Bangkok Election Is All About Winning Power Back From Central Government

[webfact]

Thailand's capital city

Power failure

An election is all about winning power back from the central government

newsjsBANGKOK: -- In a city with all the problems of Bangkok—from floods to creaky infrastructure—politicians prefer to grab voters with sweeping generalities rather than detailed promises.

With an election for Bangkok’s governor on March 3rd, Pongsapat Pongcharoen of the ruling Pheu Thai party says he will bring back “happiness and smiles”. Other candidates promise to turn Bangkok into the Hollywood of the region, or a “24-hour city”.

Voters would settle for less flooding, fewer cars and greater safety. Yet such demands are a difficult target for even the most diligent governor (equivalent to a mayor). The job comes with little authority or money: the annual budget for a city of 10m is a mere $2 billion. Only one-sixth of that is set aside for capital investment. The rest just about covers running costs.

The governor has no power over the city’s police or public bus services. For all the hoopla of the election campaign, the central government keeps the governor on a short leash. The Thai state is highly centralised. Bangkok’s citizens know that they are lucky to have elections at all. The interior ministry appoints the governor of all of Thailand’s 76 provinces, with which the capital region is on a par.

Full story: http://www.economist...t-power-failure

-- The Economist 2013-02-15

[geriatrickid]

Huh? The central government keeps the governor on a short leash? Really? I guess someone is looking to lower expectations as to the political fallout if a Democrat is defeated.

The governors of Bangkok have historically been the ones to yank the leash on the central government. It's an influential position and a governor that doesn't get along with the central government can cause alot of problems. If the Democrats cannot retain Bangkok, they lose an important bridgehead that allows for patronage jobs and spending that can help the party. the loss of Bangkok would cause some of the political long knives to come out. The fun starts after the election.

[A Member]

What nonsense, it's all about increasing Pheu Tai's control over more of the country

[rubl]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

[muttley]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

[rubl]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

Last year when the Yingluck government was having some arguments with the BMA and the governor all of a sudden the budget was cut. Only after some pressure the 'reason' was given, as mumble, mumble, streamline, mumble avoid ... mumble'. No clear indication that budgets were not needed or grossly over expanded.

BTW The current government is in office since begin of August 2011 with lots of activities already dropped to 'inactivity' level since May 10th, 2011.

Mind you, all this was happening before you signed up here

[rubl]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

Your 'suggestion' posed can be seen as a clear reason why activities and budgets in Bangkok should be under BMA, not under central government

Edited February 15, 2013 by rubl

[muttley]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

Last year when the Yingluck government was having some arguments with the BMA and the governor all of a sudden the budget was cut. Only after some pressure the 'reason' was given, as mumble, mumble, streamline, mumble avoid ... mumble'. No clear indication that budgets were not needed or grossly over expanded.

BTW The current government is in office since begin of August 2011 with lots of activities already dropped to 'inactivity' level since May 10th, 2011.

Mind you, all this was happening before you signed up here

So what is the relevance of when I signed up here to any of this? Does it mean I knew nothing of Thailand until I joined TV?

Having said that there is more than ample evidence of posters on here gaining all their political (and other) "knowledge" from this very forum and of course its reliably apolitical sources, the Nation, Pattaya Daily News and last by not least, that august organ, Coconuts Bangkok.

[rubl]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

Last year when the Yingluck government was having some arguments with the BMA and the governor all of a sudden the budget was cut. Only after some pressure the 'reason' was given, as mumble, mumble, streamline, mumble avoid ... mumble'. No clear indication that budgets were not needed or grossly over expanded.

BTW The current government is in office since begin of August 2011 with lots of activities already dropped to 'inactivity' level since May 10th, 2011.

Mind you, all this was happening before you signed up here

So what is the relevance of when I signed up here to any of this? Does it mean I knew nothing of Thailand until I joined TV?

Your 'questions' seem to indicate a lack of knowledge and just a supposition which comes from a trail of thoughts I cannot phantom. IMHO of course.

BTW I removed the remarks on other members. They are not part of our discussion and certainly have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Locationthailand]

Bangkok has generally maintained autonomous rule over BKK until the new Govt was floundering under the floods and decided to pull a few dirty tricks to way lay the finger pointing and push the limelight of ineffective management through Plod and his clowns onto Sukhumband (which did not work). Giving Bangkok over to PTP would be a tragedy as they have already milked the coffers of Thailand and to gain Bangkok as another source would be more criminal than their already criminal activities. I defer my comments to the Battle of Athens in 1946 when the American vets took on the corrupt government and under their precious 2nd amendment, ousted the corrupt. Thailand should take note - sometimes this is the way to go.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Locationthailand

[surangw]

aren't the elections about who pays the most?

