NATION ANALYSIS
Vote buying 'not decisive factor in an election'
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

Bangkokians need a re-think: Anfrel chief

BANGKOK: -- Contrary to claims by the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), vote buying is not the decisive factor in an election, said Pongsak Chanon, Thailand project coordinator at the Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel).

Increasingly, voters consider each party's policies and what they will gain from those policies, and while the reality of vote buying cannot be denied, it is no longer the decisive factor, he said.

"It's not [true] that people can't think for themselves," said Pongsak, adding that they consider policies of each party when voting for party-list candidates.

He urged "educated Bangkokians" who still consider rural voters ignorant to have a rethink.

He said rural voters made conscious efforts to vote for the party that would benefit them.

Meanwhile, some in the middle class and "elite" who scorn rural folk no longer accept the concept of free elections despite the fact that many of them practise some form of corruption, such as using money or connections to get their children into posh schools.

"They don't think they need the approval of the majority in order to push for change."

No Thai political party is truly mass-based, Pongsak said. He cited the labour movement, which has failed to form a political party truly representative of its ideology. Thus all major Thai political parties are under the influence of the party bosses and big capitalists who fund them.

Pongsak said there was less room for vote buying but it would take time to educate the rural poor not to accept money, which is the main excuse critics use to deny the legitimacy of free elections in Thailand.

"Some people have admitted to me that they took money but they may actually vote for someone else," he added.

No matter what happens in politics, Thais will have to learn to co-exist with people who think differently from themselves. "Thai society is rather narrow-minded. [Respecting] differing views is a basic principle."

He said any proposed reform must be done legitimately, and no reform can succeed overnight.

"There's no ready-made change. We need to create a momentum.

"There must be a way for people to talk instead of being stuck in a zero-sum game. If we don't stick to common rules - many support having another military coup - then the mistakes will happen all over again.

"We don't really learn from the past. Many still want tanks to roll out."


-- The Nation 2014-01-25

The idea that its 200 baht (as opposed to free healthcare, student & SME loans, infrastructure investment, subsidised fuel etc) that decides these peoples votes is ridiculous. To see it spouted out here ad nauseam by the same dozen posters is so boring and ignorant of how rural minds think.

Populist politics is the same world over, people vote for what benefits them most.

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

" It will take time to educate the rural poor not to accept money " and just how long will it take to educate the elite, rich and powerful not to be corrupt ?

These people look down on the rural folks for accepting B500 for a vote while pocketing sums that have more Zeros than the Japanese air force had.

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

and if they follow the recent advice from the Ministry of Health they never will know what's going on because they will not be reading, watching or listening to anything about politics.

Zany is the only word I can think of to describe the article.

Falang no understand.

But he thai.

Ah.. He satoopid

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

Which issues?

Like land reform or inheritance tax for the rich.

some people on here are just BRAIN DEAD..I have seen for years the vote buying here...it has NOTHING to do with health care blah blah blah ...its the colour of money plain and simple...1 family can get 3,000+ baht for their votes that is all they think about that minute of that day...WAKE UP <deleted>

Another arrogant view about election and voters. Why does he blame the bkk elite? He's the same.

some people on here are just BRAIN DEAD..I have seen for years the vote buying here...it has NOTHING to do with health care blah blah blah ...its the colour of money plain and simple...1 family can get 3,000+ baht for their votes that is all they think about that minute of that day...WAKE UP <deleted>

Even Korn one of the democrat heavies admits it isn't the sole arbiter of an election. So, what's your point?

Wrong side of the bed today?

I am not sure what they would like a voter to do?

Vote for the party that's best for the country whilst everyone knows they are all incompetent crooks?

Nowhere in the world is an election decided on who has the best policies for the whole country. Everyone votes with their own wallet.

I think ptp should run on the fact that if it's the debt incurred to fund these policies that are the problem he will solve it by putting up taxes.

How about a tax on gold businesses, bank transfers and land holdings. Fairs fair you know, to save the country from incurring more debt and all.

Is it April Fools Day again?

Just follow the Pied Piper and Collect goodies on the way.

BOTH sides buy votes and if they didn't the results would be the same. The practice should end, but that is not why the reds keep winning elections.

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

My Thai inlaws are what I would call middle class. Educated in that they all have degrees, one with honours as she's a school teacher. Come election time they all pocket their handouts from the Democrat party candidate as they have always done in the past.

Vote buying takes place by all parties and as the OP says probably makes very little difference to the overall count.

The problem faced by the Dems is that the rural poor hate them, simple as that, and it is up to the Dems to 'educate' the electorate as to their policies not roll over yet again and boycott the election.

Somebody should ask him if he considers unsustainable populist policies as vote buying, or not. IMHO there are more (and much more expensive, but with taxpayer's money) ways to buy a vote than pushing cash into someone's hand.

I am not sure what they would like a voter to do?

Vote for the party that's best for the country whilst everyone knows they are all incompetent crooks?

Nowhere in the world is an election decided on who has the best policies for the whole country. Everyone votes with their own wallet.

I think ptp should run on the fact that if it's the debt incurred to fund these policies that are the problem he will solve it by putting up taxes.

