I think there are really two approaches to consider – the first is what I would call a ‘high maintainance’ approach: western governments actually use political capital at the UN, with China, India etc., come up with clever strategies, send in the best diplomats, treat it as an emergency, use carrots and sticks, rachet up sanctions as a form of pressure if necessary. But as Richard says, I think the chance that the US or UK would actually move beyond rhetoric is close to zero.
The second is ‘low maintainace’: accept that our influence is limited, we’re always going to be fairly ignorant about Burma, we’re not going to do much, lift sanctions, provide some aid as we would anywhere else, speak out on individual rights abuses, and hope for the best, letting local politics take its own course, like in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. for better or worse.
There was one ICTS hosted by Chula after the 1976 massacre (not sure 1977 or 78). There was a call for boycott at that time too. Did it have any impact? Even people who support the boycott here cannot recall it.
There was another ICTS in Kunming in 1990, after the Tian-an-men Square massacre. There was a call for boycott as well, in fact even stronger and broader than to ICTS but to so many other relations with China. Did the boycott to ICTS work? Did it have any impact?
Why not? Did both events deserve a boycott stronger than the current one? A comparison may not be the right question. Just for further thinking.
I am not anti-boycott because a boycott in itself is not right or wrong. The reasons behind it are normally not conclusively right or wrong either. It is a measure to oppose what we do not like. I am simply not convinced (at least not yet) that I should do it in this case at this time. But I am not going to fight against those who want the boycott either. They have reasons. I just think there are possible battles to be fought, and probably harder ones, i.e. for open discussions on the issues that may seem improbable.
Yet, I can do as one individual can. Others have their own respectable decisions. Sucess, fantasy, failure, how many critical papers, panels, people would be accepted, I do not know. But pushing the limits in this case is worth an effort.
Warr’s study is not really telling us much that is new. Economic studies going back to the 1960s in Thailand show positive economic impacts for the poor. But, as Thai Radio implies, roads bring multiple impacts – economic, health, environmental, social, etc. The problem is that economists doing benefit-cost analysis tend to neglect multiple impacts. In 1995, one study summarised claimed positive social impacts, based on existing studies:
– that ‘support services’ are required during construction, and villagers may supply some of these;
– people will benefit by improved, cheaper and more convenient access to education, health services and commercial goods;
– those providing social services (eg. teachers) are encouraged to move to accessible villages and their services are better utilised (eg. school enrolments increase);
– improved public transportation and access to markets, especially for farm produce, but also for handicrafts (usually produced by women);
– traders have better access and the number of village shops increases;
– changes to consumption patterns, with new goods purchased (eg. clothes, electrical goods);
– expansion of cropping, including cash crops, and especially upland crops, with new farming technologies are introduced;
– reduction of subsistence production on the farm and in handicrafts and an introduction of non-farm economic activities;
– expansion of land area available to farming;
– improved internal security;
– the area is more attractive, with potential in-migration, while out-migration is reduced;
– attraction to outside investment is increased, with rising land prices near new or upgraded roads;
– if roads are sealed, a reduction in dust and noise pollution;
– reduction of rural isolation, meaning improved government links to the villages; and
– poverty reduction.
At the same time, these studies listed potential negative impacts:
– pollution during road construction;
– the increased risk of STDs (including HIV/AIDS) through locally-supplied sexual services to construction workers and truckers;
– loss of land through bridge and road alignments and realignments;
– temporary loss of labour to households while workers are required at construction sites;
– the need for some relocation caused by construction;
– increased wealth and income inequalities, especially for poor women;
– disproportioning of benefits, skewed to traders and through traffic, with relatively fewer benefits to local people (only access roads change this pattern);
– increased road deaths and serious injury and damage to property;
– increased land prices on improved roads resulting in speculation;
– a tendency for local rural population to move to land adjacent to new roads;
– the potential for reduced handicrafts production by women, thus limiting market opportunities; and
– increased logging and improved transportation of timber offers the potential for environmental degradation and for the alienation of traditional farming and swidden land.
I think we can have a long debate on uni- or bicameralism. You will have enough examples and arguments of and for either case. The problem with the upper chamber in many countries is that they serve as a remaining tool for aristrocrats and that they slow down descision processes and can create deadlocks.
