For businesses considering entering the Burmese market, the predicament Myanmar Consolidated Media’s backers find themselves in should serve as a prescient warning: Burma is not a country for faint-hearted foreigners.
The terminally greedy… looking, like the junta itself, to make the proverbial ‘killing’ rather than a living as all the poor peoples of Burma would be delighted to do… are likely to be killed themselves by the thugs in power there.
Direct cash transfers to families, based on complying with a stated criteria, appears to have been successful at significantly reducing the poverty rate in Latin America.
To the degree that these types of funds circumvent traditional government channels, they limit corruption.
It is odd that people get up in arms about the idea of giving money to poor people, but don’t seem to mind when bureacrats steal the majority of it on the way.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bangkokpundit and Saksith Saiyasombut, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Strong showing at red shirt fundraiser in Khon Kaen: KHON KAEN, THAILAND – Over 5,000 Red Shirt supporters from … http://bit.ly/hq5Ykk […]
Those of you are are alarmed about the moral hazards of giving out money may find some food for thought in this article about “is it possible to just give money to the poor?”
Vote buying, clean politics and the urban middle class
When politicians delivered health care benefits and funds for local communities, these
were considered ‘‘populist deception’’ or bribes for narrow benefits improper to democracy.
This urban bias view never understands the differences between the collective votes by rural
communities, regardless of cash incentives, to politicians who made and kept their promises,
and vote-selling for cash.
Democracy, according to the advocates of clean politics, seems highly purified,
uncontaminated by the local and rural interests. On the other hand, promises of tax
benefits, industrial parks, more electric trains in Bangkok and measures to solve
Bangkok’s traffic jams, export promotions and investment stimuli are seen in the
urban-biased view as national interests and legitimate policies.
Moreover, while cash changes hands during elections, the presumptuous notion
that money determines election outcomes is disputable. In the earlier years of vote buying,
voters might have felt obliged to vote for those whose money they accepted as a
moral obligation and since the outcome in national politics rarely mattered to them.
Vote-buying was a short-term contractual relation.
Over the years, as politicians mattered more to their lives, voters took into account other
factors far beyond the petty material gains to decide who would serve them best. The
power of money was weakened and vote-buying became increasing fruitless in recent
elections. The assumption that voters still care for nothing but money or that cash
means the same as it used to decades ago is evidently wrong . The urban middle class,
in general, are uninformed and ignorant; their bias robs them of the opportunity to learn
about their rural counterparts.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hobby Nganadeeleg, Hobby Nganadeeleg. Hobby Nganadeeleg said: "Thailand is a kleptocracy run by oligarchs for oligarchs and corruption the fuel on which it runs" http://bit.ly/dFpuuW Brilliant must read […]
Well perhaps ‘harder’ rather than ‘hard’. It must have some affect as two political parties have been wound up and MPs have had to resign (hence the last by-elections.) The perfect constitution in my view would have corrupt politicians going to prison as has happened recently in the UK.
It is certainly not getting harder to corrupte Les, look the GT200. Do you think its so hard for the Army to get the junk piece of plastic with antenna metal on it??? nobody would have know about the equipment if not because of the professor from Chula (I doubt the media would care if he’s not from Chula) and several people from Pantip went to public about the junk that the government and the army finally yield.
Furthermore, out corruption perception index is worse now comparing to, you guess it, Thaksin time. If you have any number to prove that corruption is less now than in 2005 then please, show us.
Ciao amici! Interesting observations on a critical non-issue. If one were to take a step back it does appear that sweeping generalizations of the Thai electorate are being made and accepted as irrefutable truths. Human beings are difficult to predict but guess what, if a survey is conducted by a “prestigious” Thai institution of higher education (a contradiction of terms if there ever is one) then the topic merits scholarly debate on the Internet. Have you given any thought to the possibility that the results were actually fabricated? After more than a decade working in the Thai university system I can attest that invention is second nature to the Thai elite.
What does it matter if some debt-ridden Thai farmer decides to “sell” his/her vote? What does that kind of behaviour/choice prove? To what extent is the Thai polity morally bankrupt? Please don’t tell me that we are concerned with the Kingdom’s transition towards becoming a more consolidated democratic society. O mio Dio! When will our misplaced belief in miracles ever cease?! The game of politics in Siam (a.k.a. musical chairs) is about taking short-cuts, marriages of convenience, double-crossing, bribery, lying and stealing. It’s no different in any other country. Moreover, progress in Thailand is not measured by election turnouts or amendments to the constitution (no need, just trash it!) but rather in GDP figures, stock market points and FDI (show me the money!). If vote buying does take place (and I for one know it does) then we should appreciate it as a time-honoured tradition within the Siamese milieu. I am constantly amazed at the number of deep-pockets that exist in this developing country.
