Anti-government forces Bangkok have vowed to rid Thailand of all vestiges of Thaksin — including Thaksinomics. So let’s pause to cast a medium-term eye over the country’s economic performance during the period (2001 to the present) that has been dominated by Thaksin-esque policies.
Here is the record on GDP per capita (expressed in 2005 US$).
In 2001 GDP per capita (expressed in 2005 US$) was $2227; in 2012 it was $3352. That’s a 50% increase in real terms – not bad!
Here is a comparison of annual GDP per capita growth in Thailand and Australia.
Australia is no slouch when it comes to economic performance. Thailand has outpaced it in all but two years since 2001.
But what about the social impacts of Thailand’s growth? Here is one indicator … health expenditure per capita.
In 2001 health expenditure per capita was $167 (this time in constant 2005 international $). By 2011 this had more than doubled to $353. Not bad at all!
Of course this sort of increase comes at a cost. One of the claims levelled against the current government is that debt is getting out of control. So what’s the medium-term story? Here is a chart of the government debt to GDP ratio.
Certainly some increase in 2010 and 2013, but the overall trend during the Thaksin-esque era has been downwards.
I’m sure there are plenty of other indicators and comparisons – good, not-so-good and bad – that could be used to plot Thailand’s economic performance since 2001 (comments on other indicators would be very welcome). But the overall point is that Thailand’s voters have some sound economic reasons to keep on electing Thaksin and his allies.
Strong economic growth, and increasing government spending on health, welfare and rural development, didn’t start with Thaksin, but he and his allies have been able to effectively place growing prosperity at the heart of their political success.
It’s the economy …
thanks very much for this…. wonder whether the money people in Thailand are aware/suppressing this view?
assume Suthep and his bosses are striving to maintain their own wealth creation on the back of/independent of the country indicators
0
0
To play the Devil’s advocate, Thaksinomics may have benefitted from an overall excellent economic climate. During that same period, Singapore GDP increased from $123.5 to $274.7 billion (+122%), Malaysia from $143.5-$303.5 billion (+111%) and Hong Kong from $181.6-263.3 billion (+44%). And that period also includes the time when the Democrats were at the helm.
0
0
According to Transparency International, the perceived corruption is also on a downward trend. Although this was somewhat reversed in 2006.
http://oi42.tinypic.com/29egm4i.jpg
(I have reversed the CPI score to make it more intuitive. A lower score equal less corruption)
0
0
Very interesting. It would also be very revealing to track patterns of public expenditure – by region and by sector – over the period. The World Bank’s latest analysis in 2012 shows that total PE per capita is Bt 163,800 in Bangkok but only Bt 16,690 and 13,165 in North & North East respectively (and similar huge regional differential for Heath and Education expenditures). Even given that Bangkok is the capital and has large share of “tertiary” facilities” such huge differentials suggest massive inequity in public service impact. One wonders if they have narrowed or widened over the past 15 years. They also are further reason to question the supposed “populist/vote-buying” tag used to label “Thaksinism” – since the overwhelming beneficiaries of spending are in the capital!
0
0
Hi roger, can you provide the source? very interesting data.
AW
0
0
Full report at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report I quoted data from Table 3 at para. 33.
0
0
That most of the government budget is spend in Bangkok is not surprising, because the administration and thus the salaries for the civil servants is concentrated there. However, there is a further argument. Based on data on tax-collection from 2007 to 2012, about 65% of all government revenue (taxes) are collected in Bangkok! The respective shares of the other regions from the revenue generated outside Bangkok (not the whole revenue!) are: South close to 7%, Northeast about 6% and the North about 5%. Interesting are increases of the revenue. In Bangkok as well as the East corporate tax is most relevant. In the other regions sales and income taxes have the largest share. These indicates to some degree whether incomes have increased. From 2007 to 2012 the increase in Bangkok was 40%. The highest increases were in the East (65%), (probably due to foreign investment as increases in corporate tax), and the Northeast with close to 70%! Here as well we have a shift in some parts towards corporate tax. In the South the growth was 45%. (see http://www.rd.go.th/publish/47377.0.html and the interesting map of tax-collection: http://download.rd.go.th/fileadmin/download/Fiscal/Taxcollection2012.pdf).
With average annual growth rates of government revenue close to 10% for the whole country and close to 15% in some regions (in Bangkok only 8%), one might say that Thaksinomics were quite successful at least for the government budget.
0
0
Very interesting perspective.
Thank you very much for the numbers.
