Thai talk: How can the charter writers curb populist policies?

[webfact]

THAI TALK
How can the charter writers curb populist policies?
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The charter drafters are looking for ways to put an end to populist policies among politicians. That's an uphill task. Some may even say it's Mission Impossible.

In other words, politicians won't give up populism voluntarily - for a very simple reason: They need votes for the next election and populist policies, using taxpayers' money to bolster their chances of getting re-elected, are the only sure way to achieve that.

But populist policies are wasteful, unproductive and addictive - and dangerously corruption-prone. The rice-pledging scheme alone recorded a whopping loss of Bt690 trillion. The LPG subsidy ran up Bt140 trillion, pushing the total subsidies for both diesel and LPG up to Bt520 trillion.

A group of academics at the Thai Future Studies Institute has come up with some specific proposals to apply curbs on such populist spending:

1. Clearly specify and limit budget for populist policies. One way to put a cap on populist spending is to make it compulsory that it cannot exceed the annual national investment budget.

2. Cut or reduce populist spending that qualifies for "3 highs": High fiscal burden, high market distortion and high budget per head.

3. Apply the 2/98 formula to all populist policies that exceed Bt1 billion spending. That means allocating 2 per cent of he budget to create an effective monitoring system of the policies from Day One.

The proposal says that from 2010-2014, a total of Bt2 trillion was allocated for populist policies of all shades and colours. Most of the projects that fell into this category were open-ended and therefore could not be reined in by budgetary control measures. The "first car" project, for example, didn't have a limit to the number of cars that came under the scheme to offer special discounts to first-time car buyers.

Compared to the annual investment budget, populist policies grew faster during the same period: 2.4 times against 4.6 times. The reason is easy to comprehend: Populism produces almost instant results - and votes - while long-term investment projects take time to materialise and are much less "sexy" politically.

But the underlying problem is that if this trend continues, the country's national development will lag behind neighbours such as Vietnam and Malaysia. Thailand's investment budget was 12 per cent of the total budget while Vietnam hit 21 per cent and Malaysia's was 16 per cent.

Accountability is also a key condition if runaway populism is to be contained at a reasonable level. Effective mechanisms must be designed and put in place to ensure that if a populist policy fails to meet the set target, responsible parties must be pinpointed and appropriate punitive measures meted out. No such practice has been carried out in the long history of political populism, and unless due punishment is handed down, politicians will not feel obliged to live by the rules of the game.

The public must have full access to information about all the schemes that fall under the populist category. The relevant "freedom of information" legislation must be updated and amended to ensure that the people are thoroughly and consistently informed of the latest developments in all the populist projects.

Perhaps more important is the creation of grass-roots awareness of the dangers of politicians exploiting local vulnerabilities by dumping "freebies" on villagers to the point that a sense of dependence on political largesse has taken root, undermining any hope of developing genuine democracy in the country.

Unless the constitution drafting committee can design some concrete provisions that offer practical results, Thai politics will continue to be dominated by a handful of opportunists bent on spending public money to get themselves elected to exploit the weak and vulnerable over and over again.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/How-can-the-charter-writers-curb-populist-policies-30252870.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-29

[trogers]

Fifty/fifty.

Half the cost comes from the National budget, and the other half from the personal wealth of the Cabinet.

[PepperMe]

Simplest way is each party to publish their top 10 most expensive policies with full costings including what services etc that need to be cut to fund each policy, while still balancing the budget.

Then have them scrutinised, and reject each one that is deemed unnecessary or too many cuts where it would have a negative impact on more people than said policy would positively affect

Of course, also the obvious policies that are targeted at a specific demographic that would be construed as that party's core voter base. Those actually stand out like sore thumbs.... (see... rice pledging scheme, first car discount scheme, tablets for kids.)

[Emster23]

Beyond absurd. Better title might be "How to have democracy without responding to what voters want". Want it to walk and quack like a duck, but feed at the trough with other pigs.

[Diplomatico]

Beyond absurd. Better title might be "How to have democracy without responding to what voters want". Want it to walk and quack like a duck, but feed at the trough with other pigs.

Well, you wouldn't want to elect politicians who actually plan to enact what the people want, now would you?

[trogers]

Beyond absurd. Better title might be "How to have democracy without responding to what voters want". Want it to walk and quack like a duck, but feed at the trough with other pigs.

What voters want may not be as important as what voters need. You do not give a child sugary food because it wants.

Think of Thailand with 40% children casting their votes. This can be construed from how they spend the little money in their hands, lottery and gambling, booze, woman and drugs.

I have said before, the amount the 'poor' spend on lottery each year could have paid for the universal health plan without the need for taxpayer's money.

[FangFerang]

"But populist policies are wasteful, unproductive and addictive - and dangerously corruption-prone"

Um, the 100 baht medical scheme that is still in place since the reviled supervillian Thaksin was neither wasteful, unproductive nor addictive -- it stopped the hospital surgeon's corrupt practice of checking out your finances before deciding on the fee for a procedure, and much worse, using life threatening situations to extort high fees from the desperate.