How about a tax on gold businesses, bank transfers and land holdings. Fairs fair you know, to save the country from incurring more debt and all.

What's wrong with having major parties submit policies of independent accounting before elections? It's one thing to go for a policy with personal benefits, another to accept it after you know the cost.

Vote buying may not be a decisive factor, but "get out the vote" is. Isn't vote buying in Thailand not, in reality, an effort to get the most people possible to vote, hopefully, for your side? In a democracy, isn't a large voter turnout a good thing?

Even the EC said vote buying is a problem, but understandable at the same time. Most Bangkokians don't realise just how poor many people in this country are. 500 or even 200 baht can make a difference to them. Having said that, the wealthy should not criticize them when they prefer to pay the bribe to a cop 200 baht rather then the 500 baht at the station for a traffic violation. The problem is that the poor are generally less educated about the effect of populist policies on the economy. They may make some short term gain (many rice farmers might disagree), but the government ends up in the red at the end of the day. The rice scam is a fine example. I bet all workers are still not getting 15K a month and most P1 students still do not have their tablets. Those kinds of policies were just another form of vote buying because they were directed at fast financial gain for a large portion of the voting population. The problem is that none of these policies are debated in front of a national audience before an election. Then people can decide if a short financial gain is really better than a major loss over the following few years.

Vote buying may not be a decisive factor, but "get out the vote" is. Isn't vote buying in Thailand not, in reality, an effort to get the most people possible to vote, hopefully, for your side? In a democracy, isn't a large voter turnout a good thing?

In Australia, everyone has the 'right to vote' If you don't vote you get fined. Make it compulsory if they want to ensure full turn out. It won't stop politicians using populist policies though.

It's vote buying with populist policies when the people in power use policies such as the Rice Scheme (at taxpayers expense) to directly benefit their supporters (in theory), something that the opposition cannot do. This happens worldwide however and it's up to the "people" to be able to see through the charade and actually think whether it will benefit them or the country in the long term. Long term thinking (past this moment in time) is not a strong suit of many here.

The actual direct handing over of cash to vote for one party or another goes on on both sides and does have an influence, however less so now than before since people seem to have (somewhat) woken up to the fact that they can take the money from one side and still vote for whoever they want to.

I am not sure what they would like a voter to do?

Vote for the party that's best for the country whilst everyone knows they are all incompetent crooks?

Nowhere in the world is an election decided on who has the best policies for the whole country. Everyone votes with their own wallet.

I think ptp should run on the fact that if it's the debt incurred to fund these policies that are the problem he will solve it by putting up taxes.

How about a tax on gold businesses, bank transfers and land holdings. Fairs fair you know, to save the country from incurring more debt and all.

What's wrong with having major parties submit policies of independent accounting before elections? It's one thing to go for a policy with personal benefits, another to accept it after you know the cost.

Fine idea. Haven't seen it done anywhere else in the world. If I was a farmer and I knew I would get an extra 5000 USD for voting one way or another, what would I care.

Bearing in mind, there are literally millions of individuals and companies who evade their taxes in thailand every year. And you think they don't know this.

If the pooyai ban can get a new pick up for loyalty to a party, why shouldn't the farmer.

It is the hypocrisy of saying farmers or the poor aren't entitled but everyone else is, that makes the while discussion moot.

It's vote buying with populist policies when the people in power use policies such as the Rice Scheme (at taxpayers expense) to directly benefit their supporters (in theory), something that the opposition cannot do. This happens worldwide however and it's up to the "people" to be able to see through the charade and actually think whether it will benefit them or the country in the long term. Long term thinking (past this moment in time) is not a strong suit of many here.

The actual direct handing over of cash to vote for one party or another goes on on both sides and does have an influence, however less so now than before since people seem to have (somewhat) woken up to the fact that they can take the money from one side and still vote for whoever they want to.

The democrats as their own subsidy. It would have been possible to make the system acceptable under trade laws and the farmer would still have got paid.

Is it paying the subsidy you don't like or the corruption. I think the subsidy is fair. Christ sake, they give tax breaks to Toyota to open factories as though they need it.

What's wrong with giving farmers a better living.

I am not sure what they would like a voter to do?

Vote for the party that's best for the country whilst everyone knows they are all incompetent crooks?

Nowhere in the world is an election decided on who has the best policies for the whole country. Everyone votes with their own wallet.

I think ptp should run on the fact that if it's the debt incurred to fund these policies that are the problem he will solve it by putting up taxes.

How about a tax on gold businesses, bank transfers and land holdings. Fairs fair you know, to save the country from incurring more debt and all.

What's wrong with having major parties submit policies of independent accounting before elections? It's one thing to go for a policy with personal benefits, another to accept it after you know the cost.

Fine idea. Haven't seen it done anywhere else in the world. If I was a farmer and I knew I would get an extra 5000 USD for voting one way or another, what would I care.

Bearing in mind, there are literally millions of individuals and companies who evade their taxes in thailand every year. And you think they don't know this.

If the pooyai ban can get a new pick up for loyalty to a party, why shouldn't the farmer.

It is the hypocrisy of saying farmers or the poor aren't entitled but everyone else is, that makes the while discussion moot.

