Backing for move to curb populism: Thai politics

[webfact]

POLITICS
Backing for move to curb populism
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

Scholars call for public debates to educate voters

BANGKOK: -- THE JUNTA'S attempt to restrict the use of populist policies to woo voters has won support from academics and politicians from parties influenced by the practice - while scholars are suggesting public debates during election campaigns to educate voters about the pros and cons of such tactics before they go to the ballots.

Extensive populism was first adopted by Thaksin Shinawatra when his Thai Rak Thai Party contested an election for the first time in 2001. Its populist policies helped his party win the election and for him to become prime minister.

Voters should be educated about the policies in order to improve their judgement for casting ballots, said Satithorn Thananithichote, a researcher at King Prajadhipok's Institute. Article 35 of the 2014 provisional charter stipulates 10 frameworks for a new constitution. This includes creation of an "efficient mechanism for restructuring and driving an economic and social system for inclusive and sustainable growth and preventing populist administration that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

Satithorn suggested that the Election Commission (EC) and other independent organisations give out relevant information about the policies put forward during an election campaign - for example the impact they would have on the state budget - so that people have more complete understanding regarding the implications and wider impacts of such policies.

Attasit Pankaew, a lecturer in political science at Thammasat University, added that political parties should be engaged in public debate.

"Political parties can criticise each other's policies while defending and promoting their own. This way, people would learn to use their judgement and think critically, and the people's opinions would be reflected in the general election," he said.

Praise and criticism

Earlier, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) discussed with the EC whether the commission should be authorised to screen the policies of parties in election campaigns. For Pheu Thai, the regulation by any organisation to curb populist policies could be problematic - no matter if the policies were screened before or after an election. Former Pheu Thai MP Udomdej Rattanasatien said pre-election screening would interfere with a political party's right to promote its policies to the people.

He explained there were many measures to analyse policies that could lead to contrasting conclusions; this meant the regulatory panel might disapprove of a policy that a political party thought was good for the country.

"If the policies were judged after the election, would this mean that the party that won the election could be banned along with its members? If so, would the regulatory panel merely be used as a political tool to go after certain political factions?" he said.

A senior Chart Thai Pattana Party member, who asked not to be named, said it was a matter of perspective whether a social policy be viewed as "populist" or not.

He then asked: "Is it better to have the whole population or a [smaller] group of people decide which policies are good and which are not? Just because ordinary people don't know about macroeconomics doesn't mean they are not good judges."

The Democrat Party, however, supported restraining populist policies.

"We must create societal prosperity based on reality," said Wiratana Kalayasiri, head of the Democrats' legal team, giving the reason for his support for policy regulation.

He said regulatory responsibility should be given to independent organisations to screen populist policies.

Democrat Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said the EC needed to conduct more in-depth regulation on key issues such as conformity to constitutional rules of law, short- and long-term effects on the state budget, and support for the free market mechanism and competition.The success of political parties linked, or supposedly linked, to Thaksin - Thai Rak Thai, People's Power and Pheu Thai - was largely attributed to their populist policies, most notably the Bt30 healthcare plan, the village funds, and a four-year debt moratorium for farmers.

Those policies made the parties very popular among the rural poor, which resulted in them winning all general elections since 2001.

However, their populist policies were criticised by some for allegedly having negative long-term effects on government budgets and the economy.

The rice-pledging scheme, at the forefront of Pheu Thai's populist policies that helped it win the 2011 general election, was touted by its critics as a failure, creating severe public debts and allegedly leading to corruption.

The NACC commissioners found that the scheme under the Yingluck Shinawatra government caused a loss of Bt500 billion. This was mainly because the government bought rice at 40 per cent above the market price.

They claimed that significant amounts of rice stored in warehouses had grown rotten or were stolen. Yingluck's caretaker government owed Bt90 billion to farmers at the time it was ousted by the military in May.

Despite the losses and allegations, a recent poll by the National Institute for Development Administration revealed that 56 per cent of respondents wanted the National Council for Peace and Order to continue the rice scheme, but with some adjustments."The policy helped farmers sell rice at a good price. Without the policy, we had to sell it to rice millers at low prices because they had more negotiating power. Maybe they need better regulation to prevent corruption, but overall it's a good policy," said Samer Poonsarikij, a rice farmer in Phichit province.