Western-style bourgeoisie democracy? What a fantasy! Modern feudalistic state? Absolutely. Look, Thai business concerns and their foreign partners (multinational corporations/individual investors) are aiming for profits, not at the promotion of workers’ rights, creation of a quality educational system, or the strengthening of political pluralism. Indeed, the overall perception of the Thai elite towards their fellow countrymen is of subjects/vassals not of citizens. Socio-economic inequality and political marginalization of the masses have been and are the key foundations of Thailand’s prosperity. Any changes to the feudal structure of the Thai politico-economic landscape will result in the collapse of the State itself. This linkage should not be ignored. Furthermore, liberal democracy has no place in this Oriental landscape. It is quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Thais do not even have an idea of what it means, let alone how to practice it. Right? The day Thailand “decides” to embrace the path towards becoming a full-fledged democracy will be the day that my family and I will empty our bank accounts and leave the Land of Smiles. We have comfortable lives because it comes off the back of someone else’s misery. Nothing personal just karma.
On a side note, when I think about the contemporary Thai political scene I must admit that it is quite colourful. This country has produced a plethora of politicians who through their black magic have been able to swing countless of voters to their side. Complexity abounds in Siamese politics and yet many of us fall into the trap of simplification. Take for example the intriguing “dichotomy” of Thaksin and Abhisit. Was Thaksin corrupt? Of course he was. His reluctance to share the spoils with certain members of the Establishment led directly to his downfall. (Verdict: Guilty as charged.) Is Abhisit corrput? Of course he is. No one rises through the ranks of any political machine without applying generous amounts of grease and without making promises to certain kingmakers. He remains in power not because he possesses any kind of mandate but rather because he is adept at dividing the cake. (Verdict still pending: Innocent until proven guilty.)
Simply put, Thailand is a kleptocracy run by oligarchs for oligarchs and corruption the fuel on which it runs. That is the truth and perhaps a key reason why I have made this country my home. So let the alleged vote buying continue. It doesn’t harm anyone and, more importantly, such conduct protects my family interests. But if the Loyal Opposition begins to make some headway in the polls then one conveniently should bring out the vote buying bogeyman in order to lay the groundwork for disqualification.
It is clear from his response that the author expects (nay, demands) only praise for his writing and cannot countenance criticism of any form. Therefore I would *respectfully* suggest that if he writes further internet articles, he does so with ‘comments off’ or otherwise sets up a fan club to write for instead.
There is nothing ad hominem about the various comments raised in response to his article. My own comment was on the author’s analysis of texts and the premise of his article. I have absolutely no interest in him as an individual. Contrary to his protestations, he has not answered the points made. The article does not simply provide a chronological analysis, as the author claims. If it had done so, no objections would have been raised. The article instead asserts a *preference* for the early over the late, a normative hierarchy based on the simplistic view that early is better and any inconsistency in later texts is therefore ‘heretical’ and ‘wrong’.
Finally, if the author desires only respectful comments , I would suggest he himself write in a less arrogant tone which does not patronise his readers and assume from the outset that they are ignorant.
I have no doubt in mind that Andrew Walker and his NM friends will continue to bogey, tango or waltz around ‘Thailand vote buying’ to toothpaste-squeeze out rationale that would diminish to whatever degree our universal repugnance at this illegal, unethical and harmful practice. Good luck Andrew Walker. If you could convince a judge that vote-buying or vote selling is not harmful or illegal, then maybe your luck could change in your future posters.
Vote-buying in Thailand is pernicious, let there be no doubt. The intention is the subvertion the will of the electorate by enticing the vulnerable and ill-informed to accept ‘cash’ in exchange for their ‘votes’. Vote-buying is a criminal enterprise . . . and it is illegal and condemned anywhere in the world.
Groups of men armed with cash supplied by the vote-buying candidate approach Thai village kamnans or chiefs (who get their cuts/cash rewards in the process of course) to list names and ID card numbers of village voters who could be bought. Whole village families are thus compromised w/ even sons/daughters in Bangkok promised to be deliver their bought vote. To those in the villages or belonging to these village families, the pressure to succumb to vote dumbly and accept the ‘bribe’ are very intense. Are these vote-buying accompanied by threats of harm or violence? Quite frequently, I should say.
