Every Cloud has a Silver Lining
It was not at all in my intention to discuss Thai politics but for this post, I just wanna keep track of some few facts as my own future reference for “History of Thai Democracy.”
1) In response to opposition allegations of corruption and abuse of power (allegations he denied), the PM dissolved the Parliament (for personal issue i.e. to prove himself?) on 24th February and called for a snap election on 2nd April.
2) In the past few months, tens of thousands people have been taking part in ongoing street demonstrations in Bangkok demanding the PM’s resignation.
3) Estimated costs of the election:
Government expenditure: 2,200 million baht
Private (individual) cost: 8,000 million baht
TOTAL estimated COST: 10,200 million baht
4) Three main opposition parties boycotted the poll, causing more than 170 constituencies to have only one candidate.
5) Eligible voters: 45.1 million
Turnouts: 28.8 million (63.9%)
6)
7) By-elections are to be held within 30 days in 39 constituencies where uncontested candidates failed to get a threshold of 20% of the vote.
8) Constitutionally, all 500 seats must be filled for Parliament to convene so how a new government could be formed without the main opposition party remains an unanswered question.
p.s. I was reckoning before the Election Day in Thailand that it must be so happening in Ladbrokes in Britland in regards to the bet of who would go first between Thai PM Thaksin and Pilipino President Arroyo. Too bad, I didn’t place any bet on Thaksin or I might have made a good fortune.
posted by Casa Libra~* at 08:19
17 Comments:
cost of election "10,200 million baht"
That ain't nothing compare to having him corrupts for another 3 years.
And most of spoiled ballots (1.7 mil) were caused from people believing that this election is unfair so they tore up the voting sheet to protest. (if you follow the news, one of Chula Political Sci. Prof. got arrested for that ) and people were writing Taksin Get Out on the ballot. So I would count the faulty ballots as no votes. Though it is still less than voters for taksin. But the point is, he still has to respect the minority vote and not going to the king asking for becoming the next PM when the vote wasn't officially counted yet.
That aside, there were so many rumors of illegal voting and buying vote and crap. But again you know who would mostly vote for taksin right?
Finally this snap election is damn unfair. It is taksin game with him as the referee and no opposition willing to join the game. True that previous gov't were as corrupted as his. But at least they dissolve the parliamnent through the constitution process and allow the people to hear and choose the new gov't. This election on the other hand did not, but just more to boost taksin ego anyway.
Though I have to admit I'm getting sick of the protestors for they rally too much chaos and inconvenience. So one thing I have to admire Taksin for stepping down, even though it's obvious he's going to control everything behind the scene. But at least politics is going to be argued on some sensible negotiations, not by having 2 maniac ego tycoons manipulating people voice and lost many reasonings.
And I doubt Taksin would step down if it wasn't request by the one 'up there'. Even though not directly stated in the news
k , way too long of a comment , but good you wrote about it
hahaha i know, there is so much to say regards to this; that's why i didn't state any personal opinions but rather just show the facts.
exactly, that much money had to be spent on the election just for thaksin to prove himself to the public?!! Gosh, it was insane.
anyhow, it doesn't matter much now - neither how the election was held nor how rampant vote-buying was - at least it served it purpose and thaksin has already stepped aside. from now on, that's more interesting; an even more intriguing yet-to-come phrase in thailand's democracy. fun fun fun.
and protesters will find a very next thing to rally on somehow - maybe keep picking on thaksin taking 'a break' or complaining on a new unstable government, we shall see.
Doubt if thaksin will care enough to continue control things behind the scenes though... if i were him, i'll just go on long holidays with the family (they will do so actually; to britland very soon) and live my life happily ever after without any political nonsense!!
Nat could you please explain what you mean by "But the point is, he still has to respect the minority vote" and "But again you know who would mostly vote for taksin right?"
Just wondering
my understanding:
minority vote = protest vote = those who ticked the "vote for no one" box i.e. against thaksin
who would mostly vote for thaksin = the grassroots community who are most likely to be involved in both illegal voting and vote-buying 'crap'
suppose taksin decide to hang on to his PM chair, then he should reconsider himself why 20 mil other voters didn't vote for him. His new gov't agenda should not be the same as his previous term, where he can do whatever he please. He has to be more transparant about his business to avoid the accusation of conflict of interest, which is the main point of why people cast no vote for him. And the best solution is of course step down. But if in case he doesn't want to, bunch of committee should be set up to prove that he's clean hand PM, not meddling his personal agenda with political one instead of ignoring these matter and went on as an ego maniac PM
But I'm saying the majority still voted for him no matter which way you look at it. It's good to take the minority into account, but in a democracy you have to respect the will of the majority.
I'm the first one to say that Taksin is corrupt and I don't like him one bit. And I also think Democracy sucks and can give bad results. But it's still the best system we have. So yeah, he should take into account why the minority didn't vote for him, and history might even judge that he did since he stepped down. But the fact remains that if the majority votes for him then he doesn't "owe" anything to the minority. Just because a bad result comes out of an election doesn't mean you can change the whole system because you "know" it's better to do so. That sets an ugly precedent that would just set the country years behind.