On the other hand I believe in the second chamber as a tool for an alternative representation i.e a geographical one. Many moan about the German federalism, but I believe in it. Even the governments of the Bundesl├дnder often adhere their mandates in accordance to the parties they belong to, I still believe that regional representatives need a national forum.
I have always rejected the Thai Senate in its original form. But the senate system as it has been created in the 1997 constitution I consider as an advance to a more geographical representation where even someone from a province as remote as Nan or Loei can have someone representing his provice. It is worrying to see it abolished again.
We need a regional representation in order to avoid a regionalisation of parties as it has emerged with the election of Thaksin. I don’t think it is desireable to have parties associated with certain regions and having regional loyalties.
Just to mention, I would advocate a bicameral system in countries where a ethnic fractionalism exists. It is not good to have ethnic parties as they would be subjects to party politics and competition with other parties – a potential for conflicts.
If you have a chamber which represents the ethnic composition, a stable demographic representation would be guaranteed.
I still believe that the centralised state Thailand is a product of internal colonialisation (can’t remember who has coined this term in the context of Thailand) by the Bangkok elite. My dream is to have a kind of federal Thailand which appreciates the regions if not in the pre-Chulalongkorn era then at least according to the р╕ар╕▓р╕Д.
But if you read the first article of every Thai constitution strictly, this dream does not seem to be feasible.
I’m re-writing the educational history of Thailand. The Siamese state during the reigns of Chulalongkorn and Vajiravudh never really imposed a direct/top-down central Thai language policy as we generally understood. There had been resistance, conflict, and collaboration between the state and Muslim scholars and Malay-Muslim umma on the ground throughout the reign of Chulalongkorn. The religious pondok schools went underground a number of times when the Siamese state showed sign of policy agression. This resulted in a more compromosing and collaborative language policy in the South. A large number of pondok/madrasah like colleges maintain the use of bi-language until these days.
The current ‘nationalism’ in the South has little to do with the present royal family (but of course it affected the mentality of its menbers). Nationalism will always be a political act. Sidel’s new book ‘Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious violence in Indonesia’ (2006) is quite a good approach of understanding the current trend of religious nationalism. But the (foundation of the) Islamic society in the South of Thailand is nonetheless not quite the same as the Indonesian one. To certain extents, the difference of history still matters.
The current government probably won’t be able to deal with it any better than the previous one. Anand could have though, had they appointed him.
It’s too bad the Anand commission’s reports about how to deal with the problem in the south, especially the parts about autonomy and local language education, weren’t taken more seriously.
It’s too bad that discussions like the one Republican raises (but less heated and more respectful of HMK) can’t be found in Thai universities, or at least the one I experienced. The role of local militia’s in the south in keeping the chain of feuding in motion, IMHO hasn’t been adequately investigated. Even though I don’t think the US should have ever embarked on the Iraq fiasco and should leave Iraq, the approach of the current General Petraeus is certainly more nuanced than letting loose local militias to exacerbate and escalate the conflict. He has a PhD in political science and his counterinsurgency manual reads like an academic monograph on social work.
“The voice of the people can not be trusted. After all, they elected Thaksin…”
Electoral politics went from a myriad of little parties centered on a personality to a single party centered on a personality, hopefully it will progress to a few parties centered on policy platforms and issues instead of worshipping personalities, then maybe participating in an election would become a more meaningful activity.
“I don’t think it is enough to base your assumptions on viewing the superficial layer of the electoral process- rather take a closer look at the politicians involved- their backgrounds, personal connections, business activities and where their ultimate loyalties lie.”
Exactly, the elections are often a distracting side-show that diverts attention from the real corrupt entrenched interests, one reason that you never see meaningful corruption charges, because the real big rent-seekers will always remain immune. Just like Thaksin said, corruption is part of the system, which the current government got all indignant about, but still has done very little to change.
They could have easily avoided this uproar by creating a senate with 76 elected representatives from the provinces and 76 representatives from professional groups. But no…
A regular page-two columnist in Matichon (April 22) started his comment with the sentence, “I confirm again that I will not vote for the constitution in the referendum as long as it stipulates that the senators will be appointed.”