[NongKhaiKid]

What nonsense, it's all about increasing Pheu Tai's control over more of the country

Exactly, remember the disgraceful politics, finger pointing etc between the BMA and central government over the flooding. If central government wields absolute power no one will argue with them, everything they do will be accepted and supported, the truth will be told and all will be well, WON'T IT ?

[OzMick]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

If you are suggesting that the democrat government markedly increased the governor's budget because the governor was a party member, could you support that with figures, perhaps even a link?

If it is true rather than a casual implication of machinations, would that not be a legal and reasonable action, likely to increase their popularity? OTOH, other than the governor's political polarity, were there any justifiable reasons for PTP to slash the budget?

[muttley]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

If you are suggesting that the democrat government markedly increased the governor's budget because the governor was a party member, could you support that with figures, perhaps even a link?

If it is true rather than a casual implication of machinations, would that not be a legal and reasonable action, likely to increase their popularity? OTOH, other than the governor's political polarity, were there any justifiable reasons for PTP to slash the budget?

Oh sorry, I thought there was no need to provide figures or links to support arguments in this particular instance - it's not something that rubl has bothered to provide so I thought I'd follow the trend.

As far as the rest of your post goes I thought you were opposed to populist policies even if they are "a legal and reasonable action" or are you only against them if they're used by the PTP? Do you have "figures or links to support arguments" that the PTP did "slash the budget" - I don't see any.

[muttley]

What nonsense, it's all about increasing Pheu Tai's control over more of the country

Exactly, remember the disgraceful politics, finger pointing etc between the BMA and central government over the flooding. If central government wields absolute power no one will argue with them, everything they do will be accepted and supported, the truth will be told and all will be well, WON'T IT ?

You must have accepted that situation when the democrat party (and others) were "the government". What is so different now?

[Pimay1]

What nonsense, it's all about increasing Pheu Tai's control over more of the country

Exactly, remember the disgraceful politics, finger pointing etc between the BMA and central government over the flooding. If central government wields absolute power no one will argue with them, everything they do will be accepted and supported, the truth will be told and all will be well, WON'T IT ?

You must have accepted that situation when the democrat party (and others) were "the government". What is so different now?

This post reminds me of my son when he was four years old. He was playing with his friend and were in a neighbors yard being quite loud. The neighbor asked them to leave his yard as they were loud. His friend picked up some rocks and started pelting the neighbor's mail box. My son followed suite. The neighbor came over and told me about it.

I confroned my son and he said "but daddy Timmy was doing it too" I explained to him that just because someone else does something wrong this does not mean he can do it also.That does not make it right.

Thus but...but...but the democrats

[geriatrickid]

This is a pivotal election for the political plans of both parties. Bangkok is to Thailand what Chicago is to the Democrats in the USA, Toronto is to the Liberal party of Canada, and to a lesser extent London is to the Conservative party in the UK. It is an important voting region where the governing authority can undertake actions that can help swing votes to a party. Loyal party members can find employment in the various government agencies and the cooperation of the local leader can provide PR opportunities of great value. The PTP was able to win the national election without Bangkok, but it had to work very hard to get that victory. Having "friends" in Bangkok will make the next election campaign easier. Conversely, the Democrats were able to retain some semblance of a party because they carried Bangkok.

Having a strategic ally in power made it easier and allowed the Democrats to spread election resources around. If the Democrats lose the stronghold of Bangkok, they face a difficult future national election campaign because they will have to concentrate resources on winning back voters in Bangkok who may be leaning towards the PTP on a national level.

The march to the governorship of Bangkok has probably caught alot of anti PTP people in TVF by surprise. It is a demonstration of a well thought out plan to obtain a decisive national majority, perhaps a landslide victory in the national election. I certainly missed it, but it should have been obvious as it is a play out of all the major political parties. It makes sense to try and win the biggest population center. Go for the centers of influence to expand the party's national base and to buttress support. It makes fundraising easier. The Democrats have to retain Bangkok if they have any hope of winning the next national election. It's as simple as that.

And now for my surprise of the day. I still can't believe the polling. Here's why: Hundreds of thousands of Bangkok residents cannot vote in the election because they are registered to vote elsewhere. It might be in Surat Thani as easily as it is Issan, but all the same perhaps millions are not able to vote because they are not registered in Bangkok.. The polling cannot distinguish between who is actually able to vote and who is not. Although the polling may accurately reflect the Bangkok residents' intent, I don't know if the PTP has all the support of actual legal voters the polls claim it has.