We do it in Godzone.

Sister in Law said that both major parties offer money in the village. Some take money from both and vote for who they want.

I am not sure what they would like a voter to do?

Vote for the party that's best for the country whilst everyone knows they are all incompetent crooks?

Nowhere in the world is an election decided on who has the best policies for the whole country. Everyone votes with their own wallet.

I think ptp should run on the fact that if it's the debt incurred to fund these policies that are the problem he will solve it by putting up taxes.

How about a tax on gold businesses, bank transfers and land holdings. Fairs fair you know, to save the country from incurring more debt and all.

What's wrong with having major parties submit policies of independent accounting before elections? It's one thing to go for a policy with personal benefits, another to accept it after you know the cost.

Fine idea. Haven't seen it done anywhere else in the world. If I was a farmer and I knew I would get an extra 5000 USD for voting one way or another, what would I care.

Bearing in mind, there are literally millions of individuals and companies who evade their taxes in thailand every year. And you think they don't know this.

If the pooyai ban can get a new pick up for loyalty to a party, why shouldn't the farmer.

It is the hypocrisy of saying farmers or the poor aren't entitled but everyone else is, that makes the while discussion moot.

We do it in Godzone.

Lost me there. All parties in grown up democracies give numbers, opponents rubbish them, media check them.

Why abhisut couldn't have dive that God knows. He did an economics degree at Oxford didn't he. Presumably he believes in trickle down economics.

Problem is, isaan is a desert most of the time. Water doesn't trickle to the villages.

The idea that its 200 baht (as opposed to free healthcare, student & SME loans, infrastructure investment, subsidised fuel etc) that decides these peoples votes is ridiculous. To see it spouted out here ad nauseam by the same dozen posters is so boring and ignorant of how rural minds think.

Populist politics is the same world over, people vote for what benefits them most.

There are strong cultural aspects to vote buying in Thailand that you have not considered. You're also assuming that 'rural people' are bereft of morals - that they would take someone's money and turn their back on them.

You're a bit naive if you think politicians do this for nothing.

Vote buying may not be a decisive factor, but "get out the vote" is. Isn't vote buying in Thailand not, in reality, an effort to get the most people possible to vote, hopefully, for your side? In a democracy, isn't a large voter turnout a good thing?

In Australia, everyone has the 'right to vote' If you don't vote you get fined. Make it compulsory if they want to ensure full turn out. It won't stop politicians using populist policies though.

Only issue I have with that is that many migrants are currently forced to vote in their home village (where they're registered) not where they live. Making it mandatory without changing that forces a major expense on people to travel home.

It's vote buying with populist policies when the people in power use policies such as the Rice Scheme (at taxpayers expense) to directly benefit their supporters (in theory), something that the opposition cannot do. This happens worldwide however and it's up to the "people" to be able to see through the charade and actually think whether it will benefit them or the country in the long term. Long term thinking (past this moment in time) is not a strong suit of many here.

The actual direct handing over of cash to vote for one party or another goes on on both sides and does have an influence, however less so now than before since people seem to have (somewhat) woken up to the fact that they can take the money from one side and still vote for whoever they want to.

The democrats as their own subsidy. It would have been possible to make the system acceptable under trade laws and the farmer would still have got paid.

Is it paying the subsidy you don't like or the corruption. I think the subsidy is fair. Christ sake, they give tax breaks to Toyota to open factories as though they need it.

What's wrong with giving farmers a better living.

Nothing wrong with subsidies per se and I have nothing against giving the farmers a better living. My issue is with the overinflated pricing of the scheme, the mismanagement and the corruption. Anyone with half a brain could see where this particular scheme was headed BEFORE it was implemented and it's killed the Thai Rice market for years to come. How has that helped the farmers?

He said rural voters made conscious efforts to vote for the party that would benefit them.

Though this statement has an element of truth in it, the analysis just stopped at this point. How does a simple mind work? A simple mind ony sees what is in front of it, and not where it would be lead to. Much like hunters using bait to catch a live prey.

Now the farmers and the poor see for themselves that what seemed to benefit them in the short term, will cause them to become slaves in the long term - a slave to debts.

What kind of past policies can be deemed as bait and cause them to fall into debts? Easy credit, Bt1m fund per village, raising the minimum wage without raising productivity, rice pledging at a price above market rates, tax rebate for first cars, etc.

Even the rich and educated fell prey to easy credit with dire consequences resulting in financial crisis like Tom Yum Kung 1997 and the recent biggie sub-prime loan in the US and the subsequent crisis in the EU. How much more dire will this affect the poor and lowly educated in rural Thailand?

Question is, will they learn? My guess is - not. Being in debt is like being hooked on drugs. It is easier to look for further easy credit than to suffer the withdrawal effects - working harder and accepting a lower living standard to pay off debts.

A wise king forsaw this problem and started teaching his subjects self-sufficient economy. But his subjects prefer the easier route and chose to fall prey to a politician who promises them easy credit will make them rich. Thus the subjects took on credit and had a few swinging years, and now a dire future.

The message now is - "See not what benefit you, but see what will benefit the country!". Did his subjects get this new message?