LesAbbey’s fond of bemoaning the lack of answers to his loaded questions – but seems ever reluctant to respond to requests for substantiation put to him when he prefaces those questions with yet another of his trademark sweeping statements….. e.g. as raised in my #10 above.
If the assumptions supposedly prompting the question are false, why would anyone bother answering it?
I am afraid that everything the royal family wishes is possible. Hope that NM readers still remember the case of Her Royal Highness Princess Sirivannavari Nariratana enjoying her post as a Third Secretary in Paris with a huge salary. Please see
Here is a rough translation of the passage noted in Somsak J.’s post above:
“After careful consideration, it is the view of the Court that the offences in this case carry a high penalty, resulting from the circumstances in this case and the nature of the actions that brought about the damages to the esteemed and respected institution of the monarchy. In addition, the Criminal Court and the Appeal Court previously did not grant temporary release. The reason given is that in this case the Court was of the opinion that if temporary release was granted, then the defendant might flee. Therefore the petition for temporary release is denied. This order serves to inform the defendant and the person requesting bail.”
It is astounding that Khun Da was denied bail — especially given her health problems.
No one here has argued that the practice of “vote buying” by handing out cash is okay or should be formally sanctioned. I think the point — reflected in the use of “bogeyman” in the title — is that the practice of handing out cash does not actually buy votes — as SteveCM said, it’s more accurate to call it “vote soliciting” — yet the amart like to bring up the bogeyman of vote-buying to discredit the “poor people’s” election results.
Most of the comments here seem to agree that it’s a bogeyman. But they’re not saying vote buying is okay, as you infer.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Analysis of Ross Dunkley’s fate
For businesses considering entering the Burmese market, the predicament Myanmar Consolidated Media’s backers find themselves in should serve as a prescient warning: Burma is not a country for
faint-heartedforeigners.The terminally greedy… looking, like the junta itself, to make the proverbial ‘killing’ rather than a living as all the poor peoples of Burma would be delighted to do… are likely to be killed themselves by the thugs in power there.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
Direct cash transfers to families, based on complying with a stated criteria, appears to have been successful at significantly reducing the poverty rate in Latin America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia
To the degree that these types of funds circumvent traditional government channels, they limit corruption.
It is odd that people get up in arms about the idea of giving money to poor people, but don’t seem to mind when bureacrats steal the majority of it on the way.
Volunteering to protect Thailand’s “institution”
Claude,
No, no, and no. Although Jesus and Buddha are closer then Thatcher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
Strong showing at red shirt fundraiser in Khon Kaen
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bangkokpundit and Saksith Saiyasombut, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Strong showing at red shirt fundraiser in Khon Kaen: KHON KAEN, THAILAND – Over 5,000 Red Shirt supporters from … http://bit.ly/hq5Ykk […]
Strong showing at red shirt fundraiser in Khon Kaen
Thanks for keeping us updated on what’s up in the Northeast! Look forward to more…
Volunteering to protect Thailand’s “institution”
So are Jesus, Buddha and Margaret Thatcher “cults of personality”?
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
Those of you are are alarmed about the moral hazards of giving out money may find some food for thought in this article about “is it possible to just give money to the poor?”
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
From “Toppling Democracy” by Thongchai Winichakul
Vote buying, clean politics and the urban middle class
When politicians delivered health care benefits and funds for local communities, these
were considered ‘‘populist deception’’ or bribes for narrow benefits improper to democracy.
This urban bias view never understands the differences between the collective votes by rural
communities, regardless of cash incentives, to politicians who made and kept their promises,
and vote-selling for cash.
Democracy, according to the advocates of clean politics, seems highly purified,
uncontaminated by the local and rural interests. On the other hand, promises of tax
benefits, industrial parks, more electric trains in Bangkok and measures to solve
Bangkok’s traffic jams, export promotions and investment stimuli are seen in the
urban-biased view as national interests and legitimate policies.
Moreover, while cash changes hands during elections, the presumptuous notion
that money determines election outcomes is disputable. In the earlier years of vote buying,
voters might have felt obliged to vote for those whose money they accepted as a
moral obligation and since the outcome in national politics rarely mattered to them.
Vote-buying was a short-term contractual relation.
