Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
This is the fourth of a series of videos on “Thailand in crisis” that we are producing in conjunction with the Australian National University’s Youtube channel. This episode includes an interview about history and political protest with Professor Thongchai Winichakul from the University of Wisconsin – Madison, and a discussion with Andrew Walker focused on Thailand’s agricultural budgets.
The podcast is available here.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Thongchai was very interesting but I do wonder who is or would be the more Marcos-like, Abhisit or Thaksin?
Andrew regarding Thaksin’s popularity in the Northeast while at the same time seeing a lower agricultural budget, could it be explained with the one million Baht village fund? It put village headmen into his pocket and the results we can see today.
0
0
Les Abbey, you wrote: “Andrew regarding Thaksin’s popularity in the Northeast while at the same time seeing a lower agricultural budget, could it be explained with the one million Baht village fund? It put village headmen into his pocket and the results we can see today.”
Can you explain how that works. How did headmen get control of the village fund? And how did headmen get villagers to vote a particular way? I would love to see reports, data or ethnographic observation on this.
0
0
Interesting graphs and interview with Prof Thongchai!
AW:
First obvious question, what is the source of the data? Could the data reflects essentially the budget of the Min. of Agriculture and Coop?
If that’s the case, then you must take into account the fact that the MOAC includes institutions and spendings which are not directly related to agricultural support. Two institutions comes to mind, namely the RFD-DNP and the Royal Irrigation Dept. In the first case, during Thaksin’s time the RFD was transfered out of the MOAC and to MNRE. This could bias somewhat the results as the RFD had a budget of about 9 billion bath or approx 12 % of the MOAC’S budget at the end of the 1990s. In the second case, I believe the last large-scale dam was built under the Dem government (Pasak Cholasit). Could the cessation of large-scale projects by the RID and their replacement by numerous small or medium scale ones affect the trend in spending?
Anyways, great graph and as I said, I’d really like to know where the data comes from. I had some trouble compiling this sort of data.
[Thanks J-P: Useful points. I’ll provide some information about the data sources etc when I am back in the office on Monday. AW]
0
0
All the comments were really interesting except some comments that Thongchai wanted to say but didn’t dare to say it, due to the lese majeste law. I wonder how much more fun it would be if he can express freely. But I think most of the Thai know very well what really happened, and who were the real mastermind behind this massacre. They all know very well that Apisit didn’t have the gut to order this crackdown.
0
0
Can you explain how that works.
No Andrew, I’m totally caught out. I have no idea how the village fund works. I just supposed that it was run through the existing village administration. If I’m wrong I apologise for my obvious ignorance.
On the other hand if I were village headman, which by the way is one of the better examples of working democracy in Thailand, and I had some control over the use of the fund I suspect I would make sure I was re-elected and I would support the guy handing the money out.
0
0
Andrew:
I suspect that Tarrin might be able to shed more light in terms of actual reports. My knowledge is sketchy, and only based on the few villagers I know and complains from a lot of my Bangkok friends.
As far as I know, the 1 million baht fund is available to all villagers. It is not tied to voting in any way. As of July 2001, almost all of the almost 75,000 villages opened account for the one million baht village fund. The TRT government, in accordance to its campaign promise, started transferring money on July 25th. There was no discrimination as to whether that village voted for or against Taksin or TRT. The villages were to managed their own money under the condition that once the money is gone, it will not be replaced. During that time was also the aftermath of the financial crisis and there are a lot of unemployed undergraduates, so the TRT government did “employ” some of these to help with the management of the fund. There were also complaints that in some cases, that local MPs (not the Kamnans) tries to interfere by bringing in their own people to tamper with how the money should be spent. There are rare cases where the money sat untouched in a village fund because the village had no project or no need of the money – one village in the Nan Province.
Conclusion of Effectiveness of the village fund is very mixed, and it cannot be viewed in isolation – not without taking into consideration other farmers loans mechanism and OTOP. But my perspective is that the key failure in the village fund is in its implementation: there is just not enough people who know how to manage that amount of money and many loans were made without proper checks on business plans. Many of those against the funds charged that half the loans were wasted because it went to repay loanshark debts instead of investing in businesses and a big deal was made of a case where a drug-dealer in the south used a loan from the fund to stock up on drugs. (However, perhaps the use of fund to repay loan-shark might help to endear grateful farmers to Taksin? I mean, its deadly to owe money to loansharks, but one only get blacklisted owing money to governments, and eventually those debts gets forgiven – see US financial crisis).
Then again, I learn in Management and MBA courses that only 5% of new businesses survive their first year, and even less survive the 5 year mark… so… I am not expecting high success rate for Village Fund.
Nevertheless, there are enough villages that made good with the village fund and OTOP was so successful I knew a group of Japanese academics flew down to Thailand to study this OTOP and charted its progress and evolution to MTOP – Multi-Tamboon One Product for export. (Note that OTOP was based on a Japanese project that never took off in Japan – can’t remember names but try Waseda Uni in Tokyo). I believe there was one Economist article on how the village fund helped break villagers reliance on equipment loansharks/ rice cartel middlemen for equipment to harvest and mill the rice for sale (they rent these big equipment out to farmers at loanshark rates) by letting villagers group together to buy and share those equipment.
