Pm Thaksin Resigns

[tettyan]

Mob Rule Usurps Democracy in Thailand

Last week Thaksin Shinawatra won over 54 percent of the vote. Then he was tossed out

Tom Pauken II (pauken) Ohmy news

In a democracy, voters elect their leaders but in Thailand protestors determine the fate of their prime minister. On April 2, 2006 a parliamentary election was held in Thailand and voters could decide if Thaksin Shinawatra should remain in office. He promised to step down if his affiliated party Thai Rak Thai failed to receive more than 50 percent of the vote. People could cast a "no" which would count against him. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won over 54 percent of the overall vote. Ironically, two days later in front of a nationally televised audience he announced his resignation.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra gained popularity in the rural regions of Thailand for his government programs. He provided universal health care for the poor, generous loans to farmers and those wanting to start small businesses in their villages, and his welfare subsidies alleviated poverty.

Yet, many of Bangkok's citizens including the middle class, academics, extreme leftists and turncoat cronies formed a bitter alliance against Thaksin Shinawatra. They accused him of corruption, restricting the media and excessive violence against Muslim insurgents and drug dealers. Consequently, a business deal caused his downfall.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had been a billionaire tycoon. His family-owned Shin Corp. a telecomm business was highly regulated by the government. He sold Shin Corp to Tamesek Holdings of Singapore for $1.8 billion to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He sold it tax free because it was conducted through the stock market and Thailand doesn't impose capital gains taxes.

In dismay, his opponents rallied together to protest against the tax-free business deal. They called themselves People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). PAD held large demonstrations in front of the of the prime minister office every night. As many as 100,000 Bangkok citizens joined in the rallies demanding Thaksin Shinawatra resign. He refused to step down but willing to accept a compromise.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand proposed a parliamentary election. He wanted the voters to decide if Thaksin Shinawatra should keep his job. The prime minister's enemies opposed the election. The three main opposition parties staged a boycott. A majority of Thai voters supported Thaksin Shinawatra so their demands for resignation would go unheeded. They repudiated the will of the majority and believed their voices deserved greater priority than the voters.

Accordingly, they lost the election on April 2 but continued their protests. They vowed not to stop until Thaksin Shinawatra quit his post. A stalemate seemed likely until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand held an emergency meting with the prime minister. Shortly afterwards, Thakshin Shinawatra bowed to pressure and announced his resignation. His supporters were stunned and in his speech he said, "It's not that I'm not willing to fight, but when I fight, the nation loses." Maybe, Thaksin Shinawatra was not the best prime minister of Thailand or the most virtuous but voters wanted him to stay in power. His departure and unwillingness to fight represents a defeat against democracy and a victory for mob rule.

I'm not a huge fan of the PAD, but if I were trying to make a case against them, I'd definitely not be quoting this incoherent drivel right here. Most of the OPs here can write better than the author of this article, who doesn't seem to have discovered the use of subordinate clauses. But never mind that, what does this writer know about Thailand? For one:

"King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand proposed a parliamentary election. He wanted the voters to decide if Thaksin Shinawatra should keep his job. "

Does this writer have access to some information about the Palace that people inside the country do not? I'd be wasting my time (and everyone else's) if I tried commenting further on the sheer ridiculousness of this assertion. Better stop here.

[otherstuff1957]

I have to agree with Tettyan here. If the writer is casually and inaccurately throwing the King's name around, he obviously doesn't know much about Thailand. Therefore, I'd really question the validity of his analysis.

[Jai Dee]

Caretaker PM insists he is not a puppet

Pol. Gen. Chitchai Wannasathit, who has been designated to be the Caretaker Prime Minister, has reiterated that his position is not a puppet position. He has insisted that he will be responsible for the issues he has approved.

The Caretaker Prime Minister has commented such criticisms on his position are confrontational and not constructive. He has reasserted that he is not a puppet, and he will be legally accountable for his decisions and approvals on national matters. Thus, he said national matters are not to be toyed with, but they are valued. He said he will carry on the unfinished duties and tasks, especially the works relating to narcotics.

Pol. Gen. Chitchai said the quickness of prosecution on the complaints filed by the People’s Alliance for Democracy and the Caravan of the Poor People will depend on the number of witnesses and the cases’ levels of difficulty. He has also requested the press members not to follow him and ask him questions, as he would like privacy.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 11 April 2006

[jdinasia]

I think Technically the King DOES call the election ..... but <deleted> is OhMy News ... can we cite more vague news sources?

[Jai Dee]

Pol. Gen. believes that the PAD will halt its movements after Mr. Sondhi has been filed with a lawsuit

Acting Prime Minister Chitchai Wannasathit (ชิดชัย วรรณสถิตย์) expressed his belief that the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) will halt its political movement after one of its key members, Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul (สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล), has been filed with a lawsuit.

Concerning the prosecution against media activist Sondhi, who has been accused of lese majeste, the latest news reported that he will give his testimony over this allegation at the Crime Suppression Division on April 17th. Pol. Gen. Chitchai affirmed that every process is being implemented under the framework of law and without any interference of political subjects.

The authorities are now sifting through the details of the allegation. If certain evidence has been found, they will then issue an arrest warrant against the media mogul.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 11 April 2006

[sushiman]

HARD TALK

Thaksin still casts a long shadow over Thai politics

His supporters describe it as a "great sacrifice"; his critics choose to see it as a "tactical retreat".

But however one views caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's decision to discontinue his premiership, there seems to be a general consensus that the paramount Thai Rak Thai leader will be anything but a political bygone.

The political stakes for Thaksin are so high that he simply cannot choose to walk away even if he wants to. The threat of a possible investigation into his political misdeeds and alleged conflicts of interest is one of the major reasons why the caretaker prime minister cannot afford to wash his hand of politics. Besides, without his active political role, there is a strong possibility that his Thai Rak Thai Party will disintegrate.