If the PTP candidate loses, we will be treated to claims of election fixing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I will be very surprised if the PTP obtains the numbers the polls indicate and I will gobsmacked if the PTP wins the election. For that to happen, there will have to have been a real shift in the electorate, an abandonment of the Democrats. If that happens, Abhisit will be even more beholden to the corrupt stronghold of Phuket and the troublesome southern provinces as he tries to stay party leader. He may very well be devoured when the party does what many large political parties do when faced with a catastrophic loss; they turn on each other. Perhaps this explains why Abhisit is keeping a low profile in the election so as to insulate himself from the political fallout.

Edited February 16, 2013 by geriatrickid

[Bellweather]

What nonsense, it's all about increasing Pheu Tai's control over more of the country

Exactly, remember the disgraceful politics, finger pointing etc between the BMA and central government over the flooding. If central government wields absolute power no one will argue with them, everything they do will be accepted and supported, the truth will be told and all will be well, WON'T IT ?

You must have accepted that situation when the democrat party (and others) were "the government". What is so different now?

I'm only guessing as I can't speak for anyone else but I think the idea is that no matter who is in central government and a city, municipality, province etc is in the control of the " opposition " it's a case of ne'er the twain shall meet. As in USA " no " politics, petty politics are alive and well in the Kingdom

[rubl]

Last year the Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget. To streamline activities, avoid duplication, and keep the Bangkok governor on a leash. The chap had the audacity to take 'Bangkok' governor literally, imagine.

Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?

If you are suggesting that the democrat government markedly increased the governor's budget because the governor was a party member, could you support that with figures, perhaps even a link?

If it is true rather than a casual implication of machinations, would that not be a legal and reasonable action, likely to increase their popularity? OTOH, other than the governor's political polarity, were there any justifiable reasons for PTP to slash the budget?

Oh sorry, I thought there was no need to provide figures or links to support arguments in this particular instance - it's not something that rubl has bothered to provide so I thought I'd follow the trend.

You just made my day, dear mutt. I thought you'd never ask

2012-07-09

"The premier also denied the rumor that the government has slashed BMA’s budget. The cause of the issue is internal process leading to incorrect information. The lost budget is for projects according to the government’s policy which is irrational to be cut. The Budget Bureau has been assigned to investigate the issue. The government is ready to work closely with the BMA since Bangkok is an important economic area which requires cooperation from all related parties. The meeting today presents a good opportunity to the government to listen to opinions from both the BMA and central administration."

http://www.thaigov.g...m-yingluck.html

2012-07-10

"The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's government subsidy for next year has been slashed by more than Bt20 billion, and the agency needs to consult with the Finance Ministry to "discuss future budget allocation policies", city clerk Charoenrat Chootikarn said yesterday.

...

However, in response to Assawat's statement, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said the government had no reason to slash the budget and that it was rather a work process that resulted in the reduction of the subsidy. "It is the amount earmarked for BMA policies that has been trimmed rather than costs for existing BMA projects," she said, without providing details.

She said Bangkok was the capital, and hence required special attention from the government, adding that she welcomed yesterday's special meeting of permanent secretaries of key ministries, including Charoenrat."

http://www.thaivisa....n/#entry5469702

Edited February 16, 2013 by rubl

[muttley]

What nonsense, it's all about increasing Pheu Tai's control over more of the country

Exactly, remember the disgraceful politics, finger pointing etc between the BMA and central government over the flooding. If central government wields absolute power no one will argue with them, everything they do will be accepted and supported, the truth will be told and all will be well, WON'T IT ?

You must have accepted that situation when the democrat party (and others) were "the government". What is so different now?

This post reminds me of my son when he was four years old. He was playing with his friend and were in a neighbors yard being quite loud. The neighbor asked them to leave his yard as they were loud. His friend picked up some rocks and started pelting the neighbor's mail box. My son followed suite. The neighbor came over and told me about it.

I confroned my son and he said "but daddy Timmy was doing it too" I explained to him that just because someone else does something wrong this does not mean he can do it also.That does not make it right.

Thus but...but...but the democrats

Once more for those of the hard of thinking - the "but but the democrats rebuttal" is a poor substitute for debate when you read something you do not agree with. Your little homily above would be of some use if it were relevant to the situation - it isn't.

I'm not saying because the democrats did something that that is an excuse for the PTP to do the same which you and others often mistakenly infer. I am pointing out that there was no public oprobrium when the Democrats did something so why should there be when the PTP do the same thing - there is no difference in the action other than the party doing it?

If you cannot see that argument perhaps you are best off conferring with your 4 year old son.