And out of curiosity, do you agree with what the opposition would do if in government? I was reading some of their proposals and I don't see how an econ major could agree with most of them.
dude, where did you read the platform? All I see in the news about the opposition party was its 60th anniversary celebration and how they want to follow the king advice of sustainable economy. Other than that it's about democracy for the people blah blah and no trade policy
so they have no policy? I'll try to find where I saw it. But I'm sure they have some policy. Or their policy is just to oust Taksin and then wing it? Wait let me check
the opposition party emphasized only the political reform. As in they want to fix the loophole in the constitution. That way people have some 'democractic' election or whatever. But that's because the opposition wants to enter in a fair election. I don't think the opposition has given much thought the economy. (though they used to have a really good economic advisors)
I went to taiwan news that you mentioned and I actually agree with their thai political view. It's true that the democrats hasn't established any outstanding reputation during the last 5 years.
yeah, plz share if you find their platform. want to see it
Only 5 years? Feel like forever. Back then, the Democrats worked harder to buy votes and when they were in power, they had not really done anything substantive whatsoever. No guts to be either creative or radical - just not to get into anyone else's ways, I guess. Oh except once they drafted the privatisation law (where 100% priv is allowed) despite the fact that they have criticised Thaksin's admin's 30% privatisation move like mad.
Anyhow, my point is the opposition has only been good at complaining and vilifying about everything Thaksin's admin had done but never once came up with better options or solutions to do so.
That's why 57% of voters prefer a working corrupt govt to a whining corrupt govt.
And yeah, if they actually have a solid platform, please share - post it here - I'm excited to see it since we can't find such a thing on Thai news for some bizarre reasons!!
First of all, too radical in policy decision making can lead to harmful result in the long run (and even short run). Look at the 30 Baht health plan that Thaksin created for example. If you want the core results go to TDRI or listen to Dr. Ammar Siamwala discussion couple of weeks ago. The result of 30 baht health plan is not that everyone get fair and quality treatment. On contrary, hospitals instead deny poor patients, provide low quality treatment, and doctors leave the public health sector to go start private clinic which could charge more but faster. But of course only the rich benefit from this.
Second of all, privatization is good but the reason the opposition party was against it because Thaksin privatization was not to create market efficiency but only to create easier money passage to Shinawatra. If you follow the news, Shinawat was willing to sell off his AIS telecom to some Finland co. or sth (same as DTAC) coz he rather want to play in the fiber optic internet provder, linking with the TTT pubic phone co. and EGAT (my info on this could be off but it's somewhere along this line)
But yeah democrat is like a slow turtle, and not so decisive. That is its bad part. although getting things in CEO style like what Thaksin is doing doesn't mean it's always good for the country.
Maybe that's why the opponent decide to boycott the election. No one will vote for them (except me) :P
30 baht health plan does truly have many flaws and has created some turmoil within the health sector. But for the poor, being able to access cheap medicines and the poorest quality health services is better than no access at all. Nothing is perfect and yes it can be done better but would a govt without Thaksin do it and not being corrupted? I don't think so. That's just another way to look at it though.
More transparency and reforms, umm good ideas and Thailand is so ready for it but would it happen at any point soon? :) We will see. It's getting interesting though. Thai ppl are smart, I'll keep my fingers crossed for mass power.
And yeah, Thaksin's (megamillion) projects all have some kinda links back to his Shin Corp. and they may not benefit the country all that much but they have their (minor) upsides too, no? For instance, super-low interest loans for low-income give these ppl opportunities to start their little businesses, which are far better than ridiculously-high-interest private options available to them.
Every story has its pluses and minuses, depending on which side you give more value towards. It's easier to see the bads though cos ppl talk about it more so it always looks like the bads outweigh the goods.
But if the disadvantages are being focused and criticised without any suggestions or better options, personally I think the complaints are useless.
p.s. Corruption sucks but it would be worse if a corrupted govt got nothing done.
Oh I totally agree with you. Any nonThaksin gov't would not promote an unrealistic health plan like that just to campaign and try to win rural votes. I mean it's good to start health plan for the poor, but it should be on a more credential term. (30 baht is less than a dollar and the government guarantee it can cure from getting a bypass to curing a cold). Thaksin on the other hand should start a medicare reform, some sort of health fund, social security, health insurance for the poor instead of inventing some policy with no government budget to back up.
And why couldn't we have more transparancy!! We should be more optimistic about our country and our social ethics!! It's not hard to set up independent committee to check the power of the executives. Look at how much Thai citizens have been aware of hidden commission, tax avoiding, under the table money etc. these days. I have much confident in my country that we could create some sort of check and balance system, even if the government couldn't form one. :)
Financial institutions set up low interest loan to the poor.Interest rates are determined by the supply and demand of money and certain policy set up by the gov't to help the low income. But it surely has nothing to do with the prosperity of Shin corp. profit. If that has to be the case, then might as well rename Thailand to Thaksin.
But you're right every views have good and bad sides. I just like to be on the negative thought when it comes to this PM. Though I must say there must be something good about him. Why else would he win the majority vote?
And this last comment is to explicitly point out that I did not criticize Thaksin without any solutions or suggestions. In fact quite a few experts/ acadamia inst. advice Thaksin similar to what I mentioned. But sadly Thaksin thought no one knows how to manage his country better than him.
Last comment I swear, Pang..sorry!! And I answer Lugano second comment on Doodle->Thai Demo-> comment section.
just a quick point on transparency independent committee... it's a great idea but as you know our country as much as everyone else: govt ppl will just make their ways into the committee any way so the perfect checks & balances system is still a farfetched dream in our society, in my opinion.
Okay, so I didn't read all the comments so maybe I'm missing something. But I did notice Lugano's comment about democracy. Does Thailand have a little "d" democracy or a republic? Am I too late to join this conversation? I'll send an email.
Post a Comment
<< Home