It should not surprise anyone if Thaksin continues to pull the strings from behind the scenes. After all, Thai Rak Thai is far from being the broad-based political party Thaksin tries to portray. It's essentially Thaksin's personal political machine. He founded it, runs it with his top-down management style and uses its vast network to prop up his autocratic leadership.

That Thaksin will still be calling the shots in Thai Rak Thai even while he is in political hiatus is a certainty. The next prime minister, therefore, will be nothing more than a political puppet subject to the whims of the real power-holder. Working from behind the scenes, Thaksin will be spared the spotlight and cannot be held accountable.

None of the Thai Rak Thai figures mentioned so far as possible successors to Thaksin offer any inspiration. Their performance as members of the outgoing administration left a lot to be desired. It's obvious that for them everything was secondary to serving Thaksin's agenda.

Even Somkid Jatusripitak, the caretaker deputy prime minister and commerce minister and probably the most outstanding of all the potential candidates, is no less an unconvincing choice. Business circles were quick to give him the thumbs-up largely because they believe he has the least tainted record and that he would be more sympathetic to their wishes than the other potential candidates.

But let's not be fooled by appearances. Somkid has been one of Thaksin's most trusted lieutenants and most vocal spokesmen. In fact, Somkid is known to be the architect of many of Thaksin's political marketing gimmicks. And when the situation called for display of "political conscience" in the face of mounting charges of conflicts of interest and misuse of power against Thaksin, Somkid was as silent as anybody else in the government.

Thaksin will make sure that his successor will be operating strictly in his shadow and continuing the populist policies that have been the bedrock of Thai Rak Thai's appeal to the rural poor. It's almost unthinkable that Thaksin and the various factions in Thai Rak Thai will give whoever is chosen to lead the next government a free hand in appointing his Cabinet and pursuing independent polices.

So "Thaksinomics" will continue to flourish, with or without Thaksin officially at the helm. The conflict of interests, cronyism and corruption that were the hallmarks of the first two Thaksin administrations will not go away. The only difference is that Thaksin will no longer be a sitting target.

Thus the continuing campaign by the People's Alliance for Democracy, which was largely instrumental in forcing Thaksin to take a political break, to deny the legitimacy of the April 2 election and the Thai Rak Thai-dominated House of Representatives it produces is finding resonance among many people.

Thaksin's political vacation may help bring down the political temperature but it does not in any way address the allegations levelled against him - most importantly those related to his family's sale of their stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore, which triggered the ongoing political commotion.

Thaksin cannot simply pretend that by stepping aside politically he will be able to deny accountability for his alleged past misdeeds. Far from whitewashing Thaksin's political record, the just-concluded snap election is a testimony to his arrogance of power.

The overwhelming "no vote" has stripped Thaksin of legitimacy even to play the role of puppet master. And yet he continues to pretend that all is fine and that his Thai Rak Thai will continue to rule despite their rejection by vast sections of the society. Senator Chermsak Pinthong was right in warning that Thaksin's arrogance is pushing the country toward political strife that has the potential to explode into something similar to the Bloody May uprising of 1992.

The by-elections being called in the southern constituencies appear more like a political circus than a democratic exercise. Several candidates from little known political parties who were rejected in the April 2 general election have registered to run again with the sole intention of helping Thai Rak Thai candidates win without having to get the 20 per cent of the votes they would need if contesting alone.

But it will still be a one-horse race in six constituencies and there are strong doubts whether the Thai Rak Thai candidates can meet the 20-per-cent requirement. Without all 500 MPs elected by the 30-day deadline, the first sitting of the House of Representatives to elect the House speaker and prime minister promises to be a contentious legal issue.

A political backlash is inevitable if Thai Rak Thai ignores public sentiment and tries to exploit legal loopholes to have the House convene. More street protests are certainly in order if Thaksin tries to use the flawed electoral process to justify his party's mandate.

Far from being "a blow to democracy" as described by an editorial in "The Economist, the spontaneous and widespread anti-Thaksin demonstrations that eventually led to the phenomenal "no vote" against his Thai Rak Thai Party is in fact a sign of political maturity among urban Thais.

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people rallied peacefully for weeks against what they saw as a corrupt and autocratic leader and to demand a more transparent political system that is more publicly accountable speaks volumes about the level of their political consciousness.

Thepchai Yong

Source - The Nation - 10 April (click to view)

Edited April 11, 2006 by sushiman

[sushiman]

Caretaker PM insists he is not a puppet

Pol. Gen. Chitchai said the quickness of prosecution on the complaints filed by the People’s Alliance for Democracy and the Caravan of the Poor People will depend on the number of witnesses and the cases’ levels of difficulty. He has also requested the press members not to follow him and ask him questions, as he would like privacy.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 11 April 2006

didn't we hear that just recently? Of course no questions about TRT's leadership, corruption allegations etc. etc. , how long they want to close their ears, and only spread good news about themselves?

so far this guy is doing all his best to be a good care-shaker replacement of Mr. Thaksin

Really I think it's time TRT show their real faces and stop this game.

Edited April 11, 2006 by sushiman

[[email protected]]

although Taksin resigns but he is still in a caretaker prime minister which means he still able to choose anyone to be a next priminister ???????

what if he choose someome in his own party or just someone he wants to .

so clever

kibby...

[jdinasia]

scroll up a bit Kibby .... but the MP's (if we get some) choose the PM

[thedude]

Last year Democrats won 6, lost 30 seats in Bangkok. Judging by "no vote" they won 30, lost 6 this time.

Surely Bangkokians have more power than farmers, that's the way it is. Bangkok attracts the best and the brightest, and it's Bangkokians who decide the fate of the country.

Farmers just follow whatever they have been sold.

Decentralisation of power is one of the goals of Constitution, but Thaksin of course wouldn't have none of it. He, in fact, stregthened the central government through his non-elected CEO governors, and he delayed transferring 35% of the budget to local bodies.

Week local government is the main reasons for teacher's protest against decentralisation, and it's unsolvable, IMO, unless the local TAOs are cleaned up and properly developed. Something you'd never see with TRT in charge.

last time i checked, it was one man one vote, and if you think about it, there are well-established reasons why this forms the basis of democracy.

