Coup News -- Chiang Mai

[chanchao]

> Just How Corrupt Was Thaksin?

It was quite well known even before his first election victory that Thaksin was extremely shrewd, and ruthless in business. Even

before his first landslide victory, he was under investigation for corruption during an earlier administration where he was a government minister. Still he was elected in a landslide. People knew very well what they were getting into, and, after the Asian Economic crisis and perceived inertness of the Chuan administration, people still seemed to prefer a smart crook to run their country over an inert good-guy.

Since that first victory, this basically hasn't changed. There was growing opposition in urban, educasted areas againt Thaksin's style. Yet up country, where most of the votes are, he remained popular and not without good reasons that went beyond simple election day money hand-outs that were always common place also before Thaksin and most certainly not limited to TRT.

For all his merits and being a 'good-guy', Chuan and other administrations never seemed all that bothered about improving life up-country. Many things Thaksin did were questionable, such as funding for a grand 'gold card' 30 baht healthcare for everyone' wasn't solid. But, I think to his voters, this was most definitely a sign of being taken serious, and objectively it IS a start to affordable health-care for all, where previously there was none.

Up country people have good reasons for liking Thaksin. It seems their voice/vote will not be heard again this year, but it is inevitable that they will decide elections for a long time to come. .........assuming we will have elections.......

Edited September 22, 2006 by chanchao

[Pantip]

> Just How Corrupt Was Thaksin?

It was quite well known even before his first election victory that Thaksin was extremely shrewd, and ruthless in business. Even

before his first landslide victory, he was under investigation for corruption during an earlier administration where he was a government minister. Still he was elected in a landslide. People knew very well what they were getting into, and, after the Asian Economic crisis and perceived inertness of the Chuan administration, people still seemed to prefer a smart crook to run their country over an inert good-guy.

Since that first victory, this basically hasn't changed. There was growing opposition in urban, educasted areas againt Thaksin's style. Yet up country, where most of the votes are, he remained popular and not without good reasons that went beyond simple election day money hand-outs that were always common place also before Thaksin and most certainly not limited to TRT.

For all his merits and being a 'good-guy', Chuan and other administrations never seemed all that bothered about improving life up-country. Many things Thaksin did were questionable, such as funding for a grand 'gold card' 30 baht healthcare for everyone' wasn't solid. But, I think to his voters, this was most definitely a sign of being taken serious, and objectively it IS a start to affordable health-care for all, where previously there was none.

Up country people have good reasons for liking Thaksin. It seems their voice/vote will not be heard again this year, but it is inevitable that they will decide elections for a long time to come. .........assuming we will have elections.......

I couldn’t agree with you more, a very balanced analysis. Voters new what Thaksin was like before he was elected, in fact that was the very reason he won such an overwhelming majority. The country got the Government it wanted which is a reflection of the average voter and man in the street. As voters, we can’t blame anybody but ourselves.

I wonder how many of the leaders of the current coup voted for Thaksin??!!

[lannarebirth]

Just read this, what do you all think? Thought curuption was strive during T's regime?

Just How Corrupt Was Thaksin?

Bangkok Pundit Blogger - Numerous allegations of corruption have often been made against the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, but are they really backed up with credible evidence? The Thaksin government is the not the first Thai government to face accusations of corruption. During the opposition led Chuan Leekpai government (1997-2001), there were also numerous allegations of corruption yet no coup was staged by the military. What should the threshold of corruption be before a coup is staged? How corrupt is Thailand under Thaksin after all?

The former is subjective and impossible to answer, but the latter can be answered by reference to international surveys on corruption. The World Bank and Transparency International are two respected international organizations who both publish yearly surveys on corruption.

Transparency International undertakes a yearly "Corruptions Perception Index" (CPI). The CPI gives a score out of 10 and the higher the CPI the less corrupt a country is perceived to be. For example, the latest CPI was released on 18 October 2005 and Iceland scored a 9.7 whereas Chad only scored 1.7. Since the Thaksin government first came to power on 6 January 2001, Thailand's CPI has gradually improved as indicated in the table below:

Year CPI

1999 3.2

2000 3.2

2001 3.2

2002 3.2

2003 3.3

2004 3.6

2005 3.8

The World Bank also publishes a survey on Governance Indicators and one of these indicators is Control of Corruption. The Governance Indicators use "276 variables drawn from 31 sources and 25 different organizations". A higher percentile rank indicates better governance ratings. As can be shown by the below table, control of corruption reduced during the term of the opposition Democrat Party, but has gradually improved during the Thaksin government. The Thaksin government has almost manage to restore the control of corruption to the level it was before the Democrat Party took power.

Year Percentile Rank

1998 52.0

2000 45.1

2002 46.6

2003 47.1

2004 48.0

2005 51.2

When the military staged a coup on September 19, one of their claims was the "country has been governed in a way as to suggest widespread corruption". One the leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy, the group who staged a number of rallies against the Thaksin government earlier this year, has stated that the Thaksin "government is the most corrupt ever". An opinion piece in The Nation newspaper stated that "[m]assive corruption" was one of the "hallmarks of the Thaksin administration".