In terms of academic studies in Thailand, there is one study by Wichai Turongpun covering 19 provinces indicating that the fund increased debt rather than increased income. I’ll have to drop by NIDA to see what are the new studies in this area.
Hope this helps.
0
0
Thanks Nuomi. For my previous description of the operation of a village fund in northern Thailand see this post from 19 September 2006!
http://www.newmandala.org/2006/09/19/thai-village-fund-hysteria/
0
0
No podcast available? Why not?
[There is, I have just added the link. AW]
0
0
Andrew:
Thanks very much for the actual numbers and description of how the money is being managed from one whole village. The figures you have look very optimistic indeed – very different from figures the people I know from NIDA throw at me which indicate increasing household debt, no increase in income, and very high default rates. For example, Wichai’s study broadbased study covers 19 provinces and indicate that household debt increase from approx 76,000 baht in 2000 (before village fund) to just over 80,000 baht in 2005.
The few Northern Thais I know who took loans mostly managed to repay. Some have re-borrowed to expand or upgrade, but I have no basis on which to defend whether the village fund works on a “national” basis. Now I also see what they mean by co-op approach – though from your description, it sounded very well organized and more financially advanced than I expected.
I am interested to know where that village stand today? Is the fund still doing well?
I never like the way the local media call all these “cheap loans”. I prefer the use of the word “affordable”, because that is what 5% is.
I also dislike the constant reference to micro-lending and Grameen Bank targeting women being a better scheme and empowering them – at 50rupee in the morning and repaying 52rupee at night daily for the poor women, we are talking about a 4% interest a day – or well over 1400% per annum. That is practically loan-shark rate! I supposed compared to that, the village fund loan rate at 5% is very “cheap”.
0
0
A conclusion from Andrew’s 2 graphs of government spending on ag. and as a % of value of ag. products – the first flat in the Thaksin period and the second plummeting – is that the value of farm production soared. This should have made for happy and pro-government farmers. But as I remember the price of rubber from the south rose and so did the insurrection.
Perhaps Andrew could comment on the present government’s handing out of money to farmers based on the extent of their land holdings.
Also one way of viewing the issue of declining rural secondary employment and government transfers to the rural provinces is that these provinces send their boys and girls to work in Bangkok or the “Detroit of the East” where they are underpaid and that the families are compensated by the tax system and the capitalists can continue to underpay and Thailand can be competitive for international capital.
0
0
Thank you Nuomi for even referring to my name, I didn’t quite expect that. Regarding how the headman get hold of the village fund, I really have no idea how that works since from my own experience I never quite come across such situation.
Anyway, a bit of background, I have spend about couple of months from July to early September in 2005 in Srisaket and many of the Southern Isan provinces including Ubon and Surin from an invitation of my police friends who stationed there during that time. I had a chance observed some of the government projects such as the plan for new dam to help preventing flood and provide water during drought and of cause the village fund, since Andrew pretty much provide the detail on how the fund run I think I need not to explain any further as his research suppose to be much more intense than my superficial observation.
I think what I want to address Les Abbey’s accusation on village headman can take control of the fund. This accusation hold very little possibility if you really know how the fund is set up. If you already read Andrew’s post, you should know that the Fund administrator is the District Office and the Custodian of the Fund is the Bank of Agriculture (or the GSB for urban communities), and the fund manager is the locally elected committee. This set up gave the fund manager some autonomy in how to lend out the money but not full freedom like many other had suspected. If there’s any abnormality in lending, say a person get hold of one time lending of 50% of the total fund (500,000 baht) this indicated abnormal activity and the District Office will have the authority to stop the lending activity by coordinating the Bank of Agriculture. Now, under this set up, even if the headman really get hold of the committee, he can not do much anyway in term of leading money to himself and what not because there is a system for checking for fund movement in place. If the headman really want to succeed in pocking the fund money he would have to bribe both the District office and the Bank of Agriculture (or the GSB) so believe me, that’s a very hard task to do, I don’t think it worth the measly 1 million baht.
Moreover, I want to point out the success of the fund that you has risen in your post.
This is a “draft” research done by NSOT with coordination with the World Bank and Suffolk University. This is a draft version so don’t get too serious about their conclusion, but I just want you to take note with some of the number they provided.
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/neudc07/docs/neudc07_s3_p08_boonperm.pdf
In 2nd para of introduction, by the end of May 2005 the total program had lent out 259 B baht, the repayment principle was 168 B (64.86%) and debt outstanding was 91 B (35.31%). Now if we compare this to say, big back like Bangkok Bank where they will not tolerate 10% NPL then yes this project seems like a failure, but if we look at the economic and social implication, we are talking about 64.83% of the 17.8 million borrower who were actually benefit from the scheme, that’s 11 million people. I think its a very successful project if you asked me. Furthermore, the core principle of this program is to find that 1 success that can repay the rest of the 9 failure. I would say 6 success that repaid 4 failure grossly exceed that target right?
Anyhow, there are many interesting figure that you can actually take a look such as where the borrower actually “spend” the money and so on, but as I say before, this is a draft version so you should take it with a grain of salt.
0
0
Having read Andrew’s 2006 piece on the one million Baht village fund operation in the North I find I was wrong to link this fund with village headmen, the kamnans. For that I apologise and thank Andrew for having this source of information on New Mandala.