0
0
How much of economic growth in Northeast Thailand is attributable to growing transportation links with China via Laos?
Historically the southern regions benefitted from their proximity to seaports and the northeast suffered because it had no ports, only communist neighbors and for a long time not even a bridge to cross the river. That’s been changing and will continue to change. Just recently they broke ground in Laos on a rail line to connect Savannakahet to Lao Bao in Vietnam. Northeast Thailand would benefit as much or more than Laos from connections like this.
So one would expect that because you’re starting from a much lower base and finally getting transportation links to growing economies, particularly China, that growth in the northeast region will outpace growth in the south. With or without Thaksin…
0
0
The complaints of the Yellows pretty much echo this report on the Thai economy:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/04/thailands-bubble-economy-is-heading-for-a-1997-style-crash/2/
But a more interesting editorial appeared in the Bangkok Post, which was the first I’ve seen recently that actually dared to say what nobody has said before. The Red/Yellow divide is also an ETHNIC divide. It’s not just “regions;” it’s about ethnicity. And I’d thought that nobody in the Thai press would dare these days to use the word “Lao” to describe the northeast but it finally happened:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/387684/devolve-state-powers-to-stave-off-civil-war
If this becomes a civil war, will it become regional? Will Laos become involved or destabilized as a result? Will Thailand survive in its current borders? Everything seems to point to chaos.
Nobody wants the crown prince to succeed the king. The crown princess is a logical successor but there are also male heirs in the US (though none of the male children of the crown prince are really suitable because their mothers are uniformly of low birth, especially Srirasmi–nobody wants her as the mother of a king). There can spring up a wide number of factions supporting rival claimaints all with the backdrop of red/yellow siamese/lao civil war and Thaksin waiting in the wings. All so very exciting! Get your popcorn ready!
0
0
Lanna has already revolted once, I have read some articles, and cannot remember the sources, but it was sometime around the turn of the century into the 20th, and before the north was “annexed by the Thai king, and the people made into Thai citizens, and the Royal family of Chiang Mai was not allowed to continue calling themselves with royal titles
0
0
There was the Shan rebellion in 1902, but it was hardly a Lanna revolt. Here are a couple of recent New Mandala posts relating to it:
http://www.newmandala.org/2013/01/22/regional-networks-and-the-shan-rebellion/
http://www.newmandala.org/2013/02/05/siamese-atrocities-in-chiang-kham/
0
0
Thanks Andrew.
0
0
Bialao Cynics are the saddest human beings….
0
0
Thanks much, Andrew and others. What about the level of household debt which, according to the Bangkok Post, rose to 80% of GDP in 3rd quarter 2013? I’ve read different takes on the significance of this and would appreciate more input.
0
0
Thaksin and his wife had declared assets
totaling 15.1 billion baht when he took office in 2001
…Thaksin and his family’s assets in Thailand,
totaling 76 billion baht ($2.2 billion) 2006
sources:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/06/12/headlines/headlines_30036641.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra
+61 billion baht in just 5 years as PM,
unusually hard-working man indeed
0
0
most of that money was stolen from thailand & its poor people in isaan
0
0
actually the comment was made that Thaksin’s (tlecommunications) shares gained less in value than did those investing in banks in this period… you might like to check the wealth increases of other even more wealthy investors on the SET for this period
0
0
Harold, using The Nation and Wikepedia as sources is astoundingly lazy and ignorant.
0
0
And most of that increase came from his telecom business, not from skimming the budget, plus his sale of assets in 2006.
0
0
For a fairer picture, I would appreciate if anyone please fill in the blanks:
T and wife:
2001 – 15.1 bn
2006 – ?
T and family:
2001 – ?
2006 – 76 bn
Thank you.
– Just a frivolous curiousity, that after accounting for stock price rises and various business ROI, how much is the questionable portion worth.
0
0
K. Nomi I am not sure this Forbes data helps or add to the mystery of the Thaksin billions:
http://www.forbes.com/profile/thaksin-shinawatra/
Thaksin Shinawatra & family
Net Worth $1.7 B As of July 2013
Follow (11)
At a Glance
Age: 64
Source of Wealth: investments, self-made
Residence: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Forbes Lists
#10 Thailand’s 50 Richest
#23 in 2012
#882 Billionaires
#6 in Thailand
Profile
Controversial former prime minister … Thaksin Shinawatra disclosed to FORBES in October that Thai authorities had returned to him close to $1 billion of his $2.3 billion in frozen assets. His family also owns a controlling stake of SC Asset, a real estate development firm that Yingluck used to run.