And the the CDC could not even agree on the election mode for MPs, leaving this vital issue to backroom dealings of the CDC to put this into the election law. Here, Charan plays an intransparent role in trying to push through what he had been intent on from the very beginning, namely the de-facto abolishment of the party-list system.
“Do we have so little faith in the checks and balances…” Well, the Thaksin phenomenon, the Sondhi/PAD phenomenon (or would you count this as an exercise in media and civil society providing these checks and balances against a “tyrant”?), and the coup certainly did not increase this sort of faith…
Anyway, this is an anti-Thaksin and anti-voter as well as a pro-bureaucracy draft constitution. The National Legislative Assembly–Mechai Ruchuphan, Visanu Kruengam, and Borwornsak Uwanno–have already started to push for changes.
It’s a little surprising that Paul Keating’s outburst is quoted with approval:surely, Andrew, that comment was just part of the rough and tumble of Australian political invective.I suspect Keating, a thoughtful politician, might on the Thailand issue be more circumspect than you suggest
More to the point you fail to mention that there is a very credible set of arguments for an unelected or only partly elected second chamber.This discussion has taking place in the UK with reference to the overdue reform of the House of Lords and is of course to prevent -I summarise- the tyranny of the majority and a mirror political image of the first chamber.Whether Thailand is politically mature enough to explore these options is a very good question, and I reluctantly conclude an elected chamber is probably appropriate.But there are definitely respectable counter arguments.
The senate may well be “unrepresentative swill”, but I’d like to know who the lower house MP’s are representing?
The following excellent comment by Rebecca Ryan says it all:
Andrew, nothing is as it seems in Thailand. There is little doubt that corruption and nepotism permiates every level of government. All political groups play dirty at some stage there-and it is sadly a fact that many thais accept with apathy. I don’t think it is enough to base your assumptions on viewing the superficial layer of the electoral process- rather take a closer look at the politicians involved- their backgrounds, personal connections, business activities and where their ultimate loyalties lie.
[…] we need a modern day council of elders overseeing (and obstructing) the affairs of state? Even the Democratexceptwhenwecannotwinanelectionandthenacoupisok Party seems to have reservations about this proposal: Democratic Party deputy leader Jurin Laksanawisit […]
I believe that roads are a strong tool of development.
A stark example is the transamzonian road in Brazil:
thanks to this road Brazil is empowering its economy.
For his years of unstinting service and dedication to the Thai people and for his excellent Kingship of Thailand, by ‘sufficiency theory’ HMK Bhumibhol deserve more than sufficiently deserved to be rewarded.
Why? Were you, Srithanonchai, suggesting a rename for the King’s new plane?
I myself would have been sufficiently insulted myself if Thaksin’s old plane is offerred to me. I would take economy class anytime rather than ride in Thaksin’s old plane or cars.
“…all I see now are friends who are still poor but a lot less happy than 25 years ago.”
Yes, respecting, for instance Akhas, their culture, their language and names, making them the owners of the land that they farm or guardians of the forest instead of forestry officials for whom respect for other ethnic groups is not part of the job description, this would also make the hill areas in Thailand a better place, like Bhutan which is so popular nowadays. However, knowing quite well how some Thai elites are addicted to shows for Bangkok, I would say the future does not look that bright. If it wasn’t for the despicable ying, ying, ying Heart of Darkness routines they put one, there might be a chance.
Maybe a large socially responsible corporation will step in with a fair contract farming program. These do exist. I know very satisfied Taptim fish farmers working with CP Group in Ban Pongkong near Chiang Saen.
They’re doing an general equilibrium model similar to the one described in this paper at a university in Chiang Rai, but given the stifling intellectual atmosphere and lack of all critical thought there and the number of foreign economics professors they’ve cheated and abused like disposable napkins, one was promoted to lecturer and for close to a year was never paid the salary and finally (and very good heartedly) left. Of course, you’re never supposed to mention this stuff, just let it go on forever..
In line with local roads being important local food processing according to a friend has yet to really take off, so the possible benfits of moving processing upstream to the local economy might be one thing demonstrated by a model.
“It was very expensive if not prohibitive for the locals to travel to the nearest market either to sell produce or to purchase goods.”
I’ve seen Chinese merchants driving pickup trucks over some pretty muddy and hilly roads and acting as brokers.