Over the years, as politicians mattered more to their lives, voters took into account other
factors far beyond the petty material gains to decide who would serve them best. The
power of money was weakened and vote-buying became increasing fruitless in recent
elections. The assumption that voters still care for nothing but money or that cash
means the same as it used to decades ago is evidently wrong . The urban middle class,
in general, are uninformed and ignorant; their bias robs them of the opportunity to learn
about their rural counterparts.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hobby Nganadeeleg, Hobby Nganadeeleg. Hobby Nganadeeleg said: "Thailand is a kleptocracy run by oligarchs for oligarchs and corruption the fuel on which it runs" http://bit.ly/dFpuuW Brilliant must read […]
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
LesAbbey -14
Well perhaps ‘harder’ rather than ‘hard’. It must have some affect as two political parties have been wound up and MPs have had to resign (hence the last by-elections.) The perfect constitution in my view would have corrupt politicians going to prison as has happened recently in the UK.
It is certainly not getting harder to corrupte Les, look the GT200. Do you think its so hard for the Army to get the junk piece of plastic with antenna metal on it??? nobody would have know about the equipment if not because of the professor from Chula (I doubt the media would care if he’s not from Chula) and several people from Pantip went to public about the junk that the government and the army finally yield.
Furthermore, out corruption perception index is worse now comparing to, you guess it, Thaksin time. If you have any number to prove that corruption is less now than in 2005 then please, show us.
Happy birthday, Lim Kit Siang MP
Tengku Razaleigh, elder statesman and UMNO’s last gentleman, pays tribute to Lim Kit Siang. Read here.
Court win for Da Torpedo
Amnesty International and Benjamin Zawacki, where are you?
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
Ciao amici! Interesting observations on a critical non-issue. If one were to take a step back it does appear that sweeping generalizations of the Thai electorate are being made and accepted as irrefutable truths. Human beings are difficult to predict but guess what, if a survey is conducted by a “prestigious” Thai institution of higher education (a contradiction of terms if there ever is one) then the topic merits scholarly debate on the Internet. Have you given any thought to the possibility that the results were actually fabricated? After more than a decade working in the Thai university system I can attest that invention is second nature to the Thai elite.
What does it matter if some debt-ridden Thai farmer decides to “sell” his/her vote? What does that kind of behaviour/choice prove? To what extent is the Thai polity morally bankrupt? Please don’t tell me that we are concerned with the Kingdom’s transition towards becoming a more consolidated democratic society. O mio Dio! When will our misplaced belief in miracles ever cease?! The game of politics in Siam (a.k.a. musical chairs) is about taking short-cuts, marriages of convenience, double-crossing, bribery, lying and stealing. It’s no different in any other country. Moreover, progress in Thailand is not measured by election turnouts or amendments to the constitution (no need, just trash it!) but rather in GDP figures, stock market points and FDI (show me the money!). If vote buying does take place (and I for one know it does) then we should appreciate it as a time-honoured tradition within the Siamese milieu. I am constantly amazed at the number of deep-pockets that exist in this developing country.
Western-style bourgeoisie democracy? What a fantasy! Modern feudalistic state? Absolutely. Look, Thai business concerns and their foreign partners (multinational corporations/individual investors) are aiming for profits, not at the promotion of workers’ rights, creation of a quality educational system, or the strengthening of political pluralism. Indeed, the overall perception of the Thai elite towards their fellow countrymen is of subjects/vassals not of citizens. Socio-economic inequality and political marginalization of the masses have been and are the key foundations of Thailand’s prosperity. Any changes to the feudal structure of the Thai politico-economic landscape will result in the collapse of the State itself. This linkage should not be ignored. Furthermore, liberal democracy has no place in this Oriental landscape. It is quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Thais do not even have an idea of what it means, let alone how to practice it. Right? The day Thailand “decides” to embrace the path towards becoming a full-fledged democracy will be the day that my family and I will empty our bank accounts and leave the Land of Smiles. We have comfortable lives because it comes off the back of someone else’s misery. Nothing personal just karma.
On a side note, when I think about the contemporary Thai political scene I must admit that it is quite colourful. This country has produced a plethora of politicians who through their black magic have been able to swing countless of voters to their side. Complexity abounds in Siamese politics and yet many of us fall into the trap of simplification. Take for example the intriguing “dichotomy” of Thaksin and Abhisit. Was Thaksin corrupt? Of course he was. His reluctance to share the spoils with certain members of the Establishment led directly to his downfall. (Verdict: Guilty as charged.) Is Abhisit corrput? Of course he is. No one rises through the ranks of any political machine without applying generous amounts of grease and without making promises to certain kingmakers. He remains in power not because he possesses any kind of mandate but rather because he is adept at dividing the cake. (Verdict still pending: Innocent until proven guilty.)