But …..
it will be nearly impossible to trace all of Thaksin’s wealth … bulk of which I suspect are from dubious and downright ill-gotten sources while he was Prime Minister, and, currently while de-facto Thai Prime Minister calling the shots (not the puppet sister Yingluck). His off-shore accounts must be here, there and everywhere and they would all be very very substantial. (As part of any constitutional reform, a law should be passed to criminalize undeclared offshore bank account(s) by elected public officials).
That fascinating exchange between Boon and Andrew MacGregor Marshall should give us pause about the corruptive reach of Thaksin.
(http://www.newmandala.org/2013/12/16/how-to-understand-thailands-conflict/)
(1) How long had Thaksin Shinawatra been dipping his kleptomanic hands at the National Lottery? A man this brilliantly criminal would have started early once he got that Deputy Police General (and many other abettors) to partake with that rewarding enterprise. For all we know that National Lottery enterprise had already been restarted, considering Thaksin’s many many very high ranking Police General friends, and his loyal mutt Police Captain Yubamrung who is the just type to want his cut too. And maybe because the CP could no longer be enticed with Lottery gifts, the whole Thaksin Police gang, with Yingluck looking the other way, will only gleefully be dividing the skimmed lottery loot to be divided among themselves, after Thaksin’s huge really huge cut (A Yubamrung son as bagman perhaps as quick learning trainee?)
(2) On that particular enterprise alone, The National Lottery scandal (thanks to Mr. Andrew MacGregor Marshall for his highlights), there will be an ‘unknown’ quantity of which certainly ended up in Thaksin’s off-shore bank accounts. It would really be a Thaksin ‘honest mistake’ if Thaksin had been gifting all of the National Lottery, without any Potjaman cuts, to the CP.
(3) And there were/are many many more such Thaksin tax-free capers, you betcha!
btw Andrew Walker I forgot to mention … could above described Thaksinomics be helping or stealing from the Thai poor.
0
0
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I am looking for numbers from 2001 to 2006.
I agree it is impossible to know the true account of any of the rich elite of Thailand. It is said that any Thai man of means in Thailand will have 3 accounts. One forthe tax collectors, one for his wife, and the most complete account for himself.
0
0
” … Unfortunately, I am looking for numbers from 2001 to 2006.”
Well good luck and happy hunting. If you uncover anything juicy, ala National Lottery scandal, Neptunian will be interested to be informed.
0
0
Forbes estimated Thaksin’s wealth to $1.2 Billion in 2001. Bt15 B may be his wealth after transferring Shin Corp shares to other family members. I don’t know.
Bt76 B ($1.8 B at the time) was the amount Temasek paid Thaksin for his share in Shin Corp in 2006. After AEC froze his bank accounts, his wealth was estimated to $300 million. That may be the Bt20 B, referred to by AEC in The Nation article, withdrawn before the freeze.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/thaksin-shinawatra/
0
0
I don’t understand that. According to the figures used by the Court to justify their ruling that Thaksin had acquired “unusual wealth” as Prime Minister, they initially froze some 73 billion baht, being the proceeds of his sale of shares to Temasek, but then confiscated some 46 billion baht on the basis that that represented the increase in value due to “policy corruption” from the day on which he became PM. That suggests to me that his family’s total holding in Shincorp alone was some 27 billion in 2001. How do you get 15.1 billion?
0
0
Thanks Chris and Skeptic.
The numbers I posted are from Harold’s post.
Always found it difficult to figure out numbers being bandied about re This corruption case.
If 76 bn is value of Temasek shares, then it cant be Shinawatr family wealth. Thanks for clarification.
0
0
Good try, but to put this in real perspective, you should have put up the figures of wealth increase of other Thai billionaires. That would be revealing…
0
0
What’s the Gini co-eff. been doing? Per capita improvements may be going largely to one segment of the populace (as pointed out above) which would explain the reaction against seemingly successful economic policies.
0
0
This is the same chart, but it also lists the Prime Minister who was in power at the time:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=556290114458267&set=pb.555031657917446.-2207520000.1388765322.&type=3&theater
(if you can’t read Thai, just know red is a Thaksin allied government, and blue is either Democrats or the coup government)
The spike in 2010 was entirely Abhisits budget. And if you believe wikileaks, it was the cost of his populist policies. The data demonstrates that the Dems are actually the ones who are putting Thailand into debt.