0
0
Thanks LesAbbey – no need to apologise. This is about discussion after all. The intention of my one village case study was to suggest that things may not be as simple as people often suggest. But it is certainly not a comprehensive study of the implementation of impact of the village fund scheme. I have no doubt that in some places people like headmen and kamnan were able to manipulate the sheme in ways that served their political interests. However, based on my experience, I am very skeptical about the notion that headmen can readily swing votes one way or the other in national elections. I think the political power of headmen has greatly declined as economic, social and political connections in rural Thailand have proliferated.
0
0
While Thonghai’s analysis on collective memory was insightful regarding the power of popular discourse and hegemony, I wondered how he missed the elephant in the room from San Kamphaeng, the opportunist who funded the political and economic disparities of the Northeast, or the power of the negative, and often violent media of the UDD heard throughout the markets of Thailand.
This will be a fascinating issue to come back to in a year to see how it is remembered. Could the king have done more and should he have? Isn’t sublime guidance enough? Will the former prime minister re-emerge as a power, and if so, will there be a monarchy left if he does? Will the government attempt to return to the status quo of ignoring the social issues leading to the crisis? Will the politics of patronage, so extreme in the northeast and the rampant corruption that goes with it, change with the arrests of the UDD leadership? Will the power of English media press releases further empower the “red-shirt” cause? Will the majority of Thai people tolerate the use of street thugs to support democratic causes?
0
0
Tarrin:
I’ve only had short trips into BKK recently, and have not been outside of BKK for 18 years. Its always good to read from those actually based out there or have been out there.
Thanks for the link. I will read the document over the week in BKK. I’d love to be able to catch up while I am there. Sadly, I think I’ll be gritting my teeth again in the anti-Red crowd.
0
0
Thank you Andrew. Many years ago when it was quite unusual to see farangs in the northeast following the exit of the Americans from Udon, I had the chance to watch a hard fought election of a village headman. I must admit I was impressed by the operation and by the closeness of the result. Although there were probably all sorts of underhand tricks going on, I thought at the time that it was an example that elections to parliament could follow rather than the money politics at the time. (This was long before Thaksin joined the Phalang Dharma so I’m not attacking him this time.)
0
0
LesAbbey (c12)
On whichever side of whichever fence, I wish there were more ready to do as you have here.
0
0
Tarrin:
the final version of the draft you’re citing is available here :
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/07/21/000158349_20090721132749/Rendered/PDF/WPS5011.pdf
or http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/5011.html
0
0
PS : Andrew re. ”
I think the political power of headmen has greatly declined as economic, social and political connections in rural Thailand have proliferated.”
You’re exactly right. This is my experience from near Udon Thani.
They’re now most simply local government functionaries : a loss of rough, street-wise local democracy, as far as I can see.
0
0
Thongchai’s self-censorship is depressing, to say the least.
0
0
I agree with the comment of Alex: “Thongchai’s self-censorship is depressing…”.
Really Thongchai can’t you open up a bit more? The most daring thing you said was to mention someone “passing away”. But here in Thailand I feel most folk are most apprehensive about what eventuate after the passing.
From the safety of America can you please give us you views? In an earlier podcast in the series we had a speaker cheering on this event and comparing the effects of the present incumbent with that of the now removed dictator of Indonesia with all the nepotism, corruption and repression of that era in Indonesia.
Do you think we are likely to see a break from this with the passing or an intensification in a more overtly militaristic form?
0
0
Wow, thank you, Jean-Philippe Leblond.
0
0
It was a sad commentary that Prof. Thongchai felt it unwise to comment on the legacy of the King, even living as far away as he does in Madison, Wisconsin. It is even sadder that he was probably correct for self-preservation purposes to hold back his thoughts, because the royalists would undoubtably persecute him from afar and attempt to prosecute him in abstentia should he tell us what he truly believes. It was telling as far as what he did share: that the legacy is different now than it would have been had he died before the 2006 coup. What he leaves unsaid but implies is that HMK’s legacy has been tainted by recent events, some carried out in his name.
Brett Wyatt raises some good questions in his comments in #13, but his overall tone is just too inflamatory and baiting to be taken seriously in an academic discussion. For instance, what evidence does he have to support his claim that the politics of patronage is anymore extreme in the northeast than the rest of the country? I have lived in the south, north, northeast, and central regions and IMHO the patronage politics in Nakhon Pathom where I currently reside are about as extreme as they can get.
0
0
In comment #2 Jean-Philippe Leblond asked about my data sources for the agriculture budget graphs. They are:
1960-1975 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand (various editions): Government Expenditure and Percentage Distribution, by Function (Agriculture).
1975-1982 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand (various editions): Summary of ordinary expenditure by Ministry (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives). (Note: for some reason, the tables in these Yearbooks do not provide agriculture spending by function.)
1983 missing year. I have interpolated.
1984 -1986 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand: Budget Expenditures Appropriate by Programme Structure (Agricultural sector). Note that from 1984 “Science, technology, energy and environment” is a specific sector.
1987-2008: Thailand in Figures (various editions): Budget Expenditures by sector.
