Bangkok Post: Opinion

 by Veera Prateepchaikul

I really don’t know I should cry, laugh or just join the mai pen rai (it does not m atter) bandwagon about this latest Abac Poll about Thai people's perception towards the scourge of corruption.

The opinion survey which was conducted on 1,228 household respondents in 17 provinces across the country shows that 84.5 percent of them accept corruption as a normal practice in business and 51.2 percent of them admit they don't mind if a government is corrupt so long as it manages to bring about prosperity to the country and to improve the livelihood of the people.  Amazing? 

Here is some information about the respondents.  31.6 percent of them are in the farming sector, 27 of them entrepreneurs, 15.2 percent of them employees and 11.5 percent government officials.  Of these, 75 of them have under-graduate level of education.

Although it is a common knowledge here that corruption is deeply-rooted and widely practised especially in government bureaucracy to the extent it has been accepted as a  ``way of life'', the findings are troubling, shocking and a big letdown.  One does not need to be an astrologer to make a forecast  about the future of this country if most of its people feel that it is OK to have a corrupt government if it can make them eat and sleep well  and can make the country move forward.

For heaven’s sake!  How can they so naïve that they believe that they can have a corrupt government and still they can live happily and the country will prosper all at the same time?  Something must have gone terrily wrong with their mindset.  Or something may have gone wrong with the educational system that they have gone through.

I don’t know whether they have ever through recent history and found a country where there was a corrupt government that made its people happy and brought about prosperity and development to the country.  I bet they could never find one.  The closest example is perhaps Thailand under the Thaksin regime which was alleged to be corruption-prone but managed to win the hearts of the grassroot people with its populist policies and generous handouts.  But did the regime really bring about prosperity to the country and improved livelihood to the people?

Many grassroot people might have been duped or corrupted by the populist policies and generous handouts to the extent that they were led to believe that those represented prosperity and better livelihood.  Apparently overlooked or blinded were the hefty amount of taxpayers’ money which were siphoned away into the private coffers of the corrupt politicians which should otherwise have been spent for the good of the country and the people.  Those handouts were just the leftovers used to buy the loyalty of the impoverished grassroot people.

There is no such thing in the world as a corrupt government and prosperity for the country and happiness for the people at the same time.  Examples abound of corrupt government leaders in Third World countries who plundered their own countries to enrich themselves, leaving their peoples in abject poverty and untold sufferings.  Many of these governments ended up being overthrown by the people or by a coup and their leaders either killed or forced to seek refuge abroad.

If anything, the Abac Poll findings serve a valuable warning that our perception about corruption needs to be fixed or reversed and that our faulty educational system needs to be closely examined to make sure that it serves to EDUCATE the people at least to enable them to differentiate between right and wrong, good and bad.  Otherwise, I don’t see much future for this country.
 

BangkokPost.com

by Veera Prateepchaikul

Recent report about the Gulf Cooperation Council showing keen interest to invest in farming and livestock in Thailand has brought to mind the alleged “neo colonial” land grab by rich governments and multinational corporations for arable land in Africa in order to ensure their food and energy security.

(The Gulf Cooperation Council comprises Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.)

In Africa alone, it was reported that an estimated 15-20 million hectares are up for grabs across the continent – an area equivalent to the total amount of land currently under cultivation in the whole of Germany.  South Korea’s business juggernault, Daewoo Logistics, for instance, has concluded a deal to lease one million hectares of land in Madagascar.  The aim is to produce five million tonnes of corn by 2023 and palm oil from a further 120,000 hectares in the country to ensure food security.

Although higher food production is needed across Africa and foreign investments will help in increasing productivity, critics doubt that the real beneficiaries will be the Africans many of whom will remain impoverished and continue to go hungry.  Local farmers and communities will lose control over their ability to supply their own sustenance and wealth once the land ownership is handed over to the foreign investors.  The result is often an increase in unrest, poverty and protest across the continent.

In Kenya, for instance, an estimated 150,000 families in pastorialist communitie would have to be displaced if a land deal was concluded with Qatar.  In Madagascar, the government was recently overthrown partially due to land deals with Daewoo Logistics.

As far as Thailand is concerned, the question is whether the country needs foreign investments in farming and livestock industry to the point that large swathes of land are to be leased out to the foreign investors?  Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva appears to have the answer to this question.  He recently said that Thailand welcomes foreign investments in farming and livestock that would introduce new technology which will help increase productivity.  But he made clear that foreign investors would not be allowed to lease land or own land to implement such projects.

As a matter of fact, the Foreign Business Act bans foreigners which include companies with more than 50 percent foreign holdings from engaging in rice farming.  So rice farming venture by foreign investors whether they are from the Gulf states or elsewhere is out of the question.

To be honest, the Gulf Cooperation Council should be commended for their foresight to ensure their own food security for the future.  The failed crops in several food-producing countries a few years back which resulted to sharp rises in grain prices may have tempted the Gulf states to look for land in such rice-producing country like Thailand to ensure their own supply of rice on a long-term basis.

But instead of rejecting outright the Gulf states’ investment proposal, why don’t we seize the opportunity to bargain for a quid pro quo arrangement to ensure our own energy security since we import huge amounts of oil each year for domestic consumption.  How about a food for oil deal on fair terms for the benefits of both parties?

There is no doubt that Thailand needs foreign investments especially at this juncture of global economic recession.  But we don’t want to follow in the same footstep of many countries in Africa or some of our neighbours whose governments willingly open up their farmland to foreign investors with little regard to the local farmers and native pastoralists who are increasingly being pushed aside to make room for the large agri-industrial estates.
 

BangkokPost.com

by Veera Prateepchaikul

At first I thought the peace campaign appealing for a halt to violence and harmful acts against Thailand launched on May 4 by the Thai Journalists Association in association with academics and civic groups would be rejected outright by the red-shirt people.  I was completely wrong.

Aside from the criticism made against the campaign by Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship who questioned why the campaign was launched now and not then when the yellow-shirt protesters seized the Government House and the Suvarnabhumi airport to force the resignation of Samak and Somchai governments, the harhest criticism against this well-intent campaign, to my surprise, came from the yellow-shirt camp.

Several articles against the campaign have appeared in the Manager newspaper and website.  A common tone of the articles is that the campaigners have no gut for failing to even fingerpoint the culprits responsible for violence and for hurting the country but, instead, have chosen to call for all parties concerