Turning Thailand around

[Lite Beer]

PEOPLE IN THE NEWS
Turning Thailand around
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Sunday Nation

National reform facilitator Poldej Pinprateep talks about the pressing need for change

BANGKOK: -- He was appointed Deputy Minister of Social Development and Human Security during the post-coup Surayud Chulanont administration and today Poldej Pinprateep is a key facilitator in the national reform forum held by the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).

He also serves as the secretary of the Social Network for Thailand Reform, a group of like-minded people from 185 various professions that was formed in January.

Poldej recently agreed to sit down with The Sunday Nation to talk about the controversial reform process

What are your expectations?

The PDRC is regarded as the leader in the push to change the state's power. They have the most potential. There is also another group called the Reform Now Network (RNN), which is separately pushing for reform although they're pushing it through the government.

I helped them facilitate and we trust one another. I am an advocate for reform and should the PDRC fail, I am fine with seeing the other side executing reform as well.

How concerned are you that ordinary PDRC supporters have very limited participation and find it hand to air their views and make proposals at the PDRC reform forum?

Theoretically speaking, the bigger participation by the people, the better. However, we are in an immediate stage and need to frame the big issues first. Right now, there are no conclusions on specific reform proposals.

On electoral reform, for example, a number of different models are being put on the table, namely those of France and Germany and we really need to discuss and review the political structure. It's impossible to do that in an hour or two of talks. Ordinary people will have more say after this stage. We have to give the opportunity to those who have been handling these issues for a long time to talk first but for ordinary participants, there's always a time constraint.

Are you concerned that pro-government red shirts are not involved in the process and are in fact opposed to the PDRC's reform initiative?

Even if they're invited they won't come. When the reforms are about to be introduced, it will be imperative that we make them participate.

Some invited speakers at the PDRC forum made it clear that major reform issues need to be endorsed through a national referendum. PDRC secretary general Suthep Thaugsuban, on the other hand, is insisting that an unelected government that will replace the caretaker Yingluck Shinawatra administration should carry out reform. Can you clarify this.

As far as I have gathered from speaking with Suthep, he envisions a two-step reform process with democratic and political reform to be carried out first by an unelected government followed by an election that would install an elected government to push for longer term reform. The latter will require amending the charter and a referendum.

Why do you think Thais cannot deliberate together for a common future?

For the past three years, in fact up until the advent of the PDRC, discourse about national reform was limited to a small group of people numbering in thousands if not ten of thousands. At the grass roots level, people who are interested in reform, say on rights to manage their own natural resources in the community, are composed of both red shirts and yellow shirts and they don't argue with one another when talking about reform.

At the national political level, we must acknowledge that the PDRC have led the talks about reform while the red shirts remain reluctant. If you want to talk about reform with red shirts, they won't talk with you. We now hope that if and once the change of government takes place, the red shirts will participate in the process. We must apply the principle of inclusiveness.

Don't you think the opposition Democrat Party should adopt the PDRC's reform proposals and use these as their policy platform to compete in the next election?

Yes I do think they should and I hope that is what will happen. But we don't know what they will decide. If I were the leader of the Democrat Party, I would highlight the reform agenda so if the party wins, it can push for reform. If it loses, then much will depend on the situation at that time.

There's no guarantee that the PDRC will accept the recommendations of the invited speakers at the forum. All I can say is that if they don't, I'm will continue to push my agenda through my organisation.

-- The Nation 2014-03-30

[Thai at Heart]

namely those of France and Germany

This is novel. These reactionaries did notice that both of those countries have presidents or chancellors.

[Mentors]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

[PaullyW]

This is exactly what Thais are good at. They wait until something is bleeding obvious and then have their smug pics taken and write a bunch of 'should do this' and 'should do that'. All the right things said, but how would they propose to get them done? What would they propose are the underlying issues? Very shallow, reactionaries as mentioned above. Of course we'll be having tons of these guys coming out with similar statements trying to gain face.