So, in relation to J-P’s specific point: “during Thaksin’s time the RFD was transferred out of the MOAC and to MNRE. This could bias somewhat the results as the RFD had a budget of about 9 billion baht.” Except for 1975-1982 the figures I have used are for the agricultural sector, not for MOAC itself. I think (but am not 100% certain) that by Thaksin’s time the RFD expenditure would already have been counted in the “Science, technology, energy and environment” sector.
On the issue of the Royal Irrigation Department. I presume this is included in agricultural sector funding and, as J-P, suggest it would be interesting to look at the changing patterns of irrigation funding. But I think irrigation funding still represents pretty direct support for the agricultural sector, whether the funding was for small-scale or large-scale schemes.
0
0
Andrew,
You wrote, “However, based on my experience, I am very skeptical about the notion that headmen can readily swing votes one way or the other in national elections. I think the political power of headmen has greatly declined as economic, social and political connections in rural Thailand have proliferated.”
Would you say that vote buying is a way the headmen can swing votes?
I reckon thats a pretty good way they can influence any election.
0
0
Colin, explain to me how the headmen’s vote buying works.
0
0
Andrew,
Are you saying it doesn’t happen or are you trying to tell me something with another question?
0
0
Colin: I’m simply interested in how you think it works.
0
0
Thanks Andrew for the sources.
It’s quite reasonable to believe that your figures reflect the budget of the Min of Agriculture. The sector “Science, technology, energy and environment” (from 1984 onwards) must come from the Min of Science, Technology and Environment. The earlier version of the Ministry (M of Sc, Tech and Energy) was created in 1979 and somewhere between 1979 and 2002 the term “environment” replaced “energy” in its title (sources: http://www.most.go.th/eng/index.php/about-the-ministry/background ).
If you want to compare your data with the Min of Agriculture’s budget, here’s a sample of the data (current value, 000 baht). It comes from OAE ‘Agricultural statistics of Thailand”, various editions.
1982: 13 587 036
1983: 15 130 877
1984: 15 885 201
1985: 16 878 137
1986: 16 142 206
1987: 15 773 452
1988: 16 612 485
1989: 19 591 878
1990: 26 586 762
1991: 31 420 574
1992: 35 433 040
1993: 44 328 456
1994: 54 694 157
1995: 63 924 294
1996: 74 428 952
1997: 81 719 222
1998: 63 778 159
1999: 65 709 702
As you’ll see, the form of the curve is similar to the one shown on your graph.
Note that during 1982-1999, RID represented between 60 % (1982) and 45 % (1994) of MOAC budget, showing a slightly declining trend.
I’ll explain later why I think it is relevant to note the importance of the RID, and especially of large dams, in total agricultural spending
0
0
Andrew,
How they do it, well thats a very hard question to answer.
What they do it with, well, I have seen cash and alcohol being used.
Regardless of how they do it, offering cash and alcohol for votes is vote buying.
0
0
Perhaps after so many years and elections TRT/PPP/PTP stronghold in many areas doesn’t need any extra headmen support, ditto for the Democrat voting areas.
On the other hand, we have former House Speaker Yongyudh busted for buying off govt officials from a whole region, not sure if there were any headmen among them.
I guess he felt it was pretty important to bring them all to Bangkok (they were from Chiang Rai) and show them his party generosity.
There was P-net or some similar organization report on 2000 elections that detailed how the vote buying worked in the provinces then, and there was an article on Prachatai about a year ago about local Tamboon elections in the North. Still not much hope for “democracy” there.
0
0
StanG can you get post the link of P-net article perhaps?
I think a big flaw with vote-buying logic is that its very hard prove who is not voting for the vote buyer.
0
0
StanG,
That would be if the Thaksin loyalists still had majority, but they do not hold the majority of seats regardless, which means they will in fact need that local support.
So, I guess the topic of vote buying is ignored, hmmm…Andrew refuses to even acknowledge the question of vote buying swaying national elections, is he refusing to acknowledge it as a factor of Thai politics?
Its like the Thai professor Thongchai says about certain information being ignored to see what we want to see.
0
0
Colin – 33
Actually I want Andrew to answer your question rather, but you made one point that I has been asking almost every time when I start discussing about politic in Thailand.
Andrew refuses to even acknowledge the question of vote buying swaying national elections, is he refusing to acknowledge it as a factor of Thai politics?
Now, I think the reason why Andrew asked your question was not because he didn’t acknowledge it, but rather, to see whether the whole “vote buying” issue is even making sense and logical. You have been claiming that vote buying is a degrading factor in Thailand politic, but you didn’t even know how the whole thing works, so how did you get into conclusion that it is actually the case?
Filtered out the “illogical” information is as important as acknowledging it.
0
0
Andrew refuses to even acknowledge the question of vote buying swaying national elections, is he refusing to acknowledge it as a factor of Thai politics?
Have a look at my article on the “rural constitution” which attempts to put the issue of “vote buying” (a very imprecise term) into context. In terms of its impact on Thai politics – I have no doubt that cash distributions are one of the factors that voters take into consideration when they cast their vote. But by far the most important, and disturbing, impact of the “vote buying” discourse is that it is consistently being used to justify the overturning of electoral decisions. Those who consistently shout “vote buying” to undermine the validity of people’s choices seem determined to drive people towards more radical forms of action. The constant belittling of voters with the charge of vote buying is serving the interests of extremists. If you are not willing to accept the warts-and-all way people vote in Thailand then what form of political participation will you accept?