[rubl]

I'm not saying because the democrats did something that that is an excuse for the PTP to do the same which you and others often mistakenly infer. I am pointing out that there was no public oprobrium when the Democrats did something so why should there be when the PTP do the same thing - there is no difference in the action other than the party doing it?

Now, don't be hasty, dear mutt. In the context of the topic you merely 'asked'

"Was that "Yingluck government Ministry of Interior cut the Bangkok budget" that the dems had promised the BMA by any chance?"

giving a hint of a suggestion that the Democrats led government might have been a wee bit overindulgent in allocating budgets to 'their' Bangkok governor. Just like Ms. Yingluck you seem hesitant to be a bit more specific or even provide clear indication of what you really want to say here.

IMHO of course, my dear mutt

[muttley]

You just made my day, dear mutt. I thought you'd never ask

2012-07-09

"The premier also denied the rumor that the government has slashed BMA’s budget. The cause of the issue is internal process leading to incorrect information. The lost budget is for projects according to the government’s policy which is irrational to be cut. The Budget Bureau has been assigned to investigate the issue. The government is ready to work closely with the BMA since Bangkok is an important economic area which requires cooperation from all related parties. The meeting today presents a good opportunity to the government to listen to opinions from both the BMA and central administration."

http://www.thaigov.g...m-yingluck.html

2012-07-10

"The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's government subsidy for next year has been slashed by more than Bt20 billion, and the agency needs to consult with the Finance Ministry to "discuss future budget allocation policies", city clerk Charoenrat Chootikarn said yesterday.

...

However, in response to Assawat's statement, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said the government had no reason to slash the budget and that it was rather a work process that resulted in the reduction of the subsidy. "It is the amount earmarked for BMA policies that has been trimmed rather than costs for existing BMA projects," she said, without providing details.

She said Bangkok was the capital, and hence required special attention from the government, adding that she welcomed yesterday's special meeting of permanent secretaries of key ministries, including Charoenrat."

http://www.thaivisa....n/#entry5469702

See it's not hard is it.

I read the links - in both Yingluck denies slashing the budget. The only people who say the budget was slashed was the city clerk and an advisor to the BMA, when actually what actually happened was they didn't get the budget they had asked for.

That is not the same as having an agreed fixed budget promised and then the budget granted is less than agreed - then you can say that the budget has been "slashed".

The BMA may have been used to inflated budgets under the dem government to keep them sweet - it doesn't mean that they are worthy budgets or that they are guaranteed to keep on being granted.

Edited February 16, 2013 by muttley

[rubl]

You just made my day, dear mutt. I thought you'd never ask

2012-07-09

"The premier also denied the rumor that the government has slashed BMA’s budget. The cause of the issue is internal process leading to incorrect information. The lost budget is for projects according to the government’s policy which is irrational to be cut. The Budget Bureau has been assigned to investigate the issue. The government is ready to work closely with the BMA since Bangkok is an important economic area which requires cooperation from all related parties. The meeting today presents a good opportunity to the government to listen to opinions from both the BMA and central administration."

http://www.thaigov.g...m-yingluck.html

2012-07-10

"The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's government subsidy for next year has been slashed by more than Bt20 billion, and the agency needs to consult with the Finance Ministry to "discuss future budget allocation policies", city clerk Charoenrat Chootikarn said yesterday.

...

However, in response to Assawat's statement, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said the government had no reason to slash the budget and that it was rather a work process that resulted in the reduction of the subsidy. "It is the amount earmarked for BMA policies that has been trimmed rather than costs for existing BMA projects," she said, without providing details.

She said Bangkok was the capital, and hence required special attention from the government, adding that she welcomed yesterday's special meeting of permanent secretaries of key ministries, including Charoenrat."

http://www.thaivisa....n/#entry5469702

See it's not hard is it.

I read the links - in both Yingluck denies slashing the budget. The only people who say the budget was slashed was the city clerk and an advisor to the BMA, when actually what actually happened was they didn't get the budget they had asked for.

That is not the same as having an agreed fixed budget promised and then the budget granted is less than agreed - then you can say that the budget has been "slashed".

The BMA may have been used to inflated budgets under the dem government to keep them sweet - it doesn't mean that they are worthy budgets or that they are guaranteed to keep on being granted.

See that wasn't difficult. 'not the same', 'may', 'who knows', 'promised budget slashed, not 'agreed budget slashed'. Mind you an administration need to start activities on promised budgets which are expected to arrive in time. Like the halved futsal stadium budget

Anyway it seems it would be good when BMA has a larger part of it's budget less dependent on political games and the government of the day

Edited February 16, 2013 by rubl