days have focused mostly on criticism of the show and Thaksin’s “mistakes”.

The premier has slammed the media for their “ridiculous” reports on his mission. The reports include his breaking the law by riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and making flippant jokes about the death of a pilot in a plane crash in Suphan Buri.

Thaksin may have paid the price for his one-man show in the 24-hour live broadcast. Several “improprieties” in his blunt statements and conduct that reveals “the real Thaksin” is normally edited out of news reports. But during the non-stop reality-TV programme, they got broadcast.

Besides, the show seems to have interested few people. Even many government officials have acknowledged in a survey that they were not very interested.

The content of the programme did not help matters. The so-called At Samat model could become viable only in the world of Thaksin himself. On a whim, he dispensed wads of cash to any villager he considered to be deserving. He ordered senior local officials to deliver what he was promising the villagers.

Thanks to his authority as prime minister, no doubt he can easily solve the problems of individual villagers by way of handouts and instructions to local officials.

But once he leaves town, lower-level officials will be reduced again to their own meagre powers and devices.

Without fundamental policy changes that can be applied nationwide, the Thaksin government’s poverty-alleviating mission will have been mere window-dressing over a host of deep-seated problems.

Thaksin must have realised this and protected himself in advance by warning local people that there were limits to the government’s largesse and there were some strings attached to handouts. Not all the people on the waiting list will receive what they are asking for, and those most in need enjoy priority, he said.

Apart from the grandiose “only Thaksin can do it” model, his actual proposed solutions turned out to be as simple as critics might have suspected.

For example, boosting shrimp sales means giving away sauces for free and boosting their rice sales means giving free copies of cookbooks.

Thaksin said he was only doing his job in helping villagers. What he was in fact doing cannot be seen as anything but politicking. He had stage-managed the platform to say what he wanted live on television. He did not forget to lob acerbic asides at members of the opposition and the media.

Yet his jibes also cost him allies and friends as well, including outspoken TV critic Samak Sundaravej, influential TV anchor Sorayuth Suthassanachinda, and Chat Thai Party leader Banharn Silpa-archa.

These three friends of Thaksin cooled on him overnight. Samak dismissed the programme as “silly”. Sorayuth lashed back at Thaksin after the premier’s criticism. Banharn was reported to be furious with the PM for his joke over the death of a pilot in his stronghold of Suphan Buri.

Thaksin may have scored with many simple people, who constitute his main voter base, by putting the message across to them that he was a down-to-earth and easygoing leader – even if his rather offhand attitude towards district chiefs reflected something else.

Some viewers might have taken note when he told his ministers that the district chiefs weren’t very knowledgeable, or they would have been promoted as governors.

Yet Thaksin largely failed to impress middle-class people, who were the prime target for his show. It was broadcast live on the UBC cable-TV network, to which low-income people cannot afford to subscribe.

Many viewers vented their disappointment over his stunt at Web boards, calling it “silly” and a programme that produces nothing than “burning banknotes”.

After investing such large amounts of time, effort and resources locally, Thaksin might have gained a lot of popularity with local people in At Samat district, who might well wish him to stay there forever.

But all the other poor people across the nation might reasonably expect the prime minister of Thailand to do something for them as well.

Source: The Political Desk of The Nation - January 21, 2006

[gurkle]

Poverty HAS been solved in Thailand.

The poor people here are probably some of the happiest ones in the world (my parent came from one, I know). They can afford food, shelter, marriage, and even kids. They even get affordable health care.

Look at the poor in America. Despite being the richest country in the world, it has one of the highest homeless rates. People who are poor in America live in the streets and eat from garbage dumps while teenagers beat them in their sleep for fun.

Try owning a house and raising kids with less than $50,000 salary in America. And this would make a US family one of the richest in the entire world.

Taking money from people who have rightfully earned it and giving to people who have not does NOT solve problems. It’s called stealing if done by anyone other than the government. And when the government does it a lot, it’s called communism.

I came from a poor family in Thailand and do just fine. Under capitalism, the truly talented and diligent will eventually earn what they deserve.

Giving the poor free handouts is like getting them hooked on drugs. It will give them a temporary high and then a big fall. They will then turn to crime to reach their previous high. Look at America. Kids there kill for stylish sneakers to look cool, not for survival.

Dissatisfaction is equal to the difference in reality versus expectations. If you unrealistically raise people’s expectation based on unsustainable assumptions (in America, it’s assumed everyone can become rich if they work hard enough), you only create unhappiness, and eventually crime when people can’t reach their expectations through legitimate means.