The original source of the data, and more, can be found here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/government-debt-to-gdp
http://www.indexmundi.com/
Here is another good chart, plotting the military budget and highlighting the coup at the center:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=557349801018965&set=pb.555031657917446.-2207520000.1388765322.&type=3&theater
0
0
The evidence presented only suggests that Thaksinomics didn’t sink Thailand over the last decade, not that the country’s economic performance resulted from his policies. And no hint is given as to why we should regard the policies as sustainable under different global dynamics. The talk is that public debt/GDP is going to hit 60% fairly soon, with private debt already way up. This would suggest that no matter the outcome of the current political impasse, whoever is in charge is going to be stuck trying to deal with the economics and politics of the New Normal.
0
0
“crown princess” . . . . where does this utter nonsense keep coming from? the word “crown” appears nowhere here: р╕кр╕бр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Ир╕Юр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕Юр╕гр╕▒р╕Хр╕Щр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╕▓ р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕Яр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕╡р╕кр╕┤р╕гр╕┤р╕Щр╕Шр╕г р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕кр╕╡р╕бр╕▓р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕Ыр╕┤р╕вр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╕кр╕вр╕▓р╕бр╕Ър╕гр╕бр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕╕р╕бр╕▓р╕гр╕╡
unlike here: р╕кр╕бр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Ир╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕гр╕бр╣Вр╕нр╕гр╕кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕гр╕▓р╕К р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕Яр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕зр╕Кр╕┤р╕гр╕▓р╕ер╕Зр╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕п р╕кр╕вр╕▓р╕бр╕бр╕Бр╕╕р╕Ор╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕╕р╕бр╕▓р╕г
further, to use “logical” in a sentence concerning Sirinthon can only make a reader raise his eye-brows . . .
0
0
Had Andrew Walker focussed on ‘Isaan’ then the growth would have been even higher, underlining the benefits that Thaksin’s supporters have gained.
But none of this helps explain why so many people, mainly in Bangkok but elsewhere too, are fed up with the government. And here I am talking about people who are not Democrats but who feel disenfranchised.
I must say that I have found most of the commentary on the current crisis in Thailand (and it looks very serious this time) incredibly weak. Chris Baker and Pasuk Pongpaichit wrote a good short piece on the weakness of the party system in Thailand, but that’s about it.
I’m sick of reading cliches about the Bangkok ‘middle class’. It is worthwhile asking seriously why many people are following a crook like Suthep.
Walker’s continued apologetics for Thaksin don’t get us very far. Would he please turn his attention and analytic skills to more difficult questions.
0
0
Hi Grant, we would welcome a post exploring some the reasons people are disillusioned with the government and support Suthep. I would love to be able to do some first hand research on that very issue, but am not in a position to. AW
0
0
A recent poll suggest that so many people follow Suthep mainly because they hate Thaksin.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/117604/asia-foundation-survey-part-2-what-do-the-protesters-want/
Isn’t it then appropriate to debate whether this hate is based or real perceived issues?
0
0
I’m not sure what’s different now from, say, 2005 or 2008. There’s much analysis of the dissatisfaction then, and little seems to have changed. The motivations, groups involved, numbers, tactics, etc. seem pretty much congruent with earlier efforts.
What interests me is the claim that all that is said about middle classes is cliche. I’d be interested to know why the correspondent would discount the role of those who populate this class in Bangkok.
0
0
I’ve found most of Grant Evans’ analysis of Thailand in recent years to be incredibly weak, particularly his uncomprehending and dismissive comments on The King Never Smiles (did he even bother to read the book at all?) and his inexplicably admiring review of King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work which he claimed was written soberly and without an “adulatory tone”, adding that it “attempts to deal frankly with the monarchy’s critics and to speak openly about difficult issues” (again, did he bother to read it?). He entered full-blown delusional territory with his claim that KBAALW is “it is a remarkable feat, and hopefully a model to be emulated by future ‘official’ histories – of the Thai army, for example”. He has deliberated obfuscated the truth about events like the death of King Ananda Mahidol in 1946 when surely (if he has any decent sources at all) he must know what really happened, and he has always seemed perfectly happy writing cliches about the saintliness of King Bhumibol, but he now accuses Andrew Walker of writing “apologetics for Thaksin”. I have plenty of differences with Andrew but that is a total misrepresentation of his views.
If Grant Evans is finding the current crisis difficult to comprehend, perhaps it is because the pro-monarchy propaganda he has been so enthusiastically regurgitating in recent years is totally inadequate to the task of understanding what is going on. His paradigm was always wrong, and now we are watching it unravel.