[jdinasia]

??

[thedude]

I think the huge difference between '91/'92 and today is that 15 years ago it was a hickup that touched basically only Bangkok, while the countryside was more or less business as usual, did not take any particular side. Not that much long term damage, especially because this part of the world was not as much involved in the global economy as it is now.

Today though the whole country is emotionally involved, and the potential for desaster is far greater. The economical repercussions in todays globalised world with enormous competition in the region for foreign investment makes it a whole different ballgame.

What does "emotional involvement" has got to do with economy? Do you mean that whole country's interest in the political development is bad for investments?

The current situation is not really bad yet, in fact if not for recent developments Thaksin would plunged into his ill-thought mega-projects and enourmous sums of money would be spent with little return and ballooning account deficit. FTAs would be signed without any public input, EGAT would be privatised with long term consequences and so on.

It's about time to stop all this madness and let professionals take over from politicians (would never happen under TRT).

plus, i think you are really missing colpyat's point here. and its a very very important one that seems to escape most people on this forum.

last week, PM Badawi of Malaysia announced a US$ 59 billion investment plan for Malaysia as part of the country's upcoming 5-year plan. this figure overshadows the US$ 40 billion Thaksin was planning for his mega-projects, also on a 5 year schedule. if i remember correctly, PM Badawi's plan called for US$ 31 billion to be spent on education (an area that the TRT has been greviously negligent of), while the balance US$ 28 billion is to be appropriated for transport infrastructure, and energy and related infrastructure.

the mega-projects are not ill-thought schemes to enrich themselves, they are a VERY NECESSARY part of the next phase in Thailand's development. The unfortunate thing is that before the TRT government came about, we never had a government hanging about long enough to push through any large scale development blue print. this is why our roads and rail and drainage and ports and terminals are in such a dismal state. our infrastructure is still of the 60's era while our economy has tried to forge ahead. Infrastructure development can help generate a quantum leap in economic development, it often preceeds economic development. infrastructure increases an economy's CAPACITY for sustained growth.

your statements also reveal that you are perhaps a little uninformed about how infrastructure projects are funded. a central issue to the mega-projects deal was how the government was planning a multi-pronged approach to funding, from PPP structures to wholesale syndication as well as the development of new capital market instruments. in fact, a primary aim of the mega-projects funding, as was repeated by several government officials over many occassions (the press was probably too busy plotting Thaksin's downfall to be paying attention) was to reduce reliance on public debt and to restrict it to no more than 2% of GDP going forward. as a foreign investment professional, i have found this to be highly responsible and it shows sophisticated thinking on the part of the government.

when you consider that most neighbouring countries are jostling hard for strategic value going forward, and that the window of opportunity for positioning in key industries requires competitive industry and locational value that can only be delivered from advanced infrastructure, you start to realise that there is a larger battle that most so-called intellectual Thais are woefully unconcious of.

Edited April 11, 2006 by thedude

[jdinasia]

self edited for niceness

Edited April 11, 2006 by jdinasia

[Jai Dee]

The Democrat affirmed that the party does not oppose against the election

The Democrat Party Deputy Leader, Mr. Jurin Luksanawisit (จุรินทร์ ลักษณวิศิษฏ์), has affirmed that the party does not intend to oppose against the election, but it considers that the previous election was not held on a transparent basis. Moreover, the party also believes that the second round of the general election would not be able to reach 500 MPs nonetheless.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra earlier claimed that the Democrat Party does not follow the electoral regulations. However, the Democrat Party has deemed that the government is misusing its power. Therefore, the Democrats have decided not to take part in the election.

He said that his party respects democracy and does not take any action against the regime. He has also denied the allegation that the party was behind the blockade of the Election Commission in Songkhla (สงขลา) Province.

For the second round of the general election, he said that the Thai Rak Thai Party might not gain the 20% electoral requirement.

He also informed that his party may file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has neglected its obligations and favored certain political party.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 11 April 2006

[jdinasia]

The Democrat affirmed that the party does not oppose against the election

The Democrat Party Deputy Leader, Mr. Jurin Luksanawisit (จุรินทร์ ลักษณวิศิษฏ์), has affirmed that the party does not intend to oppose against the election, but it considers that the previous election was not held on a transparent basis. Moreover, the party also believes that the second round of the general election would not be able to reach 500 MPs nonetheless.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra earlier claimed that the Democrat Party does not follow the electoral regulations. However, the Democrat Party has deemed that the government is misusing its power. Therefore, the Democrats have decided not to take part in the election.

He said that his party respects democracy and does not take any action against the regime. He has also denied the allegation that the party was behind the blockade of the Election Commission in Songkhla (สงขลา) Province.

For the second round of the general election, he said that the Thai Rak Thai Party might not gain the 20% electoral requirement.

He also informed that his party may file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has neglected its obligations and favored certain political party.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 11 April 2006

There's a poorly translated story!

[Plus]

Thedude, I don't really understand what Colpyat was saying there, and if it's really a very important point, please enlighten us again because I still don't see it after reading your post.

Infrastructure investment is surely very important. I would disagree with you that you need a long lasting government to see them through. Once the projects are started and budgeted in, the next government would simply have to continue (unless they run out of funds). That's the way all road network has been developed here, for example. No matter who is in power, road construction goes on.

If you think that the projects are well thought through, that's your right. However you can't base your opinion on pormises by some unknown government officials.

Do you want me to give you a rundown on all the problems not mentioned in government press releases? It will be very off-topic, though.

In short, the government does not have a clear idea what it wants and constantly changes the number of routes. The government does not know where the routes would be and asks the contractors to propose what and where to build to ensure the best returns (even if contractors are not the ones who'll be operating). The government does not know how the projects will be financed and asks the contractors to propose payment options. The government does not know who will be responsible for mega-projects - Finance Ministry, or Transport Ministry, or an extra "mass-transit" agency - the main reason for constant changes due to power struggle.