Chavalit Wichayasuthi, a former Pheu Thai MP, admitted the party's policies had room for improvement, including on rice-pledging, but said it was a good way to help farmers.

More decentralisation

Another solution to help prevent politicians from exploiting voters by using populist policies could be decentralisation of power.

People vote for populist policies because they rely hugely on the government for support, Attasit said.

"We can give more executive and policy-making power to the local administration bodies, hence party tactics of using populist policies to gain votes become less effective - because local problems can be solved locally."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Backing-for-move-to-curb-populism-30241123.html


-- The Nation 2014-08-18

[ramrod711]

preventing populist administration that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

The problem with this idea is, who gets to decide, the people pay for these programs, the people should decide. That doesn't mean that a program should continue if it doesn't work. Maybe there should be a policy to hold politicians to their promises, just a few words in the constitution allowing removal of any politician caught lying, of course that would never pass any legislature in the world.

[Paulzed]

Voters should be educated about the policies in order to improve their judgement for casting ballots.

Good luck with that.

[Pib]

Summary: long article...nothing will change except maybe on the very surface (i.e., putting some lipstick on a pig)...below the surface, politics as normal.

[timewilltell]

The best suggestions were public debate and discussion - all the other ideas are open to corruption and manipulation. Defamation laws should be repealed or drastically amended and political parties should be required to debate their major campaign policies on TV and in the print media together with cost calculations.

This would require a somewhat more critical thinking media and more professional investigative style approach but would certainly bring about more worthwhile change than 'panels' who rule on whether policies should or should not be allowed which would rather defeat the whole idea of democracy. Policies should fail by being exposed for their failure points rather than being censored.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[96tehtarp]

A crackdown on populism? This will lead to political campaigns based on empty platforms without substance and promises and low voter turnout.

"preventing populist administration that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

Who will have the final decision on which policies may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run? Who will the "watchers" be, and who will be watching the watchers?

[eldragon]

preventing populist administration that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

The problem with this idea is, who gets to decide, the people pay for these programs, the people should decide. That doesn't mean that a program should continue if it doesn't work. Maybe there should be a policy to hold politicians to their promises, just a few words in the constitution allowing removal of any politician caught lying, of course that would never pass any legislature in the world.

Agreed. For what is a populist policy? And where do you draw the line? Aren't free movie tickets, free World Cup, and extra holidays all populist policies?

[trogers]

preventing populist administration that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

The problem with this idea is, who gets to decide, the people pay for these programs, the people should decide. That doesn't mean that a program should continue if it doesn't work. Maybe there should be a policy to hold politicians to their promises, just a few words in the constitution allowing removal of any politician caught lying, of course that would never pass any legislature in the world.

The people gets to decide?

The same people who would spend thousands or tens of thousands of their annual income on the lottery or other vices, and claim they are too poor for adequate medicare, and that there should be free medical services paid by the nation's coffers.

[96tehtarp]

preventing populist administration that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

The problem with this idea is, who gets to decide, the people pay for these programs, the people should decide. That doesn't mean that a program should continue if it doesn't work. Maybe there should be a policy to hold politicians to their promises, just a few words in the constitution allowing removal of any politician caught lying, of course that would never pass any legislature in the world.

The people gets to decide?

The same people who would spend thousands or tens of thousands of their annual income on the lottery or other vices, and claim they are too poor for adequate medicare, and that there should be free medical services paid by the nation's coffers.

Your suggestion presents a dilemma. Perhaps the Thai electorate is unqualified to vote and in need of guidance and protection to prevent voting the wrong party into government.

[Roadman]

Bad idea and Thailand should stay well away from any attempt at such controls. Populism happens everywhere even in the best democracies in the world. The voters have to learn that you reap what you sow so if you vote for populist parties then somewhere down the track there will be a payment date for it. If that means a country becoming financially broke for voters to learn then so be it.