0
0
Grant Evans- While there are significant numbers of people ‘fed up’ with the current government, the numbers are nowhere near as great as the opposition suggests, and when calculated as a percentage of the total electorate are form at best 1-2%. The opposition influences/controls a lot of entities that mold perceptions of the success/failure of the current government. An obvious example is the media, which often offers a totally distorted picture of what is going on. In the English language press both the Nation and Post have dropped any pretense of neutrality and will run with the most ridiculous news stories and editorials. Actually, most of their news stories should really run in the opinion section. For example, they are really pushing the ‘men in black on the rooftop’ theory that they are the ones responsible for the death of the policeman, even though it has been clearly established that he could not have been shot from that building due to the fact that the trajectory any bullet would have had to take would have been blocked by other buildings. You won’t see that in the press however. Remember, these same people claim, to this day, that the military were not responsible for a single death when 90+ people were mowed down in Bangkok. The Thai language press is often even worse, with few exception. Another advantage the opposition has is that being from the elite means that they have many of their people in key positions. Imagine the governor/mayor of a large metropolitan area who not only aids in the shutdown of his city, but has nary a bad word to say about it. The current protests are doing immense current and long-term damage to the Thai economy in almost every sector now. Hopefully cooler heads in the business community will lean on Suthep to pack it in. Having said that, the backers of this movement undoubtedly have immense fortunes in overseas banks, second passports, and foreign homes so they are probably more than willing to see it all cave in rather than concede any ground, so I wouldn’t count on this situation being resolved in a sensible manner.
0
0
Grant – the “more difficult questions” include, the possible – indeed increasingly likely, break-up of the country. Nobody can go back to Bangkok – and presumably Andrew wants to – if they mention this. I’ve given up on Bangkok. If I go back to “Thailand”, it will be through the liberated areas.
0
0
Bialao – I’ve been saying it could develop into an ethno-regional civil war, resulting in Isaarn and Lanna seceding, for well over five years now. New Mandala – its immense credit – was just about the ONLY place where this otherwise ignored possibility which I raised, began to be discussed. NM was way ahead of eg. The Economist, which now openly discusses it.
0
0
I guess what’s new is that somebody in the Thai press openly acknowledged it. We all know that the dominant institutions have long sought to de-identify those regions as anything but regional Thai. But once they start using the term “Lao” we know that something is changing.
Perhaps it’s an acknowledgement that the Pan-Thai experiment has failed, that the Lao regions were never fully incorporated and will never be allowed to be incorporated because of the obvious threat to the power of what is now a minority population of Central Thai/Siamese. It’s a democracy and the people they conquered 200 years ago or whatever now have more votes than they do. Kinda sucks doesn’t it?
0
0
First, I find the idea funny that all people have to be satisfied with (the) government. Surely, there are always people who dislike the government (often, trust in a particular government decreases over time, with the record, I think, held by France’s Holland). But most people will wait until the next election to express their dissatisfaction rather than instigating a civilian coup d’état.
Second, I wonder who are those who are not Democrat voters but feel disenfranchised.
Third, more interesting than the number of people who follow Suthep (South is Democrat mobilization, BKK “middle class” does play a role, but one will have to contextualize this with 1973, 1992, 2006, 2008, and 2010–there is a lot of class, discourse, and personnel continuity here) is the puzzle why so many people feel that their political opinion is the absolute and objective truth, that the opinions of the majority do not count since they harm the nation, and that, therefore, they have the right to impose their particular opinion on everybody else, denying them their basic political rights.
0
0
Three aspects concerning your 3. question:
1. A psychological issue: Especially in Bangkok we find a combination of a highly hierarchical social order based on moral demands combined with atomization (see the recent paper by Nidhi) and extreme hypocrisy. In other words, communication tends to be highly contradictory, or what Bateson discusses as “double bind”. This leads to continuous anxiety. One way to cope with it is to create “total institutions” (Goffman) for oneselves. For those who are entangled in the double binds, especially Bangkok has become something like such a “total institution” where a moral order of Thainess is constructed to exclude external influences (except consumer goods) that might enhance further confusion, and to gain security in a mass/crowd (Canetti). In short, the dramaturgical actions and rituals on the streets of Bangkok by the leaders and masses indicate forms of social and political neurosis, or, to use Canetti again, it is a form of “Umkehrung und Entladung”.
