Asia Times: LAND OF SMILES: Half full, or half empty?



	March 8, 2000	atimes.com

Southeast Asia

LAND OF SMILES: Half full, or half empty?
By Bradley Martin

The Thai press has rated as a success Saturday's first-ever election for the Senate under the country's new constitution.

Voter turnout was extremely high. Quite a few candidates with sterling reputations for integrity and selflessness were elected. That was as intended. After all, the Senate - a body formerly known as a forum for the views of appointed representatives of the establishment - has a new role. It is supposed to provide a popular check on the professional party politicians who run the House of Representatives.

"Despite reports of rampant vote-buying," Bangkok Post editor Pichai Chuensuksawadi opined, Thai voters "sent a clear message: they wanted those involved in social development or those with extensive track records with grassroots organizations to speak on their behalf".

Pichai had a point. Estimable people such as he described were indeed among the top vote-getters in Bangkok, and several won upcountry as well. But as his initial qualifier about rampant vote-buying made clear, there were some things that the pundits had to overlook or minimize in order to reach their optimistic consensus view that the election showed the country maturing politically.

In Bangkok there was, for example, the little matter of the victory of a man long known to the general public as the godfather of illegal gambling in the Taopoon slum district - referred to euphemistically in the press as an "influential man". Here he was on Saturday and Sunday being interviewed by the national news media as seventh in total votes among 18 newly elected senators from the capital.

What he wanted, he made clear in those interviews, was respect befitting an eminent Solon. After all, hadn't he used some of his loot to build low-rent condos and apartments for poor slumdwellers? "It was really unfair for me because all along I've been marked as an 'influential man' without having a chance to explain myself," the godfather was quoted as complaining.

The media let their "influential man" ramble on. Some questioners politely raised allegations that his organization had bought votes from slum-dwellers. He whacked those softballs with replies that any political pro would have been proud of: "If I was bad, nobody would have voted for me. I am ready to be examined."

None of his questioners asked him: Weren't those your campaign staffers accosting shoppers in the Tops supermarket in the basement of Central Pinklao department store the other day, showing them your campaign photo and offering 2,000 baht per vote? Nor did anyone ask: If you're serious about being a philanthropist and bridging the rich-poor gap, why 2,000 baht - about $50 - for the middle- and upper-class shoppers in Tops when the going rate for a vote in the slums was only a tenth that much?

Some in the media seemed to hope that such a man in office would behave less like a godfather and more like a philanthropist - perhaps even a gentleman and scholar. After all, a bachelor's degree is required of anyone who seeks election to the Senate, and he had taken time out before running for office to win a law degree from Ramkamhaeng University.

But experience with other godfathers earlier elected to the House of Representatives generally does not point to a widespread trend of politician leopards' changing their spots.

As for Ramkamhaeng University, many in Thailand are suspicious that the otherwise respected "open" university has become a little too open to the needs of politicians for academic credentials. That suspicion was aggravated when the university moved recently to enroll professional politicians in degree programs in which they can get academic credit to recognize their "life experience".

Another factor that some of the pundits seemed to be viewing through rose-colored lenses was the high - over 60 percent - turnout. The street version was that people didn't really understand the issues or know much about the candidates - couldn't know much because Senate candidates were forbidden to do any campaigning beyond putting up posters. The reason ordinary people gave for going to vote even if it inconvenienced them seriously was that they had heard the new law threatens non-voters with loss of certain citizen rights.

The Nation editorialized that Thais should be "grateful to the charter drafters who came up with the unique idea to enshrine the right and duty to vote. The restrictions placed on the candidates also helped those who have good track records to win."

But The Nation's editors, like pundits with other news organizations, seemed to be insisting that the people who crowded aboard packed trains to go from Bangkok to their upcountry voting districts Friday night and Saturday morning did it not because they had to - but mainly because they were maturing politically and wanted to see reform. Well, let's hope so. But if it turns out that non-voters in the election just past suffer little in the future for their lapses this time, we'll see how big a turnout there is next time they call an election.

And remember that very large percentages of the people who voted, especially upcountry, had sold their votes. As the Post's Pichai conceded, "Unfortunately the reliance on patronage politics remains entrenched in many provinces of rural Thailand." Some districts chose the well-financed wives of House members including the interior minister. "But this was to be expected," Pichai wrote. "Voting habits cannot change overnight."

Fair enough. OK, let's give the new constitution, the Senate and the voters the benefit of the doubt for the moment and describe the Thai political glass as half full.

(Special to Asia Times Online)

back to the top

©1999 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.