0
0
Tarrin #32
Old 2001 report is from Anfrel, actually, Pnet being their big contributor.
http://www.anfrel.org/report/thailand/Thai_2001/thailand_2001.pdf
It reads like “1001 easy ways to buy votes in Thailand”.
If big money can manipulate the elections it’s pointless to talk about results as the “will of the people”, and even if the public at large accepts the results, warts-and-all, many can’t stand when this “electoral legitimacy” is being used as a defense of personal corruption, as was the case with Thaksin.
0
0
Tarrin,
I have seen a couple of suggestions in this forum alone as to how it happens, I shouldn’t need to answer such a question that its sole purpose is to discredit myself. There are many ways it happens and to ask how I think it happens is cocky and arrogant and basically saying you don’t know shit compared to myself and you are not even worth replying to.
To discredit me with the answering of a question with a question, ignores the fact that vote buying is rampant in Thailand.
I asked a question about Andrew being skeptical of seeing any proof of headmen being able to sway votes. Politicians have been banned on allegations of vote buying, so I would actually put the onus on anyone who discredits it as irrelevant and untrue.
If they refuse, then they must condone or selectively ignore the fact that it is seen as acceptable by the politicians in charge of the country. I personally know people who have voted based on payment, I can’t give the armchair experts the reports or pie charts to back this up.
Andrew,
I will read your article.
In the meantime, vote buy accusations have been thrown by both sides and both sides have been penalised with bannings.
The problem is that it is not an means to an end. It is exploiting the poor by way of their lack of education and hand to mouth attitude, of course not all are like this and I know many who are very alert to it and try to not fall for the cheap sell out. There are also many who would vote for the party/person anyway and just take the money or alcohol regardless as a face gesture.
Ask yourself, would you accept a days or even a weeks wage to vote for a political party you normally would not? I know people here in Australia that would. It is straight up and down exploitation of the marginal difference of those who are indifferent to the political spectrum, wherever it happens.
0
0
Tarrin – my aim in asking you how it works is not to discredit you but to deepen the discussion. How it works is crucial. There is a big difference between (1) giving someone money in the hope that they will then do something in return and (2) actually buying something. Just think about various transactions in your own life and the distinction should be clear. (If I can be a bit technical – anthropologists call this the distinction between gift exchange and commodity exchange). So it is important that we know, somewhat precisely, how these transactions operate in particular contexts (especially in the context of a secret ballot). Is it really “buying”?
0
0
Individual votes are probably impossible to verify in every vote buying case but the canvassers operate with large numbers.
They know how many voters they are responsible for, they know how much they spend and on how many people, and, with experience, they should know how many votes will turn up eventually, discounting for smart assess who take the money but vote differently.
In some places they don’t even bother, in some places they spend the money just to keep up with the Joneses – other political parties.
I agree with those who claim that significance of this traditional vote buying is diminishing and Thaksin played an important part in it but he also invented, adopted or perfected other, more effective and more expensive ways to influence the election results.
0
0
Update on my case
Here from the (Plainfield, C.T.) US on 23 June 2010, I called Thai Pol. Lt. Sattamete at Phahol Yothin police station (mobile Mobile: 0817748023, to ask about progress of my case, as I had earlier been told it had been referred to the prosecutor’s office. This case is the original Akbar Khan “he defamed me online” allegation against me, where neither Khan nor police once contacted me in objection to the presence of the material.
Police have confirmed they have recommended that the prosecutor send the case to court for prosecution. My son and wife are representing me temporarily on July 5 for a meeting with the prosecutor for what is supposedly a “rap saab” meeting. I am not sure whether the prosecutor will inform them I will be prosecuted, or that the case has gotten this far and the next step is yet to be decided.
Amazing how police in Thailand can’t solve mysteries of how prisoners hang themselves with shoe laces while in police custody, but can spend a year tracing down complaints by two of Thailand’s amazing personalities.
Frank G Anderson
6/24/2010
0
0
Stan, does having a party platform, running on that platform, then when you win and receive a the majority of votes it gives you a mandate to carry it out, and then actually delivering on the promises constitute the “more effective and more expensive ways to influence the election results” that you take about?
If so what are you proposing instead of democracy. Oligarchy.?as long as you are included? Facism? Timocracy? Enthocracy?
Thaksin, was a megalomaniac.
But he did give the masses Universal Health Care and his government got the BTS and Subway so it has not just been about Issan and Chaing Mai.
I prefer the democratic elected megalomaniac Thaksin, to the aristocratic unelected and unwanted Abhisit.
0
0
Could Frank kindly give a link to his case which is a mystery to me? Is it somehow relevant to this discussion?
0
0
Andrew Walker – 38
my aim in asking you how it works is not to discredit you but to deepen the discussion. How it works is crucial.
I didn’t say that, it was Collin but I actually agreed with you on that by the way. Well since Andrew answers that for me I guess I dont have to say anything.
Thank StanG for the link.
0
0
Thailand is in crisis in part because of some of the fervor that Thais and expatriates alike pounce on others whose opinions they do not appreciate. My case involves at least two criminal defamation allegations against me by Akbar Khan and Pol. col. Wattanasak. They felt insulted by my term “might be deemed to have insulted the monarchy” in reference to their overt campaigns to crush anyone who dares to speak about the Thai monarchy or even criticize lese majeste advocates such as themselves.