2. A communicative issue: There is little space and hardly any “frames” (Goffman) for political discourse. Political issues are personalized, transformed into moral, cultural issues (Thainess etc.) or forms of beliefs in sacredness (I don’t want to elaborate on this). Personalization, ritualization and especially sacralisation are emotional and difficult to put into a frame of rational discourse. Here Cassirer (Myth of the State) is quite interesting.
3. A sociological issue: Why is there no political discourse? Because political decisions are made by groups and classes outside political institutions. The state institutions and organisations (including parties) are thus not political constructs with a function for society, but regarded as more or less personal fiefdoms to realize personal or group interests.
There are certainly many more aspects. Perhaps I reflect on these in a longer paper.
0
0
Not to disagree, but there might be one additional aspect as well. The highly unusual practice of empowering courts and election commissions to ban individuals from all political activity, even to deprive MPs of their posts without allowing a party substitute to take over, may have created an alternative to election politics within the system. Clearly, it is easier to frame a successful politician than to defeat him in elections. This is precisely why in European countries we can sometimes find MPs who keep their posts even while serving a prison term.
Moreover, as Thai politics goes, the capacity to do this has been in the hands of one party, while the other has developed a capacity to win elections. Isn’t it almost logical that the political process has moved from a competition for votes to a competition between the “election subsystem” and the “disenfranchising subsystem”? Both parties concentrate, so to speak, on their comparative advantage.
This is just a thought and it might be wrong. I’m not a political scientist, so I hope to get a more expert response from someone in this forum.
0
0
I think that’s as accurate as most political “science” that I see, Ondrej. I haven’t studied the 97 and 2007 constitutions directly but the most insidious thing seems to be that if one party executive is caught doing wrong, the whole executive is banned for 5 years. Why not put the responsible party on trial for his or her misdeeds and send them to jail if found guilty? Problem solved.
The constitution seems to be designed so that governments can be got rid of at will. And today we have the situation where the counter-corruption commission (have they been countering any corruption lately? i haven’t noticed) is charging all the Pheua Thai MPs who voted for a constitutional amendment with some sort of corruption because they essentially failed to read the minds of five of the the Constitution Court judges who voted that a fully senate was unconstitutional. Four judges voted that it wasn’t.
How are legislators expected to know whether an amendment is constitutional or not until the judges decide? Legislators are expected to be able to read minds and predict the future.
It’s absurd and that is without even entering into the absurdity of the reasons given for the proposed amendment being unconstitutional. An elected senate? What a corrupt notion that is!
0
0
I meant to say “fully elected senate” in my second paragraph. Nich and Andrew, where did the preview function go? It was good.
0
0
On Ondrej: You are quite right that because one party has developed the capacity to win elections, the other has its focus on as you say “election subsystem” (one might call it as well horizontal constrains of governance. Why did the other party not develop or even try to develop any capacity to win elections?
On Tom Hoy: The court rulings are kind of strange. So far I have not been able to comprehend why a legislatie initiative that is not in line with the constitution is coruption. You are right like Ondrej that these “cheks and balances” are applied as political means by the party unable to win. Here the question is, why do the courts ally with that party? I think we have to shift the perspective a bit. Since the late 90th the Democrat Party is the political arm of the non-military elites. With the 2007 constitution checks and balances were established to allow the elite to control politics by using legal means to stage a coup d’etat. This is why no military coup is needed anymore. In fact, the elite is sceptical about the hard to control military and prefers to use Suthep on the streets to have a facade of popular support (democracy), and the courts as the instrument to maintain legality of the coup. Use the CC and NACC as the new version of tanks, as these can not be controlled by the military!
0
0
Ondrej: you are not wrong. And I would love more in-depth discussion in this area too. AW?
I remember when details of the 97 constitution was known, family dinner conversation revolves around consolidation of political parties (and of power under guise of democracy), and which party will be chosen as ‘the other’ to democrat party. We thought then the 97 C was designed to favor consolidation into big parties, and pave way for the rise of a 2 party system in Thailand.
I agree with Tom re the ‘insidious thing’ for judicial control over potential election outcome. Then again, the Constitution was designed by people with vested interest and politicians, was it not?
