Like Yingluck, most Thais are not optimistic about the future

[webfact]

OPINION

Like Yingluck, most Thais are not optimistic about the future
By Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation

 

The political rumblings have begun, in the form of ex-prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s birthday tears amid visits to her home by numerous supporters. She told them she was bracing herself for the court verdict in the rice scheme trial. But it’s not just Yingluck who’s preparing for the worst. The whole of Thailand is dreading the day of the ruling.

 

Yingluck said she could only hope to celebrate her birthday with supporters in the same way next year. It was the practical thing to say, since the verdict is expected in September or not much later. Her best case scenario is, of course, an acquittal, but her birthday tears demonstrated the angst she is feeling as she waits for the final day of the historic case. Many of her fellow Thais feel the same way, whether they are sobbing nor not. Worse still, an outcome favourable either to her or her opponents isn’t necessarily good news for the politically neutral.

 

Yingluck is facing a two-pronged legal assault. On the civil front, efforts to seize her assets appear to have stalled. The Finance Ministry and the National Anti-Corruption Commission are sending conflicting messages on who is to blame for the “delay” in confiscating the Bt35 billion targeted, though some analysts believe their back-and-forth argument is a smokescreen for political unwillingness to go after her assets before the criminal case is settled. (Technically, the assets seizure doesn’t have to wait for the conclusion of the criminal trial, but politically it probably should.)

 

On the criminal front, there’s only a few defence witnesses left to testify. The trial has mirrored the political conflict. The prosecution has presented several high-ranking witnesses to support charges of malfeasance and gross negligence against her. The rice-pledging scheme was described by the prosecution as a malicious, corruption-plagued project masquerading as an attempt to help poor farmers. Prosecutors said the state suffered massive losses, farmers were duped and vast amounts of paddy had rotted in storage because the government could not find buyers.

 

Defence lawyers told the court the rice policy had to be carried out because the government was bound by its promise to Parliament, in addition to a sincere belief that the programme would benefit the poor. Identifiable and tangible measures had been taken against corruption and the rotting of the paddy, the defence said. Some damage had occurred, admitted defence lawyers, but it was the responsibility of sub-contractors.

 

As we can see, the trial goes to the crux of the political divide. All the contentious questions asked since Thaksin Shinawatra was deposed in the 2006 coup will rise to prominence again over the next few weeks.

 

The first question: How much “mandate” does the ballot box give? Yingluck’s supporters insist that since her party won a general election, it was empowered and in fact obliged to carry out its pledges to voters. Some of the resulting policies might have worked and others might not, but that’s democracy, they say. Her opponents counter that they only have problems with policies intended to serve individuals or vested interests but disguised as beneficial to the public. This latter camp often points to telecom policies of the Thaksin government which benefited his business empire.

 

The second question: How should we “punish” elected officials who are found to be corrupt? 

 

Shinawatra supporters and the anti-military camp, of course, demand a “democratic” process be followed in putting away crooked politicians, stating that “two wrongs never make a right”. The opposition counters that no politicians in power will ever punish themselves. In addition, those opponents insist that when “democratic” decisions have gone against politicians, like when the Constitution Court has refused to rule in favour of major policies, politicians merely chose not to listen.

 

These are political questions, fuelled somewhat by the fact that most prosecution witnesses are permanent officials whereas defence witnesses are mainly politicians. There’s another question with ideological overtones being asked by ordinary citizens with no political stake whatsoever: Can the Thai elites solve their serious problems peacefully? “Elites” refers to both sides – the Shinawatras and their opponents – who are more or less responsible for maintaining this vicious cycle in which the country has been trapped for so long.

 

This last question is the most difficult one to answer. In a few weeks’ time, Thailand will reach yet another crossroads, one whose features are all too familiar. Paths will appear offering the promise to lead the country to “something new”. In fact they will merely be routes in the same old loop. Yingluck’s tears are probably warranted, but her pessimism about her own future certainly coincides with concerns about that of the country as a whole, which is a lot more complex. The latter worries are also expected to last considerably longer.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/opinion/tulsathit/30319300

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-06-28

[Raymonddiaz]

good article. The ones who are judging Yingluck are the one who will not be accountable for their actions in the future.

[ezzra]

The irony of the matter is, that I have read similar articles 10, 5 and 3 years ago,

all lamenting and lambasting more or less the same, has anything changed?

I don't think so, will anything significant will change in the near future? I doubt

it very much....

[darksidedog]

It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to see what policies worked and which did not. The rice pledging was a failure in its implementation, (but a good idea in principle), though corrupt local and regional officials should be taking much of the blame, not just a politically expedient single politician. Time will tell which policies Prayut has brought in that turn out to be an abject failure. Having given himself total immunity, he of course doesn't need to worry about the consequences though.

[Samui Bodoh]

The root of the problem is that there isn't a fair, transparent, predictable and widely accepted way of dealing with this (and other) issues in the justice system. And, as other posters have noted, some face the justice system while others have a free pass.