[Yunla]

I think he is a smart guy and I agree with many of his sentiments, but his closing statements contradict the current PDRC process itself. Also I think he is attempting to smooth-out this process to reassure normal people that the PDRC is needed, which again contradicts his last statements about how the Dems should run in elections as a progressive reform party. I file this stuff under "relax, everything is being taken care of."

[Thai at Heart]

This is exactly what Thais are good at. They wait until something is bleeding obvious and then have their smug pics taken and write a bunch of 'should do this' and 'should do that'. All the right things said, but how would they propose to get them done? What would they propose are the underlying issues? Very shallow, reactionaries as mentioned above. Of course we'll be having tons of these guys coming out with similar statements trying to gain face.

It's always interesting that it us considered in some way stupid or unpatriotic to follow the already proven way.

There is an incessant reinvention of the wheel because some academic thinks he has found a cunning plan to short cut to the destination. Of course when it fails, the pooyai is nowhere to be seen. Thaksin and the PAD,PDRC are perfect examples.

Who needs democracy. Let's just screw it up the Thai way. Falang no understand.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Snig27]

What an arrogant self important <deleted>. Only in The Nation would he get the space puff his chest out as if he had some mandate to do what he thinks he is doing. The failure of the PDRC to get the crowd they hoped they would get yesterday underlines how little support they now have for their endless posturing and the facade of 'reform' they're presenting in a so called forum (only because they were roundly criticized for having no agenda or plans) to cover their power grab.

And as said above, both their example countries he mentions are republics and both became so in very bloody circumstances (1789 and WW1). Next.

[smutcakes]

Where have all these enlightened individuals been over the past 20 years?

[noitom]

This guy was "appointed" to a top post under the failed Surayud government by the 2006 Thai coup makers. He also formed something called "the Thai social network" comprised of 185 "top" professionals from "various" professionals. This looks conspicuously similar to Suthep's reform council comprised of 185 top "qualified" people in Thailand.

As negotiator, it appears that his background, relationships, and most importantly, his alignments, augur poorly for the majority of Thais. He also recommended a separate "administrative region" for the Thai south.

[whybother]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

What was the 1997 constitution, if it wasn't political reform?

[Snig27]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

Because these people do not have the means or ways to win an election any other way than by changing a system to ensure they can not lose. The 2007 constitution was supposed to ensure that, with controlled courts (which you are now seeing being actioned) and a half appointed senate (wonder how that would go down in Germany or France - the old aristocracy and their proxies get to appoint half the senate? You would see another revolution in France).

However, this controlling mechanism did not work (in a major misreading of the way Thailand has changed by those who concocted it) and 2011 still saw the popular vote return a party that appalled the old controlling elite. Suthep was then tasked by his bosses with addressing this. The mess of the 2013 Amnesty (a major miscalculation by Thaksin which has greatly lessened his power in PT) gave Suthep his chance for the power grab and the facade of "reform" was used to to get enough people in the street to try and repeat what are seen by the reactionaries as successful tactics from the last yellow governmental overthrow.

There is no desire for reform by the PDRC, there is instead an agenda of reaction under the smokescreen of "reform. The so called reform agenda is designed to ensure there is no reform at all. You need to step back from what is being printed in the likes of The Nation - it's a vehicle for the reactionaries - and read elsewhere. There is a lot out there online which I won't link to for obvious reasons, filled with heavy detail on all this. It's complex.

[Snig27]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

What was the 1997 constitution, if it wasn't political reform?

it was but if you learn one thing from Thai political history from 1932 onwards it's that the forces of reaction always react and somehow reverse and progress made given a little time. It's happened time and time again. There are extraordinarily powerful people with a huge amount to lose if they don't reverse the tide. Suthep is their current agent.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Snig27

[jollyman]

Yingluck will win in the end The Rif Raf will be locked up GOOD LUCK YINGLUCK

[h90]

namely those of France and Germany

This is novel. These reactionaries did notice that both of those countries have presidents or chancellors.