0
0
Andrew,
I miss understood your post, I guess sometimes it happens on forums, no probs. I still ticked your last post in approval.
But, it still does not convince. There are still questions…
The buying of votes 100% cannot guarantee that person will vote based on confidential voting, but, they will want future hand outs and this will make sure the payments keep coming. Why do the richer, educated Thais not get offered money for votes?
If voters always took money and voted for the smaller vendor, wouldn’t that mean less payment for themselves, effectively eliminating the better financially backed candidate.
In all honesty, vote buying is rampant and a major factor in Thai elections. We can guess why it happens and how much effect it really has, but at the end of the day, should it be condoned regardless if we are of the persuasion that it has little or no effect whatsoever?
To this question, I say no, vote buying should not be a legal factor in any election. Cheap money should not be undermined as an ineffective tool to bait the poor, uneducated folk who may see a quick “buck” for an easy task, even if the task is not carried out. And in this situation we cannot judge any majority elected government based on such a wild card electoral tactic. Again I put it out there, ignoring the fact that it is rampant is believing that it is not only legal but morally ok.
H.R,
Sorry, but I think if you had actually researched the “improvements” that Thaksin introduced you will find they were not only NOT his ideas, but not even from the TRT. So what you are left with is just a plain old megalomaniac, with nothing but a big “above the law” ego and no respect for intellectual property.
He won his first election by landslide almost 10 years ago, his most recent election had no participation from the other major parties and it was close. His popularity is obviously on the wane, maybe if he ran today he’d lose by landslide…you never know.
Oh, one more thing, our dear PM Kevin Rudd, KRudd or Dr Spin has been tapped on the shoulder…I voted for him and so did the majority of Australia. Maybe we should get our Red Shirts out and take over the city CBD, get some M79 grenade launchers, turn all security cameras away and cause a ruckus…or maybe we should take over all major airports, government house and hijack TV stations??? If the army cracks down then its a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION…
0
0
“does having a party platform, running on that platform, then when you win ”
Yes, HR, it counts, but that is not the only thing Thaksin been busy with to win the elections.
One big part is making people believe in that narrative.
In your own post you say Thaksin gave people BTS. Well, it was actually opened BEFORE his first elections, and during his years in power he hasn’t added a single station to it.
Now it is regularly included in “great achievements of Thaksin” epic.
0
0
Colin – 45
The buying of votes 100% cannot guarantee that person will vote based on confidential voting, but, they will want future hand outs and this will make sure the payments keep coming. Why do the richer, educated Thais not get offered money for votes?
Continuous payment? for once every 4 years? I unless the money is in a region of 1 M then there’s not a single incentive to sell the vote.
To this question, I say no, vote buying should not be a legal factor in any election. Cheap money should not be undermined as an ineffective tool to bait the poor, uneducated folk who may see a quick “buck” for an easy task, even if the task is not carried out.
Reading your statement here, I’m really wondering how many “educated folk” will vote for Abhisit for his one time 2,000 baht hand out policy, do you considered that as vote buying???
Maybe we should get our Red Shirts out and take over the city CBD, get some M79 grenade launchers, turn all security cameras away and cause a ruckus…or maybe we should take over all major airports, government house and hijack TV stations?
I think the Yellow shirt is the better candidate here, they can actually got away with that, the red wasn’t able to avoid jail time so far so I guess yellow is the better pick for you. Furthermore, cracking down on protest in not human violation, cracking down on protest with war weapon is.
0
0
This ‘vote buying’ banter is a convenient distraction IMO.
If there is genuine concern about it, then why not allow international electoral observers to scrutinize, or even run the elections?
Make it a reconcilation proposal!
Otherwise one side will always be accused of vote buying, and the other side accused of relying on a ‘compromised’ judiciary & draconian laws to make sure any party of the wrong color can have have their victory anulled (as & when required).
0
0
If Thais themselves can’t catch their rivals for vote buying, what chances the international observers would have?
It’s not like there’s a lack of complaints after every elections.
Final transactions at the end of the chain are impossible to prove and bigger deals up the chain are impossible to see.
What’s the purpose of international observers presence other than legitimizing all the shenanigans simply because they had no capacity to see them?
Say there are ten million people who are subjected to vote buying one way or another. What if it’s “only” five million?
How many observers do you need to effectively monitor them?
0
0
Thitinan has a well-balanced comment/ analysis on funding of protests @ :
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/182455/the-politics-of-funding-the-red-shirts-protest
0
0
StanG, be honest please.
You know if it were simply a matter of handing over cash to win votes then the yellow team would win every time (the money they have is something the reds could only dream about).
You also know that ‘vote buying’ is kept a convenient excuse for why the ‘wrong’ team keeps winning – take away that excuse, and what will they be left with?
My guess is they would then say ‘lack of education’, but that’s not as convenient an excuse, because it can be pointed out that they have had plenty of opportunities to improve the education system.
0
0
Nganadeeleg,
You are talking as if Yongyudh didn’t bribe those state officials in 2007.
Now you are saying he didn’t have to as if you know better than him how to win Thai elections.
There’s has never been a “yellow team” in the elections here and Democrat war chest has always been a lot smaller than TRT.