There are, of course, other areas. Take irrigation, for example. A few years ago Thaksin proposed massive investment in irigation (building 200 bil worth of canals, I think). That's forgotten now and it's foreigners who should come up with the best solutions for Thailand's water shortages. In a very short time - just about a month from recieving Terms of References and submitting detailed bids. Terms of references are already delayed by two months - government's first job.

If you still think this is a "well thought" approach to mega-projects, I guess I should collect quotes from the interested foreigners and Thai independent experts.

[thedude]

Thedude, I don't really understand what Colpyat was saying there, and if it's really a very important point, please enlighten us again because I still don't see it after reading your post.

Infrastructure investment is surely very important. I would disagree with you that you need a long lasting government to see them through. Once the projects are started and budgeted in, the next government would simply have to continue (unless they run out of funds). That's the way all road network has been developed here, for example. No matter who is in power, road construction goes on.

If you think that the projects are well thought through, that's your right. However you can't base your opinion on pormises by some unknown government officials.

Do you want me to give you a rundown on all the problems not mentioned in government press releases? It will be very off-topic, though.

In short, the government does not have a clear idea what it wants and constantly changes the number of routes. The government does not know where the routes would be and asks the contractors to propose what and where to build to ensure the best returns (even if contractors are not the ones who'll be operating). The government does not know how the projects will be financed and asks the contractors to propose payment options. The government does not know who will be responsible for mega-projects - Finance Ministry, or Transport Ministry, or an extra "mass-transit" agency - the main reason for constant changes due to power struggle.

There are, of course, other areas. Take irrigation, for example. A few years ago Thaksin proposed massive investment in irigation (building 200 bil worth of canals, I think). That's forgotten now and it's foreigners who should come up with the best solutions for Thailand's water shortages. In a very short time - just about a month from recieving Terms of References and submitting detailed bids. Terms of references are already delayed by two months - government's first job.

If you still think this is a "well thought" approach to mega-projects, I guess I should collect quotes from the interested foreigners and Thai independent experts.

thanks for the reply, plus.

if you were here during the 80's and 90's, you'd know what i mean about developmental projects put on hold and changing course everytime a new government is formed (average of about 18 months). a famous case being the Hopewell project, the investors finally gave up after the upmteenth change in government and policy, they grew sick of paying off yet another new bunch of officials. the Hopewell debacle dealt a very major blow to investor confidence in the 90's. apart from the few ring roads and expressways, the pace of infrastructure expansion in bangkok has been largely ad hoc and really very slow compared to many neighbouring countries. if you have travelled extensively throughout asia in the past 20 years, you'd know exactly what i'm talking about. i don't think a master plan has ever been successfully implemented in bkk, and this is not the fault of the existing government.

no one is saying the TRT has an excellent track record, in fact its been an endless series of u-turns, back-tracks, mistakes, and comical ineptitude from the management and execution of these projects. but to focus on this is really missing the point. perhaps the ineptitude is partly due to government departments (not necessarily the politicians) never having had to work together in this way before. people keep complaining about the airport being delayed and all the corruption and official mismanagement, i'm just happy we are actually getting a new airport, i don't care if its a year late. this government may have stumbled its way through, but we are getting a new airport.

what i was trying to address was your thinking that the mega-projects are a waste of money. i was pointing out that the funding options are well thought through, not the operational management of the plans. from a policy level, i have heard officials such as BOT governor MR Pridiyathorn talk about managing debt issuance and keeping public debt within a manageable range of GDP. i am not making this up. i know that the GPF is getting involved and exploring private funding scenarios. what this means also is that if the government is willing to adhere to private funding regimes, they'd be self-imposing a higher standard of transparency because no private fund is going to allow the budget to be overblown to an extent that would jeopardise its returns.

the upshot of what i am saying is that the TRT has been the only government to have some policy platform for national development. they are definitely stumbling through it, and not everything they suggest is good. but the past 5 years with the same government has seen many projects started and we can see the framework emerging. the latest changes are not viewed favourably by most of the investment community, and most importantly, it threatens whatever haphazard progress we have been achieving.

[Rinrada]

Gordon was the boy and wot a great idea at the time....but as they say history repeats itself...again...will it?

Believe TRT were actually talking about reviving the project

What happened? (with thanks from Ron @2 bankok.com)

Hopewell, headed by the charismatic Gordon Wu, seemed a good choice to undertake the project.

Wu had developed a reputation for completing infrastructure projects in "difficult" Asian countries where big-money deals are often hampered by graft, poor planning, and endless committees.

According to newspaper accounts, the main problem seemed to be a lack of synergy... bad planning and relations between the parties involved.

Mr. Wu's Hopewell Holdings Ltd. received approval for the project in 1990 without conducting a feasibility study. It began construction before securing ownership of land along the route.

Without any clear timetable for completion, Mr. Wu had running public disputes with officials over the speed of construction howeverwith less than 10 percent of the project completed, the government canceled Hopewell's contract.

Thai officials said Mr. Wu had run out of money, while he blamed government instability for slowing land acquisition. Since 1990, Thailand has had one coup and an average of a government a year--besides numerous leadership changes at the Ministry of Transport and Communication.

Mr. Wu is threatening to sue the government for breach of contract, and Mr. Akapol said the government would seek compensation for incomplete work.

At the peak of his career Mr. Wu, son of a Hong Kong taxi driver, built a reputation for completing infrastructure projects across Asia on time despite difficult conditions.

He cultivated political connections continentwide and enjoyed facing adversity in flamboyant style, once promising to take a swim in the polluted Hong Kong harbor if a project was not completed on time.

But his company is now derided in Bangkok as "Hopeless" Holdings, and a newspaper has dubbed its half-completed pilings in the city the "Stonehenge of Bangkok."