But while critics of the Thaksin government can claim corruption was a problem during Thaksin's 6 years in government, the evidence suggests the opposite. What do you all think?

I think the survey fails to take into account corruption at local levels. Ask any Northern or Northeast Thai and they'll tell you corruption by orbortor and Khumnan (charged with the responsibility for local vote gathering) affiliated with TRT skyrocketed in the past several years. I have experienced some of this myself, and it is with a great deal of satisfaction I learned that my local orbortor was out on his ass when the coup took place. Som Nam Na!

m

Edited September 22, 2006 by lannarebirth

[jomama]

I couldn’t agree with you more, a very balanced analysis. Voters new what Thaksin was like before he was elected, in fact that was the very reason he won such an overwhelming majority. The country got the Government it wanted which is a reflection of the average voter and man in the street.

I think voters got more Taksin than they bargained for. Perhaps they didn't realize how meglomaniacal he really is, and how cleverly he could tie up the country and rule autocratically through a brilliant technique of subsidizing poor country pople with government money -- in effect assuring their vote legally and letting the rest of Thailand pay to keep him in power.

Then he began to rule by decree, and it was hub after hub, crackdown after crackdown.

I think it was about 65 too many crackdowns that turned the tide -- I don't think most voters knew his regime would take such a puritancal and Big Brother controlling turn.

There is one hub he didn't propose -- some call it the Bangkok Hilton -- but perhaps he can improve upon it. He's already felt a true crackdown, now perhaps its time to utilize the hub

[chanchao]

> I think voters got more Taksin than they bargained for.

I think so too. In his initial victory, Thaksin very much had the support of the (new) Bangkok middle classes, as well as up-country support. The middle class support quickly evaporated, but that didn't really make a significant dent in the overall number of (up-country) votes received in later elections.

> how cleverly he could tie up the country and rule autocratically through

> a brilliant technique of subsidizing poor country pople with government

> money -- in effect assuring their vote legally and letting the rest of

> Thailand pay to keep him in power.

I'd say that's a pretty good definition of 'democracy' you came up with there. Given the choice of pleasing several hundred thousand urban (Bangkok) middle class folk, or improving the lives of millions of poor up-country folk, it's not surprising to see the side Thaksin picked to cater to.

And now it seems they're going to be drafting a consitution that aims to prevent this for happening in the next election? Well, that's a constitution I'd like to see. (Or rather, not like to see). Than again it may all turn out very sensible.. Like droping the need for people to return to their place of birth (place of registration) to vote, seriously curbing vote buying along with campaigns to educate people against this, name and shame perpetraitors, etc. But still after doing that, people in Ubon are going to be voting for the guy giving them 30 baht healthcare gold cards, and frankly, why shouldn't they.

Keep in mind there IS a huge divide between urban middle classes and upcountry people. This has been a fact of life for decades and was most certainly not Thaksin's creation. In fact many measures can be seen as trying to balance Thailand's relative wealth, but indeed he made shrewd political use of it as well. And, why shouldn't he? (Or any other politician after him) It may be high time for poor rural people to tell Bangkok people a thing or two. True democracy in Thailand will inevitably lead to an "Isanocracy". You heard that term here first.

> I don't think most voters knew his regime would take such

> a puritancal and Big Brother controlling turn.

Actually the puritanical measures were among the more popular things he did. This includes curbing bar opening hours, preventing minors from entering nightlife places and drinking alcohol, limiting liquor sale hours, liquor taxation, cigarette display, a draconian war on drugs, and a (still ineffective) start to curbing drunk driving. I do note that these were THE most unpopular measures as perceived by many foreign residents, who felt that they were being specifically and unfairly targetted and impeded in a hedonistic lifestyle.

(Not saying that I myself agree with those measures, but they were undeniably popular.)

Edited September 22, 2006 by chanchao

[Donnyboy]

I couldn’t agree with you more, a very balanced analysis. Voters new what Thaksin was like before he was elected, in fact that was the very reason he won such an overwhelming majority. The country got the Government it wanted which is a reflection of the average voter and man in the street.

I think voters got more Taksin than they bargained for. Perhaps they didn't realize how meglomaniacal he really is, and how cleverly he could tie up the country and rule autocratically through a brilliant technique of subsidizing poor country pople with government money -- in effect assuring their vote legally and letting the rest of Thailand pay to keep him in power.

Then he began to rule by decree, and it was hub after hub, crackdown after crackdown.

I think it was about 65 too many crackdowns that turned the tide -- I don't think most voters knew his regime would take such a puritancal and Big Brother controlling turn.

There is one hub he didn't propose -- some call it the Bangkok Hilton -- but perhaps he can improve upon it. He's already felt a true crackdown, now perhaps its time to utilize the hub

lets hope justice is seemed to be done and he and his cronies are stripped of all their ill-gotten gains, and dealt a lesson, and experience what life is like wearing a 7kg ankle braclet, I wonder if Louis Vitton do one in gold??

[meadish_sweetball]

> I think voters got more Taksin than they bargained for.