King’s new aircraft arrives, with ‘Air Force One’ in reserve
The “Air Force One” that served then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is now a spare aircraft for His Majesty the King.
His Majesty’s new personal aircraft is a Boeing 737-800, which left Seattle, Washington, on Sunday and landed at 11.30am yesterday, after making refuelling stops in Hawaii and Saipan.
“Air Force One”, an Airbus ACJ319, carries the official name “Thai Khu Fa”, from the building inside the Government House compound. The name will be removed and replaced by “Royal Thai Air Force”. The plane will also be repainted in traditional livery, white on the fuselage with light and dark blue stripes from nose to tail.
A Boeing 737-400, which currently serves as the King’s aircraft, will be decommissioned in three years after 13 years in operation, Air Force spokesman Group Captain Monthol Satchukorn said.
The Air Force has another Airbus, a 319-300 model, to use as His Majesty’s spare plane. Both Airbuses are available for members of the immediate royal family.
The Boeing 737-800 was produced exclusively by the American manufacturer to honour His Majesty’s 60th year on the throne.
Boeing was chosen as the supplier because Air Force pilots and maintenance crews are thoroughly familiar with Boeing airliners.
The new 737-800’s passenger cabin will be decorated by artists from the Fine Arts Department and fitted with emergency medical equipment and a noise-reduction system.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Liberating Burma with $2 million a year?
I think there are really two approaches to consider – the first is what I would call a ‘high maintainance’ approach: western governments actually use political capital at the UN, with China, India etc., come up with clever strategies, send in the best diplomats, treat it as an emergency, use carrots and sticks, rachet up sanctions as a form of pressure if necessary. But as Richard says, I think the chance that the US or UK would actually move beyond rhetoric is close to zero.
The second is ‘low maintainace’: accept that our influence is limited, we’re always going to be fairly ignorant about Burma, we’re not going to do much, lift sanctions, provide some aid as we would anywhere else, speak out on individual rights abuses, and hope for the best, letting local politics take its own course, like in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. for better or worse.
More on the 2008 Thai Studies conference
There was one ICTS hosted by Chula after the 1976 massacre (not sure 1977 or 78). There was a call for boycott at that time too. Did it have any impact? Even people who support the boycott here cannot recall it.
There was another ICTS in Kunming in 1990, after the Tian-an-men Square massacre. There was a call for boycott as well, in fact even stronger and broader than to ICTS but to so many other relations with China. Did the boycott to ICTS work? Did it have any impact?
Why not? Did both events deserve a boycott stronger than the current one? A comparison may not be the right question. Just for further thinking.
I am not anti-boycott because a boycott in itself is not right or wrong. The reasons behind it are normally not conclusively right or wrong either. It is a measure to oppose what we do not like. I am simply not convinced (at least not yet) that I should do it in this case at this time. But I am not going to fight against those who want the boycott either. They have reasons. I just think there are possible battles to be fought, and probably harder ones, i.e. for open discussions on the issues that may seem improbable.
Yet, I can do as one individual can. Others have their own respectable decisions. Sucess, fantasy, failure, how many critical papers, panels, people would be accepted, I do not know. But pushing the limits in this case is worth an effort.
Roads and riches
Warr’s study is not really telling us much that is new. Economic studies going back to the 1960s in Thailand show positive economic impacts for the poor. But, as Thai Radio implies, roads bring multiple impacts – economic, health, environmental, social, etc. The problem is that economists doing benefit-cost analysis tend to neglect multiple impacts. In 1995, one study summarised claimed positive social impacts, based on existing studies:
– that ‘support services’ are required during construction, and villagers may supply some of these;
– people will benefit by improved, cheaper and more convenient access to education, health services and commercial goods;
– those providing social services (eg. teachers) are encouraged to move to accessible villages and their services are better utilised (eg. school enrolments increase);
– improved public transportation and access to markets, especially for farm produce, but also for handicrafts (usually produced by women);
– traders have better access and the number of village shops increases;
– changes to consumption patterns, with new goods purchased (eg. clothes, electrical goods);
– expansion of cropping, including cash crops, and especially upland crops, with new farming technologies are introduced;
– reduction of subsistence production on the farm and in handicrafts and an introduction of non-farm economic activities;
– expansion of land area available to farming;
– improved internal security;
– the area is more attractive, with potential in-migration, while out-migration is reduced;
– attraction to outside investment is increased, with rising land prices near new or upgraded roads;
– if roads are sealed, a reduction in dust and noise pollution;
– reduction of rural isolation, meaning improved government links to the villages; and
– poverty reduction.