[tettyan]

Getting a bit off topic here, but I just wanted to reply to these comments, then I'll keep my mouth shut. We can continue this on another thread if you'd like.

thanks for the reply, plus.

if you were here during the 80's and 90's, you'd know what i mean about developmental projects put on hold and changing course everytime a new government is formed (average of about 18 months). a famous case being the Hopewell project, the investors finally gave up after the upmteenth change in government and policy, they grew sick of paying off yet another new bunch of officials. the Hopewell debacle dealt a very major blow to investor confidence in the 90's. apart from the few ring roads and expressways, the pace of infrastructure expansion in bangkok has been largely ad hoc and really very slow compared to many neighbouring countries. if you have travelled extensively throughout asia in the past 20 years, you'd know exactly what i'm talking about. i don't think a master plan has ever been successfully implemented in bkk, and this is not the fault of the existing government.

Well, the 1990s wasn't perfect, but at least that saw the implementation of the Skytrain and the Subway, which ain't bad in my book. The Skytrain was really BMA/Chamlong's initiative, but Chuan should be given credit for going along with it (unlike Thaksin's shameless attempts to BLOCK Apirak's efforts to extend BTS to Thonburi). Planning for the subway in its current form took shape under Chuan I, was modified significantly by Banharn, but when Chuan II came back, they decided to implemented it as modified by previous gov'ts. Not perfect, but BKK now has 45km of mass transit as a result.

no one is saying the TRT has an excellent track record, in fact its been an endless series of u-turns, back-tracks, mistakes, and comical ineptitude from the management and execution of these projects. but to focus on this is really missing the point. perhaps the ineptitude is partly due to government departments (not necessarily the politicians) never having had to work together in this way before. people keep complaining about the airport being delayed and all the corruption and official mismanagement, i'm just happy we are actually getting a new airport, i don't care if its a year late. this government may have stumbled its way through, but we are getting a new airport.

...

the upshot of what i am saying is that the TRT has been the only government to have some policy platform for national development. they are definitely stumbling through it, and not everything they suggest is good. but the past 5 years with the same government has seen many projects started and we can see the framework emerging. the latest changes are not viewed favourably by most of the investment community, and most importantly, it threatens whatever haphazard progress we have been achieving.

Contrast the experience of the 90s with today. The decade is more than halfway over, and not a single track has yet been laid for a new project. You say there was never a master plan, but there was if you see here.

If the government had just continued with this plan without letting the factions meddle and fight each other for a piece of the pie, we might actually have another subway/skytrain line in service now.

Sometimes doing nothing yields better results than doing something. If TRT had done nothing, then at least the skytrain would have reached Thonburi by now.

Ron Morris over at 2bangkok.com (cited earlier) has done an excellent job chronicling the Skytrain and mass transit issues. Click here to read more about the Skytrain extension controversy.

In the end, it's a real shame. I think Thaksin's failure on this issue played no small role in his downfall. For someone who appealed to rural voters on bread-and-butter issues, did he forget that the central bread-and-butter issue for BKKers is traffic? If Thaksin had shown more leadership in pushing the projects, without letting his minions hold it up while they each sparred for a piece of the pie, city voters may have been more likely to vote to keep him in power during the last election.

Edited April 11, 2006 by tettyan

[Old Man River]

I think the huge difference between '91/'92 and today is that 15 years ago it was a hickup that touched basically only Bangkok, while the countryside was more or less business as usual, did not take any particular side. Not that much long term damage, especially because this part of the world was not as much involved in the global economy as it is now.

Today though the whole country is emotionally involved, and the potential for desaster is far greater. The economical repercussions in todays globalised world with enormous competition in the region for foreign investment makes it a whole different ballgame.

What does "emotional involvement" has got to do with economy? Do you mean that whole country's interest in the political development is bad for investments?

The current situation is not really bad yet, in fact if not for recent developments Thaksin would plunged into his ill-thought mega-projects and enourmous sums of money would be spent with little return and ballooning account deficit. FTAs would be signed without any public input, EGAT would be privatised with long term consequences and so on.

It's about time to stop all this madness and let professionals take over from politicians (would never happen under TRT).

plus, i think you are really missing colpyat's point here. and its a very very important one that seems to escape most people on this forum.

last week, PM Badawi of Malaysia announced a US$ 59 billion investment plan for Malaysia as part of the country's upcoming 5-year plan. this figure overshadows the US$ 40 billion Thaksin was planning for his mega-projects, also on a 5 year schedule. if i remember correctly, PM Badawi's plan called for US$ 31 billion to be spent on education (an area that the TRT has been greviously negligent of), while the balance US$ 28 billion is to be appropriated for transport infrastructure, and energy and related infrastructure.

the mega-projects are not ill-thought schemes to enrich themselves, they are a VERY NECESSARY part of the next phase in Thailand's development. The unfortunate thing is that before the TRT government came about, we never had a government hanging about long enough to push through any large scale development blue print. this is why our roads and rail and drainage and ports and terminals are in such a dismal state. our infrastructure is still of the 60's era while our economy has tried to forge ahead. Infrastructure development can help generate a quantum leap in economic development, it often preceeds economic development. infrastructure increases an economy's CAPACITY for sustained growth.

your statements also reveal that you are perhaps a little uninformed about how infrastructure projects are funded. a central issue to the mega-projects deal was how the government was planning a multi-pronged approach to funding, from PPP structures to wholesale syndication as well as the development of new capital market instruments. in fact, a primary aim of the mega-projects funding, as was repeated by several government officials over many occassions (the press was probably too busy plotting Thaksin's downfall to be paying attention) was to reduce reliance on public debt and to restrict it to no more than 2% of GDP going forward. as a foreign investment professional, i have found this to be highly responsible and it shows sophisticated thinking on the part of the government.

when you consider that most neighbouring countries are jostling hard for strategic value going forward, and that the window of opportunity for positioning in key industries requires competitive industry and locational value that can only be delivered from advanced infrastructure, you start to realise that there is a larger battle that most so-called intellectual Thais are woefully unconcious of.