And he obviously doesn't read news from there. Both countries have big troubles and very frustrated voters. In both countries after the election the government doesn't care much what the people want.

Better example would be Switzerland.

[h90]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

The last 50 years everyone talked about reforms....the 1997 constitution is supposed to be a reform constitution.

There is the Thai joke that all the paperwork about reforms if pilled together is higher than the highest mountain in Thailand.

Problem is endless talks and papers but never was much done, because always the same political Dinosaurs protect their power.

[h90]

This guy was "appointed" to a top post under the failed Surayud government by the 2006 Thai coup makers. He also formed something called "the Thai social network" comprised of 185 "top" professionals from "various" professionals. This looks conspicuously similar to Suthep's reform council comprised of 185 top "qualified" people in Thailand.

As negotiator, it appears that his background, relationships, and most importantly, his alignments, augur poorly for the majority of Thais. He also recommended a separate "administrative region" for the Thai south.

I am no big fan of the Surayud government (even I see it as the best government I have seen in Thailand, but that is more because the others were so terrible bad), but why do you call it failed? It worked well. The constitution was an improvement, even obviously it wasn't good enough.

[Gunna]

namely those of France and Germany

This is novel. These reactionaries did notice that both of those countries have presidents or chancellors.

In Germany the President is not elected and holds little day to day power ie just a figurehead . His/her main jobs are signing laws voted through Parliament and attending for International gatherings.

So their system could work with a King instead of a President.

I think it is a smart idea copy the system from 2 countries where the Parliamentary system is stable and democratic.

At least they are not looking at the Italian system or TS & UDD's preferred Democratic Republic of North Korea, Syria or Zimbabwe

[Valentine]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

What was the 1997 constitution, if it wasn't political reform?

it was but if you learn one thing from Thai political history from 1932 onwards it's that the forces of reaction always react and somehow reverse and progress made given a little time. It's happened time and time again. There are extraordinarily powerful people with a huge amount to lose if they don't reverse the tide. Suthep is their current agent.

The 1997 constitution was written by the most neutral group Thailand has put together & was a damn fine constitution with very good checks & balances but there were loopholes which were exploited mercilessly & mainly by Mr T & his cohorts. If everyone had stuck to the true spirit of the '97 version then the country would be much better off. But people, & none more so than Thai politicians, are all in the mindset of take take take & no give.

[Roadman]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

What was the 1997 constitution, if it wasn't political reform?

it was but if you learn one thing from Thai political history from 1932 onwards it's that the forces of reaction always react and somehow reverse and progress made given a little time. It's happened time and time again. There are extraordinarily powerful people with a huge amount to lose if they don't reverse the tide. Suthep is their current agent.

The 1997 constitution was written by the most neutral group Thailand has put together & was a <deleted> fine constitution with very good checks & balances but there were loopholes which were exploited mercilessly & mainly by Mr T & his cohorts. If everyone had stuck to the true spirit of the '97 version then the country would be much better off. But people, & none more so than Thai politicians, are all in the mindset of take take take & no give.

Ran out of likes today but "like this". Very true.

[Scamper]

A remarkably lack-luster interview that seems to underscore the reality that - in politics - strong personalities matter when it comes to the conveying of views. No matter how positive the ideas expressed, it doesn't help if you have the innate ability to put people to sleep. Thais tend to respond to showmen. Both Thaksin and Suthep are natural showmen. Both have the ability to persuade. Both have legions of admirers. What separates them of course are the ideas behind what they say. The reason why the PDRC had such an instant attraction for many Thais was because of the amnesty bill. Pure and simple. The wide-spread aversion to Thaksin was the glue that bound it all together. Therefore, what the PDRC needs to do - on an ongoing basis - is to remind people of that. People can relate far more to experience than to ideas. Their experience with Thaksin's influence is more than enough to convince them of the need for change. At the end of the day, the PDRC as a movement is likely to recede rather than increase once all this has past. They are needed now as a mobilization for change. But they are not crucial to it. The courts and the judicial process is what will determine this. The PDRC is committed to make sure that the judicial process is unimpeded. The Democratic party is in many respects the elephant in the room. From Thaksin's point of view, it is really they that hold the cards, for he needs them for a quorum. But the Democratic party has deliberately taken a back-seat, much to Thaksin's consternation. They will, though, doubtless emerge when the dust settles and the horizon is clearer. They too are waiting for the judicial process to unfold. As are Thais.