0
0
Since fortunes turn north, the Bangkok elites and Suthep are afraid of what to come after the Isaan and Lanna people have been made to be aware of their needs and desires. The people now are demanding the very same things of what the rest of the Thais have so long been enjoying: better education, better opportunities for a job, better infrastructure, and equal representation in government, etc. The idea of democracy at the local/village level may have been influenced by contact with Westerners through marriage, NGOs, missionaries, and movements of tourists from Japan, S. Korea, the US, and Europe. It is simply the effect of globalization. The wealthy people of Thailand and the supposed “educated people”are afraid of change. They are fearful of the increasing economic power of the N/NE people, possibly out of jealousy or may be of the prophecy made long ago about Thailand’s demise. To prevent change from happening is simply ludicrous. I saw Suthep attending to the Buddhist’s prayer at the temple. Mr. Suthep and probably the majority of Thais know not the Buddha’s teaching of “impermanence.” They know not what the Buddha’s definition of a “noble person” is. For an average, supposed, “educated” Thais, noble person is a person with lot of wealth, lot of barami (divine blessing), all the outward appearance of the success and beauty: simply put, shallow and superficial characteristics of nobleness. And don’t forget, one must kowtow to, too. What happening in Thailand at present is about one group of Thai who does not want to share prosperity and is afraid of losing power and influence.
0
0
Is what happened when the mini-Yugoslavia “Empire” collapsed and disintegrated along ethnic/linguistic fault lines something that could happen to the Thailand “mini-internal-Empire”?
1. Lanna(or Lanna with Isan)
2. Isan/NE/Chonburi/Eastern Seaboard/Pattaya/Jomtien/NE half of BKK
3. The Khmer-speaking area along the Cambodia border around Surin, Sisaket, Buri Ram (Newin’s fiefdom)
4. The 3 southern ethnic Malay provinces/Pattani, and Central/Southern Thailand?
5. The Southeast/Thai-Chinese/Central Thai area of of BKK, some of Central Thailand and Southern Thailand except for Pattani
And if this were to happen, would the violence/tragedy level reach the very high level experienced in Yugoslavia?
Or would it be more negotiated like the present possible secession of Scotland from UK?
How would Suvarnabhumi with its passenger, cargo and surrounding infrastructure as well as the container port Laem Chanbaeng be divided up.
Where exactly in Bangkok could a line be drawn?
What would happen in the areas of Bangkok and Chonburi where ethnic populations are very intermingled? Would it end up as horribly as the partition of India into Pakistan and India?
What about Chantaburi and Trat/Ko Chang which would be cut of from Central Thailand if Chonburi becomes part of Isan/NE (due to the very heavy Isan population there now working in the Eastern Seaboard, Laem Chabaeng and Pattaya/Jomtien).
What happens to the National Treasury Reserves, the 50 billion of assets in the CPB, the military equipment and infrastructure and other “National Assets”?
0
0
re: #4. the phrase “and Central/Southern Thailand” is a typo/error and should be deleted as Central/Southern Thailand part of #5.
0
0
very interesting comments, HRk. I’d like to see a longer post on them
0
0
[…] recent post at New Mandala asks how bad is Thaksinomics, the suite of policies associated with Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra […]
0
0
For a very interesting, a much more rigorous, reflection on Thaksinomics see Tom Pepinsky at http://tompepinsky.com/2014/01/05/thaksinomics-compared/
0
0
I’m surprised that many of you endorse such a thing as an ethnic divide between Central Thai and Northerners and Isaan people. We speak the same language, different dialects, and have much pretty much the same culture. If it hadn’t been for colonialist intervention, Thailand and Laos would today be one country. Can you imagine trying to separate England and Scotland? Well, some people can, but would it be feasible?
0
0
I think it would be fairer to say if the French hadn’t colonized Laos, the Thais would have.
There is a referendum on Scotland separating from the UK at the end of this year.
0
0
The situation in Thailand is closer to South African apartheid than it is to Great Britain.
If Thailand guaranteed equality for all it would not be a problem. But in Thailand, the Lao have been helots for 200 years and they are tired of it.
0
0
A lot of Scots would like to try.
0
0
You could argue that all all heads of emerging market governments are responsible for the same thing over the same period. Without any analysis of the money supply growth, this is rather superficial analysis. In the post 2008 period, the Fed, through its massive contribution to the foreign component of money supply should take far more credit than Thaksin. Only government debt is discussed with no mention of household debt which at 80% of GDP is more worrying. Both numbers suggest a lack of sustainability, just as global liquidity is drying up and the foreign component of money supply has already turned negative.
0
0
Could say the same thing about the OEDC’s Govt. The “too big to fail” gambling banks, the debt ceiling(?) etc etc
The intertwine of politics and economic planning is not the preserve of developing countries Govt.