Simply put, Thailand is a kleptocracy run by oligarchs for oligarchs and corruption the fuel on which it runs. That is the truth and perhaps a key reason why I have made this country my home. So let the alleged vote buying continue. It doesn’t harm anyone and, more importantly, such conduct protects my family interests. But if the Loyal Opposition begins to make some headway in the polls then one conveniently should bring out the vote buying bogeyman in order to lay the groundwork for disqualification.
The Buddha was bald
It is clear from his response that the author expects (nay, demands) only praise for his writing and cannot countenance criticism of any form. Therefore I would *respectfully* suggest that if he writes further internet articles, he does so with ‘comments off’ or otherwise sets up a fan club to write for instead.
There is nothing ad hominem about the various comments raised in response to his article. My own comment was on the author’s analysis of texts and the premise of his article. I have absolutely no interest in him as an individual. Contrary to his protestations, he has not answered the points made. The article does not simply provide a chronological analysis, as the author claims. If it had done so, no objections would have been raised. The article instead asserts a *preference* for the early over the late, a normative hierarchy based on the simplistic view that early is better and any inconsistency in later texts is therefore ‘heretical’ and ‘wrong’.
Finally, if the author desires only respectful comments , I would suggest he himself write in a less arrogant tone which does not patronise his readers and assume from the outset that they are ignorant.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
I have no doubt in mind that Andrew Walker and his NM friends will continue to bogey, tango or waltz around ‘Thailand vote buying’ to toothpaste-squeeze out rationale that would diminish to whatever degree our universal repugnance at this illegal, unethical and harmful practice. Good luck Andrew Walker. If you could convince a judge that vote-buying or vote selling is not harmful or illegal, then maybe your luck could change in your future posters.
Vote-buying in Thailand is pernicious, let there be no doubt. The intention is the subvertion the will of the electorate by enticing the vulnerable and ill-informed to accept ‘cash’ in exchange for their ‘votes’. Vote-buying is a criminal enterprise . . . and it is illegal and condemned anywhere in the world.
Groups of men armed with cash supplied by the vote-buying candidate approach Thai village kamnans or chiefs (who get their cuts/cash rewards in the process of course) to list names and ID card numbers of village voters who could be bought. Whole village families are thus compromised w/ even sons/daughters in Bangkok promised to be deliver their bought vote. To those in the villages or belonging to these village families, the pressure to succumb to vote dumbly and accept the ‘bribe’ are very intense. Are these vote-buying accompanied by threats of harm or violence? Quite frequently, I should say.
Amen.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
LesAbbey’s fond of bemoaning the lack of answers to his loaded questions – but seems ever reluctant to respond to requests for substantiation put to him when he prefaces those questions with yet another of his trademark sweeping statements….. e.g. as raised in my #10 above.
If the assumptions supposedly prompting the question are false, why would anyone bother answering it?
Foo Foo and the international press
@Thai Nots,
“So does the dog draw a salary?”
I am afraid that everything the royal family wishes is possible. Hope that NM readers still remember the case of Her Royal Highness Princess Sirivannavari Nariratana enjoying her post as a Third Secretary in Paris with a huge salary. Please see
http://www.mfa.go.th/web/1869.php?depcode=21500100
What do you think those posts and titles are for?
Cheers!!
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
A .DOC file of The Devil’s Discus will be available for a limited time here:
URL: http://www.sendspace.com/file/o4qqrq
Password: discus
Court win for Da Torpedo
Here is a rough translation of the passage noted in Somsak J.’s post above:
“After careful consideration, it is the view of the Court that the offences in this case carry a high penalty, resulting from the circumstances in this case and the nature of the actions that brought about the damages to the esteemed and respected institution of the monarchy. In addition, the Criminal Court and the Appeal Court previously did not grant temporary release. The reason given is that in this case the Court was of the opinion that if temporary release was granted, then the defendant might flee. Therefore the petition for temporary release is denied. This order serves to inform the defendant and the person requesting bail.”
It is astounding that Khun Da was denied bail — especially given her health problems.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
LesAbbey, you’re missing the point.
No one here has argued that the practice of “vote buying” by handing out cash is okay or should be formally sanctioned. I think the point — reflected in the use of “bogeyman” in the title — is that the practice of handing out cash does not actually buy votes — as SteveCM said, it’s more accurate to call it “vote soliciting” — yet the amart like to bring up the bogeyman of vote-buying to discredit the “poor people’s” election results.
Most of the comments here seem to agree that it’s a bogeyman. But they’re not saying vote buying is okay, as you infer.