I think so too. In his initial victory, Thaksin very much had the support of the (new) Bangkok middle classes, as well as up-country support. The middle class support quickly evaporated, but that didn't really make a significant dent in the overall number of (up-country) votes received in later elections.

> how cleverly he could tie up the country and rule autocratically through

> a brilliant technique of subsidizing poor country pople with government

> money -- in effect assuring their vote legally and letting the rest of

> Thailand pay to keep him in power.

I'd say that's a pretty good definition of 'democracy' you came up with there. Given the choice of pleasing several hundred thousand urban (Bangkok) middle class folk, or improving the lives of millions of poor up-country folk, it's not surprising to see the side Thaksin picked to cater to.

And now it seems they're going to be drafting a consitution that aims to prevent this for happening in the next election? Well, that's a constitution I'd like to see. (Or rather, not like to see). Than again it may all turn out very sensible.. Like droping the need for people to return to their place of birth (place of registration) to vote, seriously curbing vote buying along with campaigns to educate people against this, name and shame perpetraitors, etc. But still after doing that, people in Ubon are going to be voting for the guy giving them 30 baht healthcare gold cards, and frankly, why shouldn't they.

Keep in mind there IS a huge divide between urban middle classes and upcountry people. This has been a fact of life for decades and was most certainly not Thaksin's creation. In fact many measures can be seen as trying to balance Thailand's relative wealth, but indeed he made shrewd political use of it as well. And, why shouldn't he? (Or any other politician after him) It may be high time for poor rural people to tell Bangkok people a thing or two. True democracy in Thailand will inevitably lead to an "Isanocracy". You heard that term here first.

> I don't think most voters knew his regime would take such

> a puritancal and Big Brother controlling turn.

Actually the puritanical measures were among the more popular things he did. This includes curbing bar opening hours, preventing minors from entering nightlife places and drinking alcohol, limiting liquor sale hours, liquor taxation, cigarette display, a draconian war on drugs, and a (still ineffective) start to curbing drunk driving. I do note that these were THE most unpopular measures as perceived by many foreign residents, who felt that they were being specifically and unfairly targetted and impeded in a hedonistic lifestyle.

(Not saying that I myself agree with those measures, but they were undeniably popular.)

Excellent post.

[Blinky Bill]

Ok so there have been 18 coups since 1932, personally I dont think that makes it a "here we go again" situation

TH is a developing country whose image is changing slowly and who econmically is missing out in comparison to its neighbours. The political crisis has caused enough instability and maybe get it dealt with once and for helps move it forward but the coup will cause more concerns in investment for long term growth in the country than Toxsin et al still being around

No need for any of us to jump on the next plane, just dont think its a casual event as the affect might be subtle but is another set back for TH in its standing within Asia

I'm not trying to have a bitch directed at you but I just think it may be a military coup on the streets without the chaos but it causes lots of other issues

Feel better now Remo?

[Other poster's name corrected.]

Edited September 26, 2006 by chanchao

[lookpedkeeray]

I passed through Chiang Mai yesterday and noticed the continuing military presence, the complete erasing of Thaksin / TRT signage (I recall public transport trucks had them plastered all over). Are people in Chiang Mai as happy as they currently seem in Bangkok?

Edited September 26, 2006 by lookpedkeeray

[Ajarn]

I passed through Chiang Mai yesterday and noticed the continuing military presence, the complete erasing of Thaksin / TRT signage (I recall public transport trucks had them plastered all over). Are people in Chiang Mai as happy as they currently seem in Bangkok?

I noticed today that they mainly seem to be covering the routes into town... Didn't see anything anywhere else.. Just a 'skeleton' crew. Sure, we're happy, I think. If anyone is worried about it getting out of hand, I really doubt it would...

[Remo]

Feel better now Remo?

Blinky thanks for your concern, I didnt realise you cared so much. As I said in my first comment on the whole "coup" point I did not thinkand do not think its a reason for personal concern. I'll stand by what I have said before that news like this affects the growth for TH and investment over the next 24 months.

My point is about new investment as oppose to growth from existing companies. If people think otherwise fine, that why this is a public forum and we all have our own opinions, its called a discussion

Edited September 27, 2006 by Remo

[BigMac]

...............news like this affects the growth for TH and investment over the next 24 months.

The growth of the economy certainly will be affected but only in a positive direction.

[Remo]

...............news like this affects the growth for TH and investment over the next 24 months.

The growth of the economy certainly will be affected but only in a positive direction.

Only if they get it right as TH is in limbo at the moment. If TH clears up it act and all soundings have been that is the plan. If done correctly, yes its worth it - but I think its anyones guess until we see how quickly some normality is put back into the govt and the system

[BigMac]

...............news like this affects the growth for TH and investment over the next 24 months.

The growth of the economy certainly will be affected but only in a positive direction.

Only if they get it right as TH is in limbo at the moment. If TH clears up it act and all soundings have been that is the plan. If done correctly, yes its worth it - but I think its anyones guess until we see how quickly some normality is put back into the govt and the system

I think you are misinformed and don't too much about Thailand and it's thriving economy.