 

Thailand needs a dispute resolution system agreed to by all, and it doesn't have one. Until there is some sort of resolution to this question, the troubles will continue.

 

And the troubles continue...

[yellowboat]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Like Yingluck, most Thais are not optimistic about the future

Those who look outside the borders of Thailand will fair better.   Inside ?  Nah. 

[scorecard]

Just his opinion.

 

It's not the view that I hear from many Thais. 

[scorecard]

39 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to see what policies worked and which did not. The rice pledging was a failure in its implementation, (but a good idea in principle), though corrupt local and regional officials should be taking much of the blame, not just a politically expedient single politician. Time will tell which policies Prayut has brought in that turn out to be an abject failure. Having given himself total immunity, he of course doesn't need to worry about the consequences though.

 

And note, others are already in jail and more in the judicial process, and more under investigation right now.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Raymonddiaz said:

good article. The ones who are judging Yingluck are the one who will not be accountable for their actions in the future.

 

That's a big statement.

 

Yingluck is going through an official legal process. 

 

Makes me laugh, many of the negatives posters have conveniently forgotten the actions, attitudes and policies of her very corrupt family.

Edited June 28, 2017 by scorecard

[Raymonddiaz]

12 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

That's a big statement.

 

Yingluck is going through an official legal process. 

 

Makes me laugh, many of the negatives posters have conveniently forgotten the actions, attitudes and policies of her very corrupt family.

Do u know the men in brown have put a blanket on themselves so no risk of prosecution in the future. check the news mate!

[worgeordie]

The future is bright for Thai's,they have Submarines,tanks,and the Bangkok tower,

to look forward to,all things to make  Thai's very proud,,just dont think about

the mountain of debt that comes with it.

regards worgeordie

[scorecard]

Just now, Raymonddiaz said:

Do u know the men in brown have put a blanket on themselves so no risk of prosecution in the future. check the news mate!

 

Well aware of that.

[Raymonddiaz]

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

 

Well aware of that.

so they can check deposed elected leaders and for them there is no risk they can do what they want without any accountability.

[robblok]

57 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to see what policies worked and which did not. The rice pledging was a failure in its implementation, (but a good idea in principle), though corrupt local and regional officials should be taking much of the blame, not just a politically expedient single politician. Time will tell which policies Prayut has brought in that turn out to be an abject failure. Having given himself total immunity, he of course doesn't need to worry about the consequences though.

With the notable difference that the world bank and other orginisations told her that it was not sustainable.. and that the goverment official who came out with figures showing that it went wrong was bullied and transferred, and that the democrats who showed rotten rice were threatened with police action for theft. She chaired it .. never showed up... said there was no corruption, but her own highest ministers were in on fake G2G deals (selling rice to a company supposed to represent China.. however the rice never left the warehouses and was sold back into the system). So yea.. this is not just a case of a failed project.. but a project she was warned about by reputable organisations, and where when it became clear it was making a loss like everyone said she tried to bully people around and suppress information. She chaired it let the corruption that was pointed out also happen and kept saying that there was no corruption.

 

Normally i agree with you as your one of better posters but not this time. But like you I would like to see some consequences for the army too. 

[scorecard]

Just now, Raymonddiaz said:

so they can check deposed elected leaders and for them there is no risk they can do what they want without any accountability.

 

Understanding what your saying, there's more to the picture, perhaps you should gain a much longer deeper perspective of the history. 

 

"Elected leaders'. There a point which has been disputed many times.

[maewang99]

how can anyone in 2560.....

that has little or no love of learning....

as expressed in a daily and varied reading habit.... especially of non fiction selections.... 
 

be optimistic?  about anything???



   

Edited June 28, 2017 by maewang99

[LannaGuy]

I come across a wide range of Thais and the view is pessimistic and unflattering of the Junta whereas, a couple years ago, it was far more positive. Also I can report that Thais, generally, dislike the witch hunt of Yingluck.

[rkidlad]

I love when Thais confide in me. I guess it's easier to confide with an outsider. 

 

Whether I agree with them or not, it's their opinion. They should never feel scared to express their opinion. Yet many have told me they can't as it will make them social outcasts even with people who feel the same. It can all fell very "spy on your neigbour" ish. 

 

Wait 'til you meet some Thais living outside of Thailand.My god! It's like a huge weight has been lifted from them and they're really taking advantage of hammering out some home truths. It's as if they're like other human beings around the world. Crazy, I know. 

[yellowboat]

37 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Understanding what your saying, there's more to the picture, perhaps you should gain a much longer deeper perspective of the history. 

 

"Elected leaders'. There a point which has been disputed many times.

Disputed ? Yes.  Proven ? Never. 

 

Yeah, history.  Men with guns take over an elected government then beg three years for understanding and sympathy.  There is your history for something lacking depth. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by yellowboat

[Smarter Than You]

Thai society, root and branch, is infected with corruption.