ColPyat, any fear of long term stability in Thailand stems from the issues in the south and its potential for spillovers, not from the northeast. For the most part, apart from infrastructural projects, foreign direct investment (FDI) is invested near urban areas. Organized unrest, such as is possible from outside influences in the south is a real risk to FDI. Organized unrest from the northeast, spilling over into urban areas, is not considered a high risk by investors. As it relates to the northeast it continues to be thought that money will remain as its highest motivator, as it has always been. I don't know what is right here. As an American, we have never been comfortable with Thailand's class structure.

Dude, Your points are correct, but step back now and look at the big picture. Yes infrastructural upgrades are badly needed; yes partial privitazation of SOE's would generate funds to pay for the infrastructual upgrades and yes FTA's would facilitate trade. Kudos to Dr. Thaksin and the TRT for coming up with this. However, do you really think the TRT are the right ones now to move forward on this? Do you really want the TRT to have access to a THB 1.7 trillion goldmine after they have torn down the Country's checks and balances and strangled its once free press? When Auditor - General Khunying Jaruvan says that the new airport is full of corruption and she estimates that corruption currently costs Thailand THB 400 billion per year, don't you ever ask yourself whether this is the right government to go forward?

[Bryan in Isaan]

Good discussion on Bangkok megaprojects and infrastructure, something I am completely unfamiliar with. If those projects are suffering under the TRT administration I can understand why the Bangkok voters would be unhappy.

The flip side of this is that there have been hundreds of miles of hiways repaired, improved and expanded out here in the Isaan over the past couple of years. Many hiways have gone from two lanes of potholes to new, divided four lane highways. This is just one example out of many real improvements here. These improvements could also contribute to decentralization.

Thaksin's spending out here is not just short term election time fluff to get votes as some suggest. These projects are solid and will promote the long term good of this region. Just as the Bangkok voters might be unhappy about their infrastructure projects lagging, the upcountry voters are happy and want to keep the TRT in power in order to maintain this real progress.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Bryan in Isaan

[Plus]

The projects you are describing sound exactly like a thing that any government would do - they are initiated not by politicians but by civil service and budgeted for many years ahead.

Pridiyatorn is a respectable central banker, but he's not in charge of financing mega-projects. He'll do what he can but ulitmately it's the politicians on the loose who decide what to build and how much to pay for it, and when.

Thaksin treats banks just like any politician before him - take as much as you want, and keep it off books if possible.

No Thai politician before him ran around the world trying to pay in chickens for fighter jets or ultra-modern trains. There is this thing, invented some time ago, called money, to pay for services and stuff.

Just trying to imagine how he will pay to multinational building conglomerates in chicken and rice, and balance in shrimps, is mind-boggling. There's no monetary unit called "chicken", you can't put them in the bank, or invest in the stock market. He himself didn't get 76 billion frozen chickens for ShinCorp.

Whatever way you look at Thaksin's involvement in mega-projects - he's absolutely unprofessional.

Bangkokians bought his election plans - trains in the sky, trains underground, trains everywhere. I remember giving a lift to a Thai collegue, and when she saw TRT poster and some construction work started she really believed that there will be skytrain over Ramintra.

How naive. It's just a flyover, and if skytrain ever comes there, it will have to be dismantled, or the train will climb up to about 10th floor.

[sushiman]

Bhokin outlines tentative charter amendment process

Thai Rak Thai Party deputy leader Bhokin Bhalakula Tuesday outlined a tentative process for constitutional amendments and vowed to keep his party out of the rewriting.

"The party wants a neutral panel to rewrite the Constitution and a referendum on the draft amendments before enactment without the party's involvement," he said.

Bhokin said his party would unveil its proposed plan after the Songkran holiday and expected to fine-tune it by factoring in public criticisms before putting it into action.

He promised to heed counter proposals, including those from the Democrat Party.

The charter rewriting is expected to start following the convening of Parliament, which will take place only after the completion of the electoral process for the 500-seat House of Representatives and the 200-seat Senate.

Under Bhokin's tentative plan, the joint House-Senate session will be convened to amend Article 313 of the Constitution paving the way for a neutral panel to take charge of the charter rewrite.

At present, only the Cabinet and elected lawmakers can sponsor draft amendments.

The formation of the neutral panel remains a contentious issue between the ruling party and the three former opposition allies, the Democrat, Chat Thai and Mahachon parties.

According to Bhokin, an assembly of professional groups should be formed. It would be modelled on the National Convention, or Sapha Sanam Ma, created by late premier Sanya Dharmasakti following the 1973 student uprising.

The model of the 99-member Constitutional Drafting Assembly, which took charge for the drafting of the 1997 Constitution, is deemed inappropriate because Parliament would elect its members. And the incoming Lower House will be completely dominated by the ruling party.

Should the National Convention model be acceptable, some 100 members will be nominated by 2,000 professional groups registered under the law governing the National Economic and Social Advisory Council (Nesac).

Additional professional groups may join the nomination process under the care of five secretary-generals. The five will be from the House Secretariat, the Senate Secretariat, the King Prajadhipok's Institute, the Council of State and the Nesac.

In addition to 100 assembly members, another 20 will include representatives from the courts and independent organisations, as well as experts on law and public administration.

The 120-member assembly will then elect a panel of charter writers and scrutinise the draft. Its vetted draft will go straight to a referendum, bypassing Parliament.

Bhokin said his party instructed him to solicit opinions of leading figures in society in order to ensure neutrality in the drafting process.

Some party executives called for a neutral panel of former prime ministers and former Supreme Court presidents to assist in screening the assembly members, he said.

He said he was willing to implement a drafting process deemed appropriate by society rather than pushing for his own ideas.

He said he was reluctant to involve the Privy Council in nominating the neutral panel for constitutional amendments but would abide by the judgement of society.

"The involvement of the Privy Council is in line with the Democrat's proposed process and will be implemented if society says so," he said.

Based on the original idea of law expert Amorn Chandarasomboon, the Democrat Party proposed the Privy Council nominate a seven-member panel to draft constitutional amendments.

Source - Nation 11APR 2006 - click to follow link

Finally some news about some promises made by the PM before.

Experts (Very interesting postings, the last view pages!) sounds fair enough?

