Thai opinion: Welcome to the reform merry-go-round

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Welcome to the reform merry-go-round
Tulsathit Taptim

BANGKOK: -- Prayut Chan-o-cha is frustrated. Abhisit Vejjajiva is full of doubts. Thaksin Shinawatra must be smiling. But what do the trio - or, in fact, everyone in badly divided Thailand - have in common?

The answer is, they have no idea how the country should be reformed and moved forward.

Let's start with Abhisit. There are good points and missed ones in the ex-prime minister's latest remarks on the ongoing drafting of the new Constitution. Among the good ones are his concern for the future status of big parties, which he said could be held hostage by splinter political factions seeking their own vested interests at the expense of national progress, and his apparent support for the charter draft to be put to a national referendum. The complications, unmentioned by him, are related to those good points.

The status of big parties is more easily promoted on paper than through real action. Abhisit risked sounding hypocritical on this subject as he has been a vocal critic of how his rival, the Pheu Thai Party, went about flexing its big-party muscles. How independent members of a political party should be is always a question associated with political circumstances of the hour. There were times when "factions" destabilised the government with unscrupulous gamesmanship, and there were times when the public just wished party members had the guts to defy their own organisations.

Like many, Abhisit appeared halfhearted and didn't seem to have a final solution. Empowering individual MPs can be good in some circumstances but bad in others. The same goes for empowering big parties, his included. In Thai politics, the line is very thin between voting with one's conscience and being a troublemaker. Abhisit, of all people, can certainly acknowledge this.

In stressing the need for a referendum, Abhisit noted that there was a Constitutional Court guideline reminding the Yingluck administration that it should consult the public before changing the 2007 charter, which the Thai people had approved through a referendum. Since what's going on far exceeds "changing" that Constitution (a totally new one is being drafted), it probably makes sense to put the draft to a national referendum and keep the 2007 coup-abolished charter as an alternative in case the draft is shot down. Abhisit, however, failed to highlight the most crucial part, which is that the 2007 charter was a major source of national strife itself.

He did suggest that a major storm was brewing. But then again, everyone knows that there is no win-win formula in the charter reform affair, and a referendum is unlikely to convince everyone to accept the outcome, whatever it is. For one half of Thailand, the interim Parliament's impeachment of Yingluck has cast doubt on claims the new charter is designed to bring reconciliation.

Abhisit didn't sound optimistic about the charter draft, and his feelings probably reflect those of many Thais. But he can appear more complicated than most Thais, as he's a man stuck between worlds, with stakes on both sides when it comes to charter reform. With one hat on, he's leader of Thailand's oldest political party, hence his concern that the "democratic mandate" would count for little if the new charter empowered small factions to rock the boat. His other hat makes him advocate drastic changes, ones that are impossible in a "democratic" environment. If Abhisit sounds half-hearted about the ongoing constitutional overhaul, his political rivals must be a lot more negative towards it.

Can he get the best of both worlds? It looks like no one will, least of all Abhisit. That shouldn't be a problem if everyone accepts it, but broadmindedness will likely be a rare commodity come the new set of political rules. Thailand is testing treacherous waters, and the Democrat leader's ambivalence towards what's going on only serves to confirm that.

Prayut's anger and frustration is probably making Thaksin smile. It's somebody else's turn, the man in Dubai must be thinking, to try to spearhead reform and come out in one piece. Thaksin's "reform" plan, crafted through his sister Yingluck, didn't live to see its doomsday, as the "amnesty bill" got there first, but it's easy to predict what the younger siblings' reform push would have led to.

Prayut has made threats, or so it seems. People are interpreting his recent remarks as a warning that if the current reform drive fails, Thailand will be stuck with him for a little while longer. "It's me or imperfect reform: Make your choice," he appears to be saying.

That isn't fair, not least to Prayut himself. He hasn't seemed to be having fun lately, so why such a big sacrifice? Most of all, Prayut should realise that the longer he stays, the likelier that future reform ideas will defy his ideology or even his existence. Reform is change, and change means anything in place is bad.

If you have read this far expecting a solution, I apologise. "Reform" in Thailand is a merry-go-round, and that's it. Thaksin (and/or his sister) used to be frustrated. Abhisit used to be full of confidence. And Prayut used to be smiling. This circle, I hate to say, could last them the rest of their lives.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Welcome-to-the-reform-merry-go-round-30256667.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-25

[soalbundy]

Why not take a constitution from a successful country where it has been proven to work ?

[oneday]

"...the interim Parliament's impeachment of Yingluck has cast doubt on claims the new charter is designed to bring reconciliation..."

Uh-huh and imagine what will happen if they send her to jail...

[Suffinator]

The answer is, they have no idea how the country should be reformed and moved forward.

This might appear like an accurate assessment but it's missing a critical element ... how do you reform a corrupt nation run by corrupt people? And there lies the true issue. Historically the rulers of Thailand have managed to keep the population largely uneducated and that's the way they like it for an educated population cannot be controlled.

The trouble is the world has changed with the introduction of the internet and the social media has been a complete game changer which now openly challenges the rulers. They can no longer hide but ultimately they cannot bring about reform and therefore lies, more lies and rhetoric is produced so that it merely appears as if things are being done to address the social issues ... yes those new super task forces etc look like the right stuff but it's manned by those who are ultimately self-serving and where their narcissism will never allow them to relinquish control.

It's a sorry state of affairs but the three principles of controlling a population are ignorance, fear and poverty and each continues to be enforced by the ruling elite. Can it change? It's possible as we have seen with Singapore but that means finding an individual with high moral values and who cannot be corrupted ... whether such a person exists in Thailand is unknown but it's likely he or she would be taken into custody for an attitude adjustment if their dare raise their head.

Despite my often negative attitude towards Thailand, mainly due to their injustice of their systems and those who rule I remain convinced that Thailand could be truly one of the greatest nations in South East Asia but to achieve that would require reform that mirrored Singapore and sadly those who rule are never going to allow their citizens to attain an equal social status and therefore Thailand's potential will continue to be restricted and things will never change until democracy is finally installed and military coups become a thing of the past. Sadly I feel that history will continue to repeat itself with elected government and military coups until the nation finally breaks down which will ultimately result in civil war.

Such a shame really but the greed of the few remains to outweigh the requirements of the many.

[Srikcir]

"It's me or imperfect reform: Make your choice,"

THEN LET'S HAVE AN ELECTION!

[Srikcir]

Why not take a constitution from a successful country where it has been proven to work ?

The Japanese have a constitutional monarchy fully engaged in a democratic society. Like Thailand Japan used to have an absolute monarchy. So Japan as an Asian nation would seem the perfect model.

Yet, the CDC never mentioned it as any role model for electoral reform. The CDC did recognize Canada and the UK (no constitution) as possible models as they too are constitutional monarchies engaged in a democratoc society. Yet, the CDC decided on a partial adoption of the Republic of Germany's MMP system while never mentioning the Asian democratic Republics of Taiwan or South Korea.

The fact is that Prayut has decided there is no democratic nation or constitution in the world that can serve as a model for Thailand because of "Thainess." And he's right, if only because the military needs to sustain its power that could not otherwise be allowed in a sustainable democracy.

[jpeg]

Prayut Chan-o-cha is frustrated. Abhisit Vejjajiva is full of doubts. Thaksin Shinawatra must be smiling. But what do the trio - or, in fact, everyone in badly divided Thailand - have in common?

Oh this one's easy. None of them gave a tinker's cuss about Thailand's massive social inequality until the results of which threatened their queue number at the trough/presented them with opportunities to cut in line.