At the same time, these studies listed potential negative impacts:
– pollution during road construction;
– the increased risk of STDs (including HIV/AIDS) through locally-supplied sexual services to construction workers and truckers;
– loss of land through bridge and road alignments and realignments;
– temporary loss of labour to households while workers are required at construction sites;
– the need for some relocation caused by construction;
– increased wealth and income inequalities, especially for poor women;
– disproportioning of benefits, skewed to traders and through traffic, with relatively fewer benefits to local people (only access roads change this pattern);
– increased road deaths and serious injury and damage to property;
– increased land prices on improved roads resulting in speculation;
– a tendency for local rural population to move to land adjacent to new roads;
– the potential for reduced handicrafts production by women, thus limiting market opportunities; and
– increased logging and improved transportation of timber offers the potential for environmental degradation and for the alienation of traditional farming and swidden land.
“Unrepresentative swill”
I think we can have a long debate on uni- or bicameralism. You will have enough examples and arguments of and for either case. The problem with the upper chamber in many countries is that they serve as a remaining tool for aristrocrats and that they slow down descision processes and can create deadlocks.
On the other hand I believe in the second chamber as a tool for an alternative representation i.e a geographical one. Many moan about the German federalism, but I believe in it. Even the governments of the Bundesl├дnder often adhere their mandates in accordance to the parties they belong to, I still believe that regional representatives need a national forum.
I have always rejected the Thai Senate in its original form. But the senate system as it has been created in the 1997 constitution I consider as an advance to a more geographical representation where even someone from a province as remote as Nan or Loei can have someone representing his provice. It is worrying to see it abolished again.
We need a regional representation in order to avoid a regionalisation of parties as it has emerged with the election of Thaksin. I don’t think it is desireable to have parties associated with certain regions and having regional loyalties.
Just to mention, I would advocate a bicameral system in countries where a ethnic fractionalism exists. It is not good to have ethnic parties as they would be subjects to party politics and competition with other parties – a potential for conflicts.
If you have a chamber which represents the ethnic composition, a stable demographic representation would be guaranteed.
I still believe that the centralised state Thailand is a product of internal colonialisation (can’t remember who has coined this term in the context of Thailand) by the Bangkok elite. My dream is to have a kind of federal Thailand which appreciates the regions if not in the pre-Chulalongkorn era then at least according to the р╕ар╕▓р╕Д.
But if you read the first article of every Thai constitution strictly, this dream does not seem to be feasible.
ICG, Southern Thailand and the coup
I’m re-writing the educational history of Thailand. The Siamese state during the reigns of Chulalongkorn and Vajiravudh never really imposed a direct/top-down central Thai language policy as we generally understood. There had been resistance, conflict, and collaboration between the state and Muslim scholars and Malay-Muslim umma on the ground throughout the reign of Chulalongkorn. The religious pondok schools went underground a number of times when the Siamese state showed sign of policy agression. This resulted in a more compromosing and collaborative language policy in the South. A large number of pondok/madrasah like colleges maintain the use of bi-language until these days.
The current ‘nationalism’ in the South has little to do with the present royal family (but of course it affected the mentality of its menbers). Nationalism will always be a political act. Sidel’s new book ‘Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious violence in Indonesia’ (2006) is quite a good approach of understanding the current trend of religious nationalism. But the (foundation of the) Islamic society in the South of Thailand is nonetheless not quite the same as the Indonesian one. To certain extents, the difference of history still matters.
ICG, Southern Thailand and the coup
The current government probably won’t be able to deal with it any better than the previous one. Anand could have though, had they appointed him.
It’s too bad the Anand commission’s reports about how to deal with the problem in the south, especially the parts about autonomy and local language education, weren’t taken more seriously.