As a regular visitor to Thailand over many years, I can vouch for the very clear improvement (economically) in provincial areas. This is the “success” of Thaksinomics and the reason for the TRT support. Visible results, and, to me the duty of a Govt.
0
0
One can harldy point a finger at Thaksin for endorsing cheap credit and government promoted lending policies when the very same policies have been espoused by the US Federal Reserve to drag the US economy out of the 2008 abyss.
The finances of many western countries are in a far more perilous state than those of Thailand.
Under Harold Wilson the UK government had to go to the IMF with a begging bowl just like Thailand after the Asian Crisis of 1997 and it is much to Thailand’s credit that it was able to repay the IMF loan much sooner than expected under Thaksin’s leadership.
0
0
1. Thaksinomics may have looked impressive but what’s it’s worth when so much is disappearing into graft with an upward trend. Graft corrupts more than just the money flow.
2. When a man has such a solid mandate, all sorts of things are possible, and would equally be so under an Oxford educated economist.
3. The movement has moved on from Democrats opposition to Peua Thai govt, this has now become a groundswell of disgust against hegemonic political corruption of the system and a need for change, mis-guided by leader Suthep.
4. A civil war would be a complicated split, the army might fracture, Bangkok is a mix of both sides, and the Red side would end up with the much poorer and under-resourced share of the pie. Those that control the money and the army are mostly on the opposite side.
5. I recognise that Thaksin had some very commendable leadership and socio-economic policy skills, what a pity he’s such an ethically flawed individual.
0
0
Thaksinomics results, according to Bloomberg, is just at par with other Asean countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines – Shinawatra Era Brings Average Growth to Thai
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-14/shinawatra-era-brings-average-growth-to-thais-chart-of-the-day.html
” … Thailand’s per-capita spending power rose 89 percent to $9,660 (from 2002) through 2012, based on data compiled by Bloomberg. Growth ranged from Indonesia’s 96 percent to 76 percent in the Philippines. Malaysia’s average income was highest at $16,919 and the Philippines’ lowest at $4,339. Among budgets, Thailand’s deficit averaged 1.8 percent in the 11 years ended 2012, compared with average deficits of 1.4 percent in Indonesia, 2.7 percent in the Philippines and 4.7 percent in Malaysia.”
0
0
“Online debate hosted by the Economist on the GDP in 2010 concluded that’ GDP is a poor measure of improving living standards’,cited in Fioramonti,L.2013.Gross Domestic Problem-the politics behind the world’s most powerful number.Zed Books.
0
0
Thaksinomics signature program, during puppet Yingluck’s rule, is the Rice Pledging/Subsidy Scheme … which is a $21 billion boondoggle.
“The whole country, the rice industry has suffered a lot. The quantity of exports declined about 35 percent (and) revenue declined by 25 percent” in the program’s first year, said Vichai Sriprasert, CEO of Riceland International, one of Thailand’s biggest rice exporters.
“We used to be the rice champion of the world in (terms of) rice exports,” Vichai told CNBC. “With the program, we lost our championship. We became the third (biggest exporter). Revenue went down, quantity went down.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101360692
Vichai believes the program has been badly managed, estimating at least a third of the $24 billion in total funding was lost through stealing and corruption and only about a third actually reached farmers. He wants the program to be completely eradicated, saying it has distorted the rice market.
“It’s a huge problem,” Vichai said, noting the government has around 20 million tons of rice stockpiled, equivalent to around two years of the country’s “best exports,” with another 10 million tons from the current yearly crop on the way.
Would be nice if the NCCC could convict PM Yingluck for ‘criminal negligence’ while overseeing (‘never attended a Rice Policy committee while Chairwoman, this PM Yingluck), yes?
0
0
I much appreciate this article by Andrew Walker (and also the following, often well-informed comments – it’s such a contrast with ThaiVisa!) I had come to similar conclusions about the relative success of the Thaksin period, based on bits of previously-available material including the Wiki entry on Thaksin. But this report from AW is way ahead of what I had read before.
As a follow-on, perhaps AW or someone else would write an explanation of the rice pledging scheme: all I have seen so far is fairly simplistic. The scheme, from what I can discern, doesn’t sound good; but is it all bad?
Just one other point: someone above commented about the ethnic differences between Isaan/Lanna and the rest of Thailand. I think it’s worth noting that in some accounts of the north published around the late 19th century, the people of Chiang Mai and surroundings are referred to as “Lao”.
0
0