Thaksin vision simply medieval

[think_too_mut]

Thaksin vision simply medieval, says book

 

By Connie Levett, Herald Correspondent in Bangkok

August 6, 2004

 

Thailand's Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, has rolled back a quarter century of democratic development and wants to transform the country into another "illiberal one-party state", the authors of the first English-language book on the controversial leader say.

 

Mr Thaksin, who Forbes magazine estimates is worth $US1.4 billion ($2 billion), is on the record as saying: "As a prime minister you must be rich and don't stop becoming richer ... the rich should not be envied."

 

Chris Baker, a historian, who wrote Thaksin: the business of politics in Thailand with Pasuk Phonpaichit, professor of economics at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, said the Thai middle class was becoming disillusioned because Thaksin and "his cronies" were "taking too much ... too many things are becoming too obvious".

 

Professor Pasuk compared the growing power of a few individuals in Thailand with the oligarchies that run the Philippines. "People in the oligarchies do well but outside that people are not doing well at all."

 

The book, which was previewed on the front page of the English-language newspaper The Nation, explores the conflicts of interest that occur when a prime minister is also the country's wealthiest citizen.

 

The authors point out that since Mr Thaksin became prime minister the market capitalisation of the Shinawatra family's three main Shin-listed companies has increased 2.5 times in a flat market.

 

While Professor Pasuk said Mr Thaksin had introduced economic policy innovations, the authors claim he "has rolled back a quarter century of democratic development and hopes to transform Thailand from a beacon of democracy in South-East Asia into another illiberal one-party state".

 

The criticism comes as Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, set up under the 1997 people's constitution, issued its first report on Wednesday, accusing the Government of gross human rights violations.

 

"Thailand is worryingly regressing towards a culture of authoritarianism instead of progressing to a culture of human rights," the report said.

 

The book touches on this issue, saying "Thaksin's economic vision may be fixed on the future and the first world, but his social vision is medieval".

[Guest]

 

I have been living here running a business now for 3 years. Thaksin is running this country into the ground. Talking to some of my other business associates who have been here longer than me. They feel the bubble is going to burst soon and it will be worse than 1997, all because Thaksin....

[Guest]

I just bought the book, and started reading it. It is very good. Should be mandatory reading for any Farang that wants to move here.

 

Maybe Chris and Khun Pasuk address this later in the book (I am in the middle of the second chapter about Thaksin's family background (the stories about him coming from an impoverished background are fiction)), but what I find really fascinating is the Thai attitude about conflicts of interest. I see the Thaksin story as largely a universal cautionary tale about the inherent dangers of conflicts of interest.

 

But here in Thailand there is such a blase attitude about conflicts of interest, even after the 97 crash. I have been here for ten years, work in a bank now, and the attitude of most of my educated Thai colleagues on this issue just amazes me. The attitude essentially is this: "there is nothing wrong with a conflict of interest provided the person with the conflict of interest doesn't do anything wrong." Huh??

 

Isn't the point to make sure you don't have the fox guarding the henhouse in the first place? For some reason - and I will admit that after 10 years I still can't figure out why - that point just doesn't seem to register here. My argument that a fox is a fox and you should not be surprised when a fox does what a fox does best is met with: "How do you know? Maybe the fox has a good heart (jai dee mak)"

[bibblies]

You haven't tried the classic frog and the scorpion story on your colleagues yet, have you?

 

One day a scorpion was walking along the riverbank trying to find a way to get across the river when he came across a frog sitting alongside the riverbank.  The scorpion asked the frog if he would take him across the river by giving him a ride on his back.  The frog replied, "No, I'm not giving you a ride because, Mr. Scorpion, if I were to give you a ride on my back we would only get half the way across and you would sting me and then I would drown." 

 

"But Mr. Frog," said the scorpion, "if I stung you then you would drown and if you drown then I would drown also."  The frog thought for a minute before saying, "I guess you're right. I will give you a ride."  So the scorpion jumped on the frog's back and they started to cross the river.  Halfway across the river the scorpion just drills the frog with his stinger. The frog immediately starts to panic as he feels the venom race through his veins and he begins to become paralyzed.  Just as he is taking his last breath and about to go down, the frog looks at the scorpion and asks "but why?"  The scorpion replies, "because it's in my nature..."

 

Or would they just like the story and go on missing the point?

[Guest]

Have not yet tried the frog and the scorpion story, but I strongly suspect that the few who saw where I was going with the story, would ask: "but what if the scorpion had a good heart?"

 

There is GTG I kind of date here (I use the word "kind of" because I kind of want to keep it platonic knowing what she would probably expect if it was otherwise), and we met for a late lunch date today. Because she is always late, I brought my book along for the inevitable 30-45 minute wait. She doesn't really care for Thaksin - that sentiment is becoming much more common among middle class Thais in Bangkok - but she was even more annoyed that someone, a Thai in fact, had written a book in English critical of the PM: makes the country look bad to foreignors. And it was seriously rude of me read the book at a public place like the Emporium Starbucks. She emphasized that I am "just a guest" here, and she seriously suggested that if I should have placed brown paper wrapper over the the book cover to avoid offending anyone who saw me reading the book.

 

One of the things I had admired about her was her independent streak.

[bibblies]

If Thaksin had a good heart, why does he insist on accumulating money for his family and keeping it while giving away the poor public's money? E.g. The Liverpool F.C farce?

Do you ever try to argue the toss with these people?

 

A few weeks ago I re-met a former gogo show-dancer who'd been abroad in Korea for a couple of years. I'd regarded her as independent - she'd been very young and wild when she started out, shaved and pierced everywhere, a yaa baa user but this time she was a Thaksin freak. E.g. Apparently now she was glad that he'd meddled in non-nude dancing because Thais "traditionally" didn't go topless. (Er, tell that to historians...) She showed a few pictures of friends seeming to be from a yaa-baa rehabilitation camp - I wonder what they're preaching there...

 

[Guest]

Is Pasuk the same person who wrote Guns, Ganja, Gamblings and Girls or a very close 4 G title, about the illegal economy in thailand? Very interesting stuff. Not sure how deep into the ground is Thaksin driving the country, there was a rather positive article in The Economist or Newsweek abt him and Thailand a couple of months ago, but since the mess with the 2 two foreign journalists threatened of deportation, it's dificult to judge how balanced are the writers' opinions

[soongmak]

Yep, the same.

[Guest]

Why do so many Thais reject any critism of Thailand no matter how constructive it is? I being a Brit can accept the good and bad of my home country and wouldnt really care if someone wrote a book about it. I can of course choose to read it or not. Personally, if someone told me that I should cover a book up I would put them straight.

Why

 

I think its a result of just willful ignorance combined with the mai pen rai attitude and years of social conditioning that produces a people that are so defensive about their country despite having clear evidence to the contary. Having talked to many Thais in Bangkok I have only met one person who supported Thaksin, everyone else said they didnt approve.

 

So if this is the case then who votes for him? Maybe, its the Issan folk.?

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

"Why do so many Thais reject any critism of Thailand no matter how constructive it is?"

They don't reject criticism perse, just from non-Thais, sometimes even to the point of getting pissed off that a non-Thai has the balls to say anything negative out Thailand. Bloody pathetic if you ask me.

 

Sanuk!