[DrTuner]

Thailand is going around in circles, doesn't much matter if it's clockwise or counterclockwise.

[VocalNeal]

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

Because as in cars etc. maintenance is not high on Thais list or priorities. Like cars they only react when something is broken. So you can liken it to why change the oil, why change the tires, why.... If it aint broke don't fix it.

Thaksin broke it for his own selfish gains.

[sms747]

Yingluck will win in the end The Rif Raf will be locked up GOOD LUCK YINGLUCK

I'll vote for that

[Tywais]

Flame removed plus off topic posts and replies.

[northernjohn]

namely those of France and Germany

This is novel. These reactionaries did notice that both of those countries have presidents or chancellors.

Hate to be the one to point it out to you but that would be a type of reform. Reform is what they are talking about. Not retaining the same uncontrolled system. Those were just two suggestions.

Got to hand it to you. You are using a little more subtlety in your PTP lets not change a thing agenda.

[northernjohn]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Before the Thaksin & Co. Aera, no one talked or was interested in any political reform. Why now...?

Maybe Thaksin & co. have pushed corruption to far.

If you had been paying attention you would know that this was not a politically inspired movement that came out later. It was originally a bunch of different grass root concerned honest unpaid for out of their own pocket citizens that started it.

This is exactly what Thais are good at. They wait until something is bleeding obvious and then have their smug pics taken and write a bunch of 'should do this' and 'should do that'. All the right things said, but how would they propose to get them done? What would they propose are the underlying issues? Very shallow, reactionaries as mentioned above. Of course we'll be having tons of these guys coming out with similar statements trying to gain face.

If you had been here when this all started you would know different. A lot of the people who started it had no names and wore masks.

[northernjohn]

Yingluck will win in the end The Rif Raf will be locked up GOOD LUCK YINGLUCK

I am under the impression that in order for Yingluck to win she needs the vote of the red shirts.

It is my understanding that you can not vote if you are in Jail. Also where do you figure they can lock that many people up?

Don't understand your reason for backing her up. Are you like another one of her strong supporters who talked of cutting his head off. Or the one who openly lies to the country about it's finances and when found out say's it is OK if it makes them feel better. Yingluck openly backed the man up when she appointed him to retain his portfolio. You are in with a fine crowd. Not the kind of people I would choose to run with but if it floats your boat go for it. Just watch out for the reef's. Those kind of people will stab you in the back if it serves there self centered greedy purposes. You have been alerted.

[bigbamboo]

Yingluck will win in the end The Rif Raf will be locked up GOOD LUCK YINGLUCK

'The Rif Raf will be locked up'

How very elitist...!

[xminator]

Whaa he want his hand back in the honey pot

[Thai at Heart]

namely those of France and Germany

This is novel. These reactionaries did notice that both of those countries have presidents or chancellors.

In Germany the President is not elected and holds little day to day power ie just a figurehead . His/her main jobs are signing laws voted through Parliament and attending for International gatherings.

So their system could work with a King instead of a President.

I think it is a smart idea copy the system from 2 countries where the Parliamentary system is stable and democratic.

At least they are not looking at the Italian system or TS & UDD's preferred Democratic Republic of North Korea, Syria or Zimbabwe

I think it might be a little more practical to pick a country that has a king or queen for head of state. I can guarantee you that by the time it has been thaiified, whichever system they pick will be corrupted.

First problem. Parliamentary immunity for MPs. .you think in any normal country immunity includes murder charges?