Education of the public about the pros and cons of populist policy, politicial debate leading to elections and in the house after, power decentralisation and learning via consequences are the only means to curb not control. The Junta, the NACC and EC need to focus on reforming the process only and the enforcement of the laws. Their is no way in hell that a parties policies should be vetoed by a higher group. Have to agree fully with the scholars and Pheu Thai politicians on that one.

[Thanet]

preventing populist administration that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

The problem with this idea is, who gets to decide, the people pay for these programs, the people should decide. That doesn't mean that a program should continue if it doesn't work. Maybe there should be a policy to hold politicians to their promises, just a few words in the constitution allowing removal of any politician caught lying, of course that would never pass any legislature in the world.

The people gets to decide?

The same people who would spend thousands or tens of thousands of their annual income on the lottery or other vices, and claim they are too poor for adequate medicare, and that there should be free medical services paid by the nation's coffers.

Oh dear, oh dear!

In the west, you could say it's worse. People on welfare who spend all their money on booze, gambling and cigarettes.

Here, there is no welfare money, so at least they are spending their own money on booze, gambling and cigarettes. Are you saying that we should withdraw 'populist' healthcare and let these people die?

That sounds rather harsh, and excludes you, of course.

Should we deny them the right to vote too?

[Thanet]

The Junta are so good at semantics as a propaganda tool.

Providing free access to the world cup was populist, wasn't it?

What about the rice payments that the junta made? Populist?

And what does 'populist' mean? Giving people what they want? Politicians the world over promise that.

What is the opposite of populist? Unpopulist? The word 'patronage' springs to mind ....

[Boxclever]

A step closer for the Junta to control every aspect of Thai politics for the next 50 years.

Basically this is a move to keep money out of the country side and keep it concentrated with the Bangkok elite.

What the refer to as "populist policies" is to ban any future funding and reforms that could bring long term benefits to the rural population.

Like it or not, Thailand is going back to a Feudal monarchy.

[Thai at Heart]

Define populist?

Funniest part about all of this is that no one is pointing out that none of these policies got remotely close to killing the country financially.

Or should politician be elected by providing unpopular policies????

[trogers]

Define populist?

Funniest part about all of this is that no one is pointing out that none of these policies got remotely close to killing the country financially.

Or should politician be elected by providing unpopular policies????

Much like your parents loading you with French fries and desserts rather than healthy wholesome food because you like the former, and detest the later.

[tbthailand]

curbing populist policies is a non-starter but does show where the Junta's heart is.

[tingtongteesood]

As ever the red fan boys empty rhetoric, hyperbole and utter bitterness at being on the losing side are rearing their ugly heads. This is a positive step. Whether it is a populist policy or not is important, whilst you can argue the rice scam did not kill the country, it certainly has left immense scars. Can you put your bitterness aside and think about right and wrong for a moment and see that in theory this is a positive development. It needs to be developed into positive action. It is a start, a step in the right direction, let's see how it develops from here.

[BillyBobThai]

For this idea to work, you need an educated populace. Maybe in 3 to 4 generations from now.

[96tehtarp]

As ever the red fan boys empty rhetoric, hyperbole and utter bitterness at being on the losing side are rearing their ugly heads. This is a positive step. Whether it is a populist policy or not is important, whilst you can argue the rice scam did not kill the country, it certainly has left immense scars. Can you put your bitterness aside and think about right and wrong for a moment and see that in theory this is a positive development. It needs to be developed into positive action. It is a start, a step in the right direction, let's see how it develops from here.

The electorate should be protected from their own votes and guided accordingly in order to ensure the continued and unwavering path towards sustainable development and happiness is continued.

[Thai at Heart]

Define populist?

Funniest part about all of this is that no one is pointing out that none of these policies got remotely close to killing the country financially.

Or should politician be elected by providing unpopular policies????

Much like your parents loading you with French fries and desserts rather than healthy wholesome food because you like the former, and detest the later.

Are you serious.

The 30 baht scheme would never have got even close to existence without this so called populism. The rest anyonencan argue about it.

Its politics. Some groups spend money, other groups cut taxes. There is a time and a place for both.

Set the rules for deficits and let the politicians run the country. You think Thailand is populist (lying to the population about the cost of policies).

When was the last time a politician told the electorate, "the only way out of this fiscal mess is to cut spending and put up taxes".