It’s too bad that discussions like the one Republican raises (but less heated and more respectful of HMK) can’t be found in Thai universities, or at least the one I experienced. The role of local militia’s in the south in keeping the chain of feuding in motion, IMHO hasn’t been adequately investigated. Even though I don’t think the US should have ever embarked on the Iraq fiasco and should leave Iraq, the approach of the current General Petraeus is certainly more nuanced than letting loose local militias to exacerbate and escalate the conflict. He has a PhD in political science and his counterinsurgency manual reads like an academic monograph on social work.
ICG, Southern Thailand and the coup
I cannot see any good purpose in Republican trying to play politics with a very serious matter.
Instead of the usual vitriol, Republican, you would have been better served examining the recommendations in the ICG report.
From the ICG report:
“Meaningful negotiations require a government with a democratic mandate.”
A scholar should understand that statement.
Also from the ICG report:
“The Surayd government’s ability to focus on the conflict has been limited by competing priorities in Bangkok …..”
Unfortunately, trying to deal with people like Republican has been one of those ‘competing priorities’.
“Unrepresentative swill”
“hopefully it will progress” > This seems to have quite a long time horizon, given the structural starting conditions.
“Unrepresentative swill”
“The voice of the people can not be trusted. After all, they elected Thaksin…”
Electoral politics went from a myriad of little parties centered on a personality to a single party centered on a personality, hopefully it will progress to a few parties centered on policy platforms and issues instead of worshipping personalities, then maybe participating in an election would become a more meaningful activity.
“Unrepresentative swill”
The voice of the people can not be trusted. After all, they elected Thaksin and would continue to elect Thaksin if a free election were held tomorrow.
The King and the military know what’s best for Thailand. Let them elect the Senate, not the people.
ICG, Southern Thailand and the coup
Welcome to the Donald Rumsfeld School of Security Studies, where increased civilian/military deaths are a sign that the insurgents are loosing…
“Unrepresentative swill”
“I don’t think it is enough to base your assumptions on viewing the superficial layer of the electoral process- rather take a closer look at the politicians involved- their backgrounds, personal connections, business activities and where their ultimate loyalties lie.”
Exactly, the elections are often a distracting side-show that diverts attention from the real corrupt entrenched interests, one reason that you never see meaningful corruption charges, because the real big rent-seekers will always remain immune. Just like Thaksin said, corruption is part of the system, which the current government got all indignant about, but still has done very little to change.
“Unrepresentative swill”
They could have easily avoided this uproar by creating a senate with 76 elected representatives from the provinces and 76 representatives from professional groups. But no…
A regular page-two columnist in Matichon (April 22) started his comment with the sentence, “I confirm again that I will not vote for the constitution in the referendum as long as it stipulates that the senators will be appointed.”
And the the CDC could not even agree on the election mode for MPs, leaving this vital issue to backroom dealings of the CDC to put this into the election law. Here, Charan plays an intransparent role in trying to push through what he had been intent on from the very beginning, namely the de-facto abolishment of the party-list system.
“Do we have so little faith in the checks and balances…” Well, the Thaksin phenomenon, the Sondhi/PAD phenomenon (or would you count this as an exercise in media and civil society providing these checks and balances against a “tyrant”?), and the coup certainly did not increase this sort of faith…
Anyway, this is an anti-Thaksin and anti-voter as well as a pro-bureaucracy draft constitution. The National Legislative Assembly–Mechai Ruchuphan, Visanu Kruengam, and Borwornsak Uwanno–have already started to push for changes.
“Unrepresentative swill”
It’s a little surprising that Paul Keating’s outburst is quoted with approval:surely, Andrew, that comment was just part of the rough and tumble of Australian political invective.I suspect Keating, a thoughtful politician, might on the Thailand issue be more circumspect than you suggest
More to the point you fail to mention that there is a very credible set of arguments for an unelected or only partly elected second chamber.This discussion has taking place in the UK with reference to the overdue reform of the House of Lords and is of course to prevent -I summarise- the tyranny of the majority and a mirror political image of the first chamber.Whether Thailand is politically mature enough to explore these options is a very good question, and I reluctantly conclude an elected chamber is probably appropriate.But there are definitely respectable counter arguments.
“Unrepresentative swill”
The senate may well be “unrepresentative swill”, but I’d like to know who the lower house MP’s are representing?