Further, the junta has participated in it, too -- extending the New Year holiday was populist, arranging a Sale was a populist policy, giving "gifts" to the Thai people was populist, (temporarily) cleaning up beach vendors and sidewalk hawkers was populist, telling state agencies and educators to wear yellow every day in December was populist, and even the land encroachment 'crackdown' was populist (even if it was and is a v e r y one-sided enforcement).

To me this article reads like: How do we stop our opponents from using populist policies while allowing our allies to continue?

Edited January 29, 2015 by FangFerang

[heybruce]

How do you define populist policies? Government subsidized health care, pensions for the old, financial support for the unemployed or disabled, agricultural subsidies, and many other programs accepted in the west can be described as populist.

Let campaigning politicians make their promises and voters make their choices. Mistakes will be made, but I prefer this trial and error approach to better government than limits placed by an unelected junta.

[Balance]

There is much more to Populism than unsound give-a-ways or price setting. Real populist policies "empower" people to improve their lives and the lives of their children. This means land reform; this means getting the corrupt middlemen out of the agricultural sector and enabling farmers to control inputs and marketing; this means creating industrial zones in rural areas and moving manufacturing and good paying jobs away from Bangkok; this means truly educating Thai children and paying for competitively won scholarships to technical schools or university; it means creating and promoting a meritocratic pathway (removing the patronage system would indeed be a great benefit) for people to succeed and stem the flow of the brightest young people to Hong Kong and Singapore.

If the charter writers want to curb these policies, Thailand chances for a bright long term future will and diminished, and this would be sad.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Balance

[metisdead]

An inflammatory baiting post has been removed.

[binjalin]

What's wrong with 'populist' policies? are they not there to serve the people? so we are, by definition, going to have 'un-populist policies'?

ok higher taxes, shut down all bars, stop the BTS, no flights in or out, no TV soaps - there that should do it

[rickirs]

"The charter drafters are looking for ways to put an end to populist policies among politicians."

Right after the Junta is finsihed with its populist policies.

[LivinLOS]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/458917/ncpo-orders-banks-to-give-soft-loans-to-rubber-buyers

Mind blowing.. Pay farmers 30% above market rate...

But thats ok because ??

[trogers]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/458917/ncpo-orders-banks-to-give-soft-loans-to-rubber-buyers

Mind blowing.. Pay farmers 30% above market rate...

But thats ok because ??

Because paying cash to farmers directly for this 30% and let them sell the rice directly to traders would not have opened the opportunity to rob the country.

[Thai at Heart]

Easy as pie.

Just limit government deficit in any given year to 2% of gdp and maximum combined through the life of a govt to a combined debt to gdp of say 50%.

There is no way to define populist any more than there is to say nice or bad.

I think the should limit the military budget to maximum 1% of GDP. Very wasteful in this day and age to spend any more. And as for payrises for civil servants and benefits, well they should be heavily slashed too, and, and, and, and, and,

http://militarybudget.org/thailand/

I mean what is good for the goose is good for the gander right...........Why are farmers any less entitled to government money than anyone else.

[Docno]

How do you define populist policies? Government subsidized health care, pensions for the old, financial support for the unemployed or disabled, agricultural subsidies, and many other programs accepted in the west can be described as populist.

Let campaigning politicians make their promises and voters make their choices. Mistakes will be made, but I prefer this trial and error approach to better government than limits placed by an unelected junta.

You beat me to it. The only thing I would add is that policies that benefit the wealthier people in society are often framed as 'business friendly' or 'growth stimulating' ... apparently a policy is only 'populist' (and therefore unjustifiable) when poorer people benefit.

[candide]

Good! If money is spent on unpopular policy, there's no control!

[Thai at Heart]

How do you define populist policies? Government subsidized health care, pensions for the old, financial support for the unemployed or disabled, agricultural subsidies, and many other programs accepted in the west can be described as populist.

Let campaigning politicians make their promises and voters make their choices. Mistakes will be made, but I prefer this trial and error approach to better government than limits placed by an unelected junta.

You beat me to it. The only thing I would add is that policies that benefit the wealthier people in society are often framed as 'business friendly' or 'growth stimulating' ... apparently a policy is only 'populist' (and therefore unjustifiable) when poorer people benefit.

The PAD are the arbiters of a populist policy

[englishoak]

And so it continues to go round in an endless circle.

Case in point... the rubber farmers not getting populist handouts then ? they say a thing is bad then go and do exactly the same thing but thats ok....

Muppets cannot fathom either its laws for one and all and enforce them for everyone and do it properly and honestly or its a total waste of time even bothering, may as well get ready for the next coup now because theres no way they are ever going to listen to anyone else but the sound of their own voices/paymasters.

[Kooweerup]

Isn't the Junta using populous policies with all their free gifts or is when the junta does, it is different.