For me, cutting taxes on businesses as has been going on in the rest of the world and Thailand for the last 20 years is populist.

Any discussion allowed?

Spending on schools can be tarrras populist. Stop that too? Roads are populist. Any opposition? All policies that spend money can be tarred as populist.

[Thai at Heart]

For this idea to work, you need an educated populace. Maybe in 3 to 4 generations from now.

It isn't even achieved in the west yet.

Just watch the debates for president in the USA.

Not a single one admits they have to put up taxes. And then 1 year later everyone screams about the deficit.

[96tehtarp]

Define populist?

Funniest part about all of this is that no one is pointing out that none of these policies got remotely close to killing the country financially.

Or should politician be elected by providing unpopular policies????

Much like your parents loading you with French fries and desserts rather than healthy wholesome food because you like the former, and detest the later.

Are you serious.

The 30 baht scheme would never have got even close to existence without this so called populism. The rest anyonencan argue about it.

Its politics. Some groups spend money, other groups cut taxes. There is a time and a place for both.

Set the rules for deficits and let the politicians run the country. You think Thailand is populist (lying to the population about the cost of policies).

When was the last time a politician told the electorate, "the only way out of this fiscal mess is to cut spending and put up taxes".

For me, cutting taxes on businesses as has been going on in the rest of the world and Thailand for the last 20 years is populist.

Any discussion allowed?

Spending on schools can be tarrras populist. Stop that too? Roads are populist. Any opposition? All policies that spend money can be tarred as populist.

Thailand's unique situation requires guardianship to determine which policies are representative of bad populism and cause damage to the country and distinguish them from good populist policies that follow the path towards sustainable development and happiness similar to those which have recently been implemented by the junta.

[Thai at Heart]

Define populist?

Funniest part about all of this is that no one is pointing out that none of these policies got remotely close to killing the country financially.

Or should politician be elected by providing unpopular policies????

Much like your parents loading you with French fries and desserts rather than healthy wholesome food because you like the former, and detest the later.

Are you serious.

The 30 baht scheme would never have got even close to existence without this so called populism. The rest anyonencan argue about it.

Its politics. Some groups spend money, other groups cut taxes. There is a time and a place for both.

Set the rules for deficits and let the politicians run the country. You think Thailand is populist (lying to the population about the cost of policies).

When was the last time a politician told the electorate, "the only way out of this fiscal mess is to cut spending and put up taxes".

For me, cutting taxes on businesses as has been going on in the rest of the world and Thailand for the last 20 years is populist.

Any discussion allowed?

Spending on schools can be tarrras populist. Stop that too? Roads are populist. Any opposition? All policies that spend money can be tarred as populist.

Thailand's unique situation requires guardianship to determine which policies are representative of bad populism and cause damage to the country and distinguish them from good populist policies that follow the path towards sustainable development and happiness similar to those which have recently been implemented by the junta.

Thailand's unique position?

Which unique position is that? The one where the protected rich wish to continue to dictate policy to the country whilst giving the illusion of choice to the people.

Yeah right. Unique indeed.

Define damage to the country. I reckon the first thing they should do is take back the tax cut for companies last year, and then raise VAT to 12%. The increase tax take to find schools and education. Then a land tax as proposed. Moneys for education and health.

Damaging to the country or not.

[96tehtarp]

Thailand's unique situation requires guardianship to determine which policies are representative of bad populism and cause damage to the country and distinguish them from good populist policies that follow the path towards sustainable development and happiness similar to those which have recently been implemented by the junta.

Thailand's unique position?

Which unique position is that?

I cannot and dare not answer either of your two questions. Sorry.

[kaobang]

why threads like this if criticizing the junta is against thaivisa rules??

[fab4]

Are you serious.

The 30 baht scheme would never have got even close to existence without this so called populism. The rest anyonencan argue about it.

Its politics. Some groups spend money, other groups cut taxes. There is a time and a place for both.

Set the rules for deficits and let the politicians run the country. You think Thailand is populist (lying to the population about the cost of policies).

When was the last time a politician told the electorate, "the only way out of this fiscal mess is to cut spending and put up taxes".