After the coup some pro-military parties tried to emulate TRT tactics and, reportedly, spent quite a lot but they had no idea how to shop for votes properly. Simply handing out the money, as I said earlier, is probably the least effective way.
Sanoh, who was running with them at the time described them as being at the “kindergarten level”.
What you have to buy is allegiance and loyalty, not a promise, often even unspoken, to tick the correct box on the ballot.
0
0
StanG – 52
Democrat war chest has always been a lot smaller than TRT.
You must be kidding, the Dem money basket included TPIPL, CP, BBL, Sarasin group, and more. As for CP case I happened to know them personally and I can assured you that they had been the main supporter for the Dem since even before the inception of TRT. Please go to Forbes and check the top 20 richest individual in Thailand, I can tell you that about 5-6 of the people there are openly supporting the Dem.
0
0
StanG: If you (or anyone else, including the thai elite) think vote buying is the reason your team loses elections, then the obvious thing for you to do is to support calls to have international observers/scrutineers of the elections.
If you don’t support that call, then it’s obvious that you don’t really think it is a problem (same goes for those Dems, like Chuan, and other yellows who complain about it !)
0
0
Tarrin, donations to the parties are officially registered. Quick search gave 130 mil to TRT vs 39 mil to Dems in 2006 (until August).
On the eve of 2005 elections Pojamarn caused a bit of a furor with giving TRT 50 mil herself.
Nganadeeleg,
I don’t think vote buying is the main reason Democrats “lose” elections and, more importantly, I don’t think international observers can do anything about it anyway. Thailand has long got over basic stuff the observers are supposed to monitor – ballot staffing, counting problems, obstructing voters from attending etc.
I don’t think you understand my position, I don’t have a problem with who wins the elections here, I have a problem with what they do AFTER winning those elections, specifically I had problems with Thaksin trying to “vote” his way out of the court and PPP trying to push for his amnesty.
I don’t care if Dems get booted out and PTP forms the next government, I will care if they overstep their mandate.
0
0
StanG: “I don’t think you understand my position, I don’t have a problem with who wins the elections here”
At last we agree on something!
What I have a problem with is how a select few ride roughshod over the peoples choices (see Jakrapob’s “A State within a State”), and if things don’t go their way their ultimate weapons are military (& judicial) coups.
As for YOUR ‘problem’ of what election winners do after winning elections, well I don’t really see that as much of a problem, AS LONG AS they continue to be willing to submit to elections (and act lawfully of course, as is expected of all governments).
The voters should the ones who decide whether they like a government or not.
0
0
“Tarrin, donations to the parties are officially registered. Quick search gave 130 mil to TRT vs 39 mil to Dems in 2006 (until August).
On the eve of 2005 elections Pojamarn caused a bit of a furor with giving TRT 50 mil herself.”
Comforting to imagine that all donations are declared* and thus “officially registered”…..
2005? Hmmm…. something familiar about that date in the context of donations….. Ah yes – TPI Polene and their 258 “mil”.
*“….. according to the official numbers published by the Election Commission alone, , the total amount of public subsidies given to various political parties in the period 1998 to 2001 accounted only for 67 percent of the reported total donations alone, not accounting for unreported donations, slush funds and other “black money” (Siripan 2006: 96; ECT 2008). In 2006 (latest year for which figures are available), the total amount of FDP subsidies to political parties was 271 million Baht; at the same time, parties reported 235 million Baht in donations. In 2007, the total amount of reported donations almost doubled to 416.8 million Baht.
It seems clear that the amount of donations recorded by the ECT did not reflect actual contributions, which in reality are certainly far greater than those reported to the ECT. Actually, private funding does not go to parties but to individuals.”
[ http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/imperia/md/content/fakultaeten/wiso/ipw/croissant/publications/chambers_croissant_2008_intraparty_democracy.pdf page 49 ]
0
0
Yeah, Steve, still no evidence that Democrats had more money that TRT.
Not even one single analyst/commentator thought it was the case in those days.
It’s just something Tarrin pulled out of nowhere, arguing it actually gives an air of legitimacy to his copmletely unsubstantiated claim.
0
0
StanG – 59
The 258 Mil is real and you are not the one who should talk about “legitimacy” claim.
0
0
I don’t know how real 258 mil is, EC chairman decided to drop the case after the investigations, then the full board unexpectedly voted on it in the middle of the red shirt rally when reds threated commissioners lives.
Then the attorney general sent it back for the lack of evidence, now they are obliged to sit together and spend another month trying to formulate the case again.
And it’s all related to paying for election posters, of all things.
Anything else to show that Democrats had more money to run the elections? Anyone else who thought so in those years?
0
0
StanG – 61
The car of the DSI member who happened to have laptop containing all file related to the case was broken in, and of cause, the theft stole the laptop and nothing else of valuable. Furthermore, there were many other cars there, but it so happened to be this one particular one.
Don’t you think this is too fishy?
Anything else to show that Democrats had more money to run the elections?
There’s no way to know who got more money, but I’m darn sure that the Dem is not poor, I dined with Apimongkon Sonakul and his gang before, they are loaded. Furthermore, look at who supporting the PAD and the Dem, they were majority of the upper class and the elite, they can get the PAD protest going for months. It cost 1 million a day to run the protest according to Mr. Sondhi himself. If the PAD can get that kind of support then I’m sure the Dem will get the same treatment.