Difficult to say? I wonder if TRT will be willing to do some steps as promised and also open up their accounts etc. a bit...

Edited April 11, 2006 by sushiman

[jezchesters]

I think the huge difference between '91/'92 and today is that 15 years ago it was a hickup that touched basically only Bangkok, while the countryside was more or less business as usual, did not take any particular side. Not that much long term damage, especially because this part of the world was not as much involved in the global economy as it is now.

Today though the whole country is emotionally involved, and the potential for desaster is far greater. The economical repercussions in todays globalised world with enormous competition in the region for foreign investment makes it a whole different ballgame.

What does "emotional involvement" has got to do with economy? Do you mean that whole country's interest in the political development is bad for investments?

The current situation is not really bad yet, in fact if not for recent developments Thaksin would plunged into his ill-thought mega-projects and enourmous sums of money would be spent with little return and ballooning account deficit. FTAs would be signed without any public input, EGAT would be privatised with long term consequences and so on.

It's about time to stop all this madness and let professionals take over from politicians (would never happen under TRT).

plus, i think you are really missing colpyat's point here. and its a very very important one that seems to escape most people on this forum.

last week, PM Badawi of Malaysia announced a US$ 59 billion investment plan for Malaysia as part of the country's upcoming 5-year plan. this figure overshadows the US$ 40 billion Thaksin was planning for his mega-projects, also on a 5 year schedule. if i remember correctly, PM Badawi's plan called for US$ 31 billion to be spent on education (an area that the TRT has been greviously negligent of), while the balance US$ 28 billion is to be appropriated for transport infrastructure, and energy and related infrastructure.

the mega-projects are not ill-thought schemes to enrich themselves, they are a VERY NECESSARY part of the next phase in Thailand's development. The unfortunate thing is that before the TRT government came about, we never had a government hanging about long enough to push through any large scale development blue print. this is why our roads and rail and drainage and ports and terminals are in such a dismal state. our infrastructure is still of the 60's era while our economy has tried to forge ahead. Infrastructure development can help generate a quantum leap in economic development, it often preceeds economic development. infrastructure increases an economy's CAPACITY for sustained growth.

your statements also reveal that you are perhaps a little uninformed about how infrastructure projects are funded. a central issue to the mega-projects deal was how the government was planning a multi-pronged approach to funding, from PPP structures to wholesale syndication as well as the development of new capital market instruments. in fact, a primary aim of the mega-projects funding, as was repeated by several government officials over many occassions (the press was probably too busy plotting Thaksin's downfall to be paying attention) was to reduce reliance on public debt and to restrict it to no more than 2% of GDP going forward. as a foreign investment professional, i have found this to be highly responsible and it shows sophisticated thinking on the part of the government.

when you consider that most neighbouring countries are jostling hard for strategic value going forward, and that the window of opportunity for positioning in key industries requires competitive industry and locational value that can only be delivered from advanced infrastructure, you start to realise that there is a larger battle that most so-called intellectual Thais are woefully unconcious of.

Dude! Nice to hear someone putting actual figures on the economic aspect of this debate

However, if you abstract this from the big picture, you end up looking at the situation from one myopic angle. Politics consist of manifold components: sociology, religion, security systems, checks and balances, electoral reform etc. We could go on for ages, but economics is just one facet of a multi-faceted situation.

If you had written the above and applied it to a standard 'western democratic' model you would have been totally correct. This would have involved the government realising that certain infrastrucure improvements were necessary for an increase in Thailand's economic expansion; these improvements put out for tender on a level and equal playing field; bids examined and awarded - resulting in realistic, good value deadlines and budgets agreed.

This didn't happen under TRT. Contracts were awarded, not to the best company for the job, but to Thaksin's cronies. This is why mega-projects have notoriously run over-budget and over-deadline. Suvambhani anyone?

"the mega-projects are not ill-thought schemes to enrich themselves, they are a VERY NECESSARY part of the next phase in Thailand's development"

You're missing the oldest trick in the book! This one has been worked to death by the USA! You create a necessary project, award the contract to your friends, and then recoup the money into your own bank accounts. For example, how much financial aid does th US give to Africa? A lot. How much of that is unconditional? Virtually none. 'If we give you a billion in aid, you have to spend 90% of that back through US companies'. Who's rebuilding Iraq at the moment? Not Iraqi companies. In fact US companies were putting in reconstruction tenders before the second gulf war even started.

Thaksin copied the model perfectly. Approve a contract for a billion and give it to your friend on condition of a personal kickback that goes straight into your bank account. That's not stealing directly from the treasury, that's 'just endemic Thai corruption'.

"as a foreign investment professional, i have found this to be highly responsible and it shows sophisticated thinking on the part of the government"

OK. Money's your thing. I studied International Relations, of which foreign investment is a small part. Responsible? Yes, as long as the foreign investors get their return. Responsible in the real world? Not at all. Do foreign investers care if their investment is used to fund white elephants and line politicians' pockets? Well, that's your area of expertise so you tell me...

Why has there been no infrastructure development in the south? Because TRT only fund projects where they won votes. You've seen how long a train journey takes from Bangkok to Surat Thani...

As a foreign invesment professional, you more than most will appreciate how much foreign investors chasing the Asian tiger contributed to the financial collapse of 97. Everone wanted in, at all costs, but when the going got tough, the investment was recalled, and bugger the consequences for the Thai people as long as the foreign investors were OK.

I agree that improvements in infrastructure are necessary, but I also agree with the current pause. This will enable (hopefully) investigations into any corrupt dealings pertaining to said projects. If this gives out a new message of political and financial transparency to the international community, all the better.

In short, foreign investment is not always a good thing. Like most things in life, it works best when there is a motive other then brazen financial gain.

The process has been temporarily paused, and for good reason.

Rant over

[jezchesters]

Bugger! Sorry Dude!

That'll teach me for jumping the gun and answering a post before I read the rest of the thread! Looks like I've just reiterated other replies...