For me, cutting taxes on businesses as has been going on in the rest of the world and Thailand for the last 20 years is populist.

Any discussion allowed?

Spending on schools can be tarrras populist. Stop that too? Roads are populist. Any opposition? All policies that spend money can be tarred as populist.

Thailand's unique situation requires guardianship to determine which policies are representative of bad populism and cause damage to the country and distinguish them from good populist policies that follow the path towards sustainable development and happiness similar to those which have recently been implemented by the junta.

Thailand's unique position?

Which unique position is that? The one where the protected rich wish to continue to dictate policy to the country whilst giving the illusion of choice to the people.

Yeah right. Unique indeed.

Define damage to the country. I reckon the first thing they should do is take back the tax cut for companies last year, and then raise VAT to 12%. The increase tax take to find schools and education. Then a land tax as proposed. Moneys for education and health.

Damaging to the country or not.

I could be wrong but I believe 96 is being somewhat satirical, at least, I hope so.

[jope]

Are you serious.

The 30 baht scheme would never have got even close to existence without this so called populism. The rest anyonencan argue about it.

Its politics. Some groups spend money, other groups cut taxes. There is a time and a place for both.

Set the rules for deficits and let the politicians run the country. You think Thailand is populist (lying to the population about the cost of policies).

When was the last time a politician told the electorate, "the only way out of this fiscal mess is to cut spending and put up taxes".

For me, cutting taxes on businesses as has been going on in the rest of the world and Thailand for the last 20 years is populist.

Any discussion allowed?

Spending on schools can be tarrras populist. Stop that too? Roads are populist. Any opposition? All policies that spend money can be tarred as populist.

Thailand's unique situation requires guardianship to determine which policies are representative of bad populism and cause damage to the country and distinguish them from good populist policies that follow the path towards sustainable development and happiness similar to those which have recently been implemented by the junta.

Thailand's unique position?

Which unique position is that? The one where the protected rich wish to continue to dictate policy to the country whilst giving the illusion of choice to the people.

Yeah right. Unique indeed.

Define damage to the country. I reckon the first thing they should do is take back the tax cut for companies last year, and then raise VAT to 12%. The increase tax take to find schools and education. Then a land tax as proposed. Moneys for education and health.

Damaging to the country or not.

I could be wrong but I believe 96 is being somewhat satirical, at least, I hope so.

It seems rather clear (see his post #6, unless that was the sarcastic one and the other posts were meant to be serious). It is always difficult to use sarcasm on this forum. There are so many weird, even unthinkable things that some people post, that it is better to clearly mark sarcasm and irony as such.

[Sena Dave]

But by there very name aren't "Populist" policies for the benefit of the majority of the General public or Populous as a whole . Thats why they are popular and get voted for.

NCPO to compile a list of unpopular policies suitable to be debated and voted on by the General Public , the party with the least votes wins ?

[tbthailand]

As ever the red fan boys empty rhetoric, hyperbole and utter bitterness at being on the losing side are rearing their ugly heads. This is a positive step. Whether it is a populist policy or not is important, whilst you can argue the rice scam did not kill the country, it certainly has left immense scars. Can you put your bitterness aside and think about right and wrong for a moment and see that in theory this is a positive development. It needs to be developed into positive action. It is a start, a step in the right direction, let's see how it develops from here.

well, if you don't think that governments should help the people, you can make your case above.

almost every policy which helps a broad swath of the population is a populist policy.

The policies may be good or bad, but to generalize and "curb" populist policies is stupid policy.

[Sena Dave]

 

As ever the red fan boys empty rhetoric, hyperbole and utter bitterness at being on the losing side are rearing their ugly heads. This is a positive step. Whether it is a populist policy or not is important, whilst you can argue the rice scam did not kill the country, it certainly has left immense scars. Can you put your bitterness aside and think about right and wrong for a moment and see that in theory this is a positive development. It needs to be developed into positive action. It is a start, a step in the right direction, let's see how it develops from here.

well, if you don't think that governments should help the people, you can make your case above.

almost every policy which helps a broad swath of the population is a populist policy.

The policies may be good or bad, but to generalize and "curb" populist policies is stupid policy.

 

I would have what you have posted makes and is common sense