0
0
StanG: I’m not sure if your last question is directed at me or not, but my contention in comment#51 was that yellow has more money than the red, so in a straight out war of money they will always win.
Somehow that has turned into a question of whether Democrats or TRT had more money, but that’s not the point I was making – It all depends on whose backing them, and that backing can change at different points in time.
Check out the Forbes Thailand rich lists, and this article for an idea where the real wealth in Thailand lies http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=402&Itemid=32
0
0
c60
“I don’t know how real 258 mil is….. “
“Former Matchimathipataya leader Prachai Leophairatana has confirmed he donated 250 million baht to the Democrat party but insisted it did not break any laws”
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/11530/prachai-denies-democrat-donation-illegal
0
0
Nganadeeleg, yellows didn’t run in the elections, Democrats did. People who paid for PAD might not have contributed to Democrat election campaigns at all.
TRT in its heyday had full support from CP, only some bankers might have not paid them. Thaksin had very close ties with the richest families in the country anyway.
I don’t know if CPB ever made any political contributions, so why bring it here?
Steve, I know the 258 mil was paid to someone, but for now we don’t know if it was an illegal contribution, and even if it was, it doesn’t mean TRT had less money going past the books, too.
There is no way to know how much money each party has really had. There is a common knowledge that TRT had more when it was in power.
The opposite idea is something invented six years later by Tarrin.
0
0
StanG – 64
TRT in its heyday had full support from CP, only some bankers might have not paid them. Thaksin had very close ties with the richest families in the country anyway.
CT support both the Dem and TRT, the Jiravanon family is so big that they have people in their family both align with TRT and Dem, same goes with Jiratiwat family and so on.
I don’t know if CPB ever made any political contributions, so why bring it here?
Well since the CPB might be the biggest conglomerate in Thailand, maybe its worth discuss about what’s their stance on all these?
I know the 258 mil was paid to someone, but for now we don’t know if it was an illegal contribution, and even if it was, it doesn’t mean TRT had less money going past the books, too.
Yes and that doesn’t also mean that Democract war chest is any smaller than TRT, like what you claimed in your comment number 52.
0
0
Tarrin,
CPB should have been aware of the pending Shin sale as it has reps on Siam Commercial bank board and it was the biggest sale in country’s history. It had other deals involving Thaksin, too, like the sale of SCB stake in ITV.
My claim TRT had a bigger war chest is based on countless opinions from knowledgeable people over the years.
Your counterclaim was invented just a couple of weeks ago and is based on nothing but a loose list of companies that you believe oppose Thaksin NOW. Wait and see what they will sing if Thaksin stages a successful comeback.
0
0
As I read through most of the comments I can’t help noticing any mention of Myanmar contribution to Thailand problem.
Myanmar contribution?
Anyone who travel from ChiagRai to Phuket extensively will know from the Taxi divers and Car owners that “the raising of fuel tax “to cover the government growing revenue short fall by Abbishist make them long for the days of Taksin when government has a surplus that can be given freely to make “everyone happy”.
Rampant corruption aside, still ongoing, the cheap supply of fuel by present government of Myanmar will not last for ever.
As Myanmar supply Thailand with essentially everything at an unrealistically cheap price to fuel Thai economy, including refugees labor, sooner or later will have to be readjusted.
Thailand pipe dream of having Myanmar in a perpetual vilified state will come to an end.
As Myanmar draw even closer to N. Korea the defiance will also grow. A defiance unseen before aided by N. Korean absolute expertise in this matter and other well known abilities.
Articles abound on SPDC nuclear ambition.
Truth and practicality aside, the very fact that a Burmese SPDC will sooner or later require a neighboring government to pay more for everything not necessarily in terms of monetary value which SPDC has proven it have plenty in Singapore Banks.
But political concession.
Words to the wise: Pay attention to Myanmar march towards N. Korea’s arms if you care about Thailand or other Asian country politics.
Thailand rise and falls has always been tied to Myanmar in one way or another.
The perpetual reenactment and reminder of victory against it neighbor invasion and atrocities says it all.
0
0
plan B’ s comments about Myanmar ( Burma) are on the ball.
Last week during a talk about teaching refugees in Chiang Mai, we were told about how access was denied to one of the many building sites here where all the workers are from Shan State.
Workers with their families (basicaly as hostages), no knowledge of Thai language or society beyond their work place and no money are effectively forced laborers.
For sure the values of the SPDC dictatorship are becoming entrenched in Thailand.
0
0
StanG – 66
My claim TRT had a bigger war chest is based on countless opinions from knowledgeable people over the years.
Your counterclaim was invented just a couple of weeks ago and is based on nothing but a loose list of companies that you believe oppose Thaksin NOW
FYI- I didn’t invest this claim just couple of weeks ago, I know about money donation practice long before the Thaksin is even in the picture.
Really, I think your “claim” and my “claim” weight about the same here, you claimed that you know this from the knowledgeable people over the years, my claimed was base on conversation that I have when I dined with Mr. Thanin’s family members on many occasion same with Jaratiwat family. I’ve told you already that these people are not stupid, they’ve contributed large sum of money to both side both TRT and Dem get their donation so that when the times come they can deal with both parties.
0
0