Never mind - managed to occupy the little brain fella in the process

[Jai Dee]

EC has yet to reach a verdict on the case with TRT leader infringing on election law

The Election Commission (EC) has indicated that it does not yet have a verdict on the case where the Thai Rak Thai Party Leader, Pol. Lt. Gen. Thaksin Shinawatra, has been accused of violating the electoral law. The EC has reasoned that it does not yet have complete evidence.

Pol. Maj. Gen. Aekkachai Warunprapha (เอกชัย วารุณประภา), the EC Secretary-General, said that the agency has yet to evaluate the case on Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin, due to incomplete evidence. He said the evaluation has been postponed, but this is because it wanted to yield clarity and not because the EC wanted to stall time. As for the issuance of yellow cards and red cards, Pol. Maj. Gen. Aekkachai said the EC already has a standard for this, but it would allow the accused and the complaint filer to clarify on the case before issuance of the cards.

The EC will today (April 12th) at 10 AM go over the complaint filed by Democrat Party Secretary-General Suthep Thueksuban (สุเทพ เทือกสุบรรณ) regarding the hiring of small parties to run in the general election.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 12 April 2006

[Jai Dee]

Mr. Banharn admits he has dinner appointment with TRT leader within 1-2 days

Chart Thai party leader Banharn Silapa-archa(บรรหาร ศิลปอาชา) admitted that he has planned to have a dinner meeting with Thai Rak Thai party leader Thaksin Shinawatra within 1-2 days. He stated that the appointment is unrelated to politics.

Mr. Banharn said the appointment will take place within 1-2 days before TRT leader Thaksin travels abroad.

He insisted that he is not worried about such appointment since it is personal meeting and they will have a talk on general topics only.

Chart Thai leader also talked about the suitable candidate for the new Prime Minister, adding that Dr. Thaksin has already considered the most appropriate person but will not reveal until the parliament meeting resumes.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 12 April 2006

[Jai Dee]

TRT leader Thaksin reminded party members to stay united

Caretaker Prime Minister and Thai Rak Thai party leader Thaksin Shinawatra has urged the party members to work in unity as he vows he will stick with his members.

During TRT party meeting yesterday, Dr Thaksin also joined the meeting and has reiterated all the MPs to work in harmony and to love the party. He said he would be an advisor for everyone and will visit the areas more often as to follow up with policies of TRT party.

In the meantime, the party secretary Mr. Suriya Jungrungruengkit(สุริยะ จึงรุ่งเรืองกิจ), as a party representative said that this is the first time in the history where people have shown their sorrow when the premier has announced his stance not to receive the post of premiership. He added that TRT party has always worked for people and believes that within a year, Dr. Thaksin will be re-elected as a premier again.

He has requested Dr. Thaksin to take the premiership post again after taking full rest during his time off.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 12 April 2006

[marshbags]

Good discussion on Bangkok megaprojects and infrastructure, something I am completely unfamiliar with. If those projects are suffering under the TRT administration I can understand why the Bangkok voters would be unhappy.

The flip side of this is that there have been hundreds of miles of hiways repaired, improved and expanded out here in the Isaan over the past couple of years. Many hiways have gone from two lanes of potholes to new, divided four lane highways. This is just one example out of many real improvements here. These improvements could also contribute to decentralization.

Thaksin's spending out here is not just short term election time fluff to get votes as some suggest. These projects are solid and will promote the long term good of this region. Just as the Bangkok voters might be unhappy about their infrastructure projects lagging, the upcountry voters are happy and want to keep the TRT in power in order to maintain this real progress.

End of quote...........................................................................

...............................................................

While ever there is cronyism and lack of transparency these projects are reduced to inferior

outcomes and will not last.

Just to take Bryans reference to roads. ( Not having a personal go at you B.i.I. )

I live in Isaan and the new main roads are constantly being repaired due to funding being cut via the bribes according to rank and position.

Take a look at the new bye pass through Udon going towards NongKhai for a classic example, it,s being repaired / botched up on a weekly basis.

It,s a joke.

The envelope passing left little to do the job properly someone in the know told me when i mentioned the fact it was like this from immediately after it was opened.

I.E. 10% to the top official 5% to the next 3% to the next ect. ect. This is fact posters.

ALL new " Mega Projects and Infrastructure ect " are constantly undermined by these greedy selfish officials, top to bottom and we all know it,s a good way to extend their personal wealth/fortunes.

They are a way of enriching the priviliged and Pooyai first and foremost.

Again look at the new airport for another example.

When 100% of the allocated funds are spent in for the benefits of what they are aimed at, only then will they look as money well spent.

This is i know TIT but it doesn,t get away from this embedded corruption so things will not improve in a qualtiy way until this is addressed, no matter how good the intentions/benefits are.

Of course things are improving but how much better and long term these projects could / should be

marshbags

P.S. Some resignation by Thaksin, you supporters.

He cannot even go on holiday to the U.K. without wanting to meet the Eur. leaders, along with his chosen few going with him.

Can you believe the mindset of this person ??????????

The world really are laughing at this self appointed ????????????????????????

Edited April 12, 2006 by marshbags

[Jai Dee]

Kuthep asks EC to cut funds to Democrat, Chat Thai

Thai Rak Thai Party MP Kuthep Saikrachang Tuesday called on the Election Commission to cut funds to the Democrat and Chat Thai parties on the grounds that they were undermining democracy by blocking the election.

Kuthep said the authorities should investigate the election boycott by the two parties to determine whether they were guilty of electoral offences.

They should not be given funds normally allocated to support political parties, he said.

"We have evidence the two parties supported the mob that gathered to block candidates from small parties as they tried to register their candidacies ... and former Democrat MPs also joined the [anti-Thaksin] rallies," he said.

He had also learned Democrats planned to hold rallies in Yasothon and Khon Kaen at which incidents similar to the ugly scene in Chiang Mai late last month would be repeated, he said. At the rally in Chiang Mai senior Democrats were pelted with chairs and rotting fruit.

Source: The Nation - 12 April 2006