The following excellent comment by Rebecca Ryan says it all:
Andrew, nothing is as it seems in Thailand. There is little doubt that corruption and nepotism permiates every level of government. All political groups play dirty at some stage there-and it is sadly a fact that many thais accept with apathy. I don’t think it is enough to base your assumptions on viewing the superficial layer of the electoral process- rather take a closer look at the politicians involved- their backgrounds, personal connections, business activities and where their ultimate loyalties lie.
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/09/26/elections-under-thaksin/
Elections under Thaksin
[…] we need a modern day council of elders overseeing (and obstructing) the affairs of state? Even the Democratexceptwhenwecannotwinanelectionandthenacoupisok Party seems to have reservations about this proposal: Democratic Party deputy leader Jurin Laksanawisit […]
Roads and riches
I believe that roads are a strong tool of development.
A stark example is the transamzonian road in Brazil:
thanks to this road Brazil is empowering its economy.
Exhibition: The King – “Father of Thai Innovation”
For his years of unstinting service and dedication to the Thai people and for his excellent Kingship of Thailand, by ‘sufficiency theory’ HMK Bhumibhol deserve more than sufficiently deserved to be rewarded.
Why? Were you, Srithanonchai, suggesting a rename for the King’s new plane?
I myself would have been sufficiently insulted myself if Thaksin’s old plane is offerred to me. I would take economy class anytime rather than ride in Thaksin’s old plane or cars.
Roads and riches
“…all I see now are friends who are still poor but a lot less happy than 25 years ago.”
Yes, respecting, for instance Akhas, their culture, their language and names, making them the owners of the land that they farm or guardians of the forest instead of forestry officials for whom respect for other ethnic groups is not part of the job description, this would also make the hill areas in Thailand a better place, like Bhutan which is so popular nowadays. However, knowing quite well how some Thai elites are addicted to shows for Bangkok, I would say the future does not look that bright. If it wasn’t for the despicable ying, ying, ying Heart of Darkness routines they put one, there might be a chance.
Maybe a large socially responsible corporation will step in with a fair contract farming program. These do exist. I know very satisfied Taptim fish farmers working with CP Group in Ban Pongkong near Chiang Saen.
They’re doing an general equilibrium model similar to the one described in this paper at a university in Chiang Rai, but given the stifling intellectual atmosphere and lack of all critical thought there and the number of foreign economics professors they’ve cheated and abused like disposable napkins, one was promoted to lecturer and for close to a year was never paid the salary and finally (and very good heartedly) left. Of course, you’re never supposed to mention this stuff, just let it go on forever..
In line with local roads being important local food processing according to a friend has yet to really take off, so the possible benfits of moving processing upstream to the local economy might be one thing demonstrated by a model.
“It was very expensive if not prohibitive for the locals to travel to the nearest market either to sell produce or to purchase goods.”
I’ve seen Chinese merchants driving pickup trucks over some pretty muddy and hilly roads and acting as brokers.
Exhibition: The King – “Father of Thai Innovation”
King’s “Sufficiency One” unvailed:
King’s new aircraft arrives, with ‘Air Force One’ in reserve
The “Air Force One” that served then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is now a spare aircraft for His Majesty the King.
His Majesty’s new personal aircraft is a Boeing 737-800, which left Seattle, Washington, on Sunday and landed at 11.30am yesterday, after making refuelling stops in Hawaii and Saipan.
“Air Force One”, an Airbus ACJ319, carries the official name “Thai Khu Fa”, from the building inside the Government House compound. The name will be removed and replaced by “Royal Thai Air Force”. The plane will also be repainted in traditional livery, white on the fuselage with light and dark blue stripes from nose to tail.
A Boeing 737-400, which currently serves as the King’s aircraft, will be decommissioned in three years after 13 years in operation, Air Force spokesman Group Captain Monthol Satchukorn said.
The Air Force has another Airbus, a 319-300 model, to use as His Majesty’s spare plane. Both Airbuses are available for members of the immediate royal family.
The Boeing 737-800 was produced exclusively by the American manufacturer to honour His Majesty’s 60th year on the throne.
Boeing was chosen as the supplier because Air Force pilots and maintenance crews are thoroughly familiar with Boeing airliners.
The new 737-800’s passenger cabin will be decorated by artists from the Fine Arts Department and fitted with emergency medical equipment and a noise-reduction system.
The Nation April 21, 2007