 

Just look at a sample of recent news articles to see corruption is everywhere: schools (B400,000 extortion case), temples (funding fraud), police (buying promotions), military (Rajabhakti park), customs (luxury car import tax avoidance), courts (popcorn shooter acquitted) and on and on and on ...

 

With a system so utterly mired in corruption three questions spring to mind:

 

How did it get this way?

The first thing is obvious, this situation has evolved over a long period of time.

Despite what some want to believe, corruption did not appear on the scene upon Thaksin's election in 2000.

The system has been deliberately set up to enable corruption.

Set up by who? Well just look at who has been running Thailand for the bulk of the post 1932 period.

Unelected and unaccountable regimes acting with impunity (exactly what you have in power now).

 

What effect does the corrupt system have on democratic governance?

Any policy that aims to reach vast numbers of Thais cannot be shielded from corruption.

Corruption is everywhere and cannot be avoided.

So there was corruption in the rice scheme - no surprise because there is corruption in every single thing any government of Thailand does.

The rice scheme was a massive policy, it had to be in order to reach millions.

In Thailand the facts are simple - the bigger the policy, the bigger the corruption.

So every time a government implements a large scale policy its opponents will scream corruption and they will be right.

So what does that mean? That no government can ever enact a large scale policy no matter what the needs of the people?

 

How should the country move forward?

The obvious thing here is that it is an outright lie to say that the purpose in ousting the elected governments of the past 17 years has been to rid Thailand of corruption.

The elected governments were not the cause of corruption in Thailand, the establishment of a corrupt system by unelected regimes is the cause of corruption in Thailand.

This fact makes the solution rather straight forward and self evident.

The only way to reduce corruption in Thailand is to change the entire system and the only way to to that is with democracy.

The ride will be bumpy, there will definitely be more instances of large scale corruption but at least with democracy there is chance to rectify the situation to some degree.

The alternative is to persist with coups, to persist with allowing those that built the corrupt system to keep on running it and to persist on letting those same people wander of into billion baht retirements without ever facing justice.

There is a reason those in power now don't want democracy and that reason is to maintain the corrupt system they built not to eradicate it.

Overthrowing elected governments to put the fox in charge of the henhouse will not move the country forward.

Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[phantomfiddler]

1 hour ago, darksidedog said:

It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to see what policies worked and which did not. The rice pledging was a failure in its implementation, (but a good idea in principle), though corrupt local and regional officials should be taking much of the blame, not just a politically expedient single politician. Time will tell which policies Prayut has brought in that turn out to be an abject failure. Having given himself total immunity, he of course doesn't need to worry about the consequences though.

Actually the rice pledging policy was an awful idea, doomed to failure, and designed purely to obtain the votes of the rural poor just as was thaksin,s promise to give every village in Thailand 1 Million Baht. The problems were complete unsustainability and the ease of abuse by corrupt persons, though the thought of getting more money thrown into the hands of the rice farmers was definitely a good idea. A possibility that can only be achieved by eliminating the greedy middle men.

[hansnl]

58 minutes ago, Raymonddiaz said:

Do u know the men in brown have put a blanket on themselves so no risk of prosecution in the future. check the news mate!

Quite easy to take that blanket away, in the future, if needed.

[Lupatria]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

...most Thais are not optimistic about the future

I wonder, how did they find out about it? Did someone ask four questions again?

[Cadbury]

Unfortunately for Yingluck she did not have the rat cunning to organise immunity for herself from the outcomes of every decision she ever made. Unlike someone else we know.

[Juan B Tong]

Happy Birthday.

[NanLaew]

35 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Thank God, somebody here has a brain.

+1

[Raymonddiaz]

1 hour ago, hansnl said:

Quite easy to take that blanket away, in the future, if needed.

Hopefully......

[Thaidream]

Yingluck may be convicted but I doubt she will ever see the inside of a jail.  Some of her assets will be seized and she will be banned from politics. Sending her to jail will stir up the many people that still supports the Shin clan- Best to let sleeping dogs lie.

[stephen tracy]

5 hours ago, rkidlad said:

I love when Thais confide in me. I guess it's easier to confide with an outsider. 

 

Whether I agree with them or not, it's their opinion. They should never feel scared to express their opinion. Yet many have told me they can't as it will make them social outcasts even with people who feel the same. It can all fell very "spy on your neigbour" ish. 

 

Wait 'til you meet some Thais living outside of Thailand.My god! It's like a huge weight has been lifted from them and they're really taking advantage of hammering out some home truths. It's as if they're like other human beings around the world. Crazy, I know. 

"as it will make them social outcasts "... that would be the least of their worries if they dared to express an opinion.

[stephen tracy]

5 hours ago, hansnl said:

Quite easy to take that blanket away, in the future, if needed.

I don't think it will be so easy to take the blanket away from the people with all the guns and tanks.  Take away their blanket and they will take away the government.... again

Edited June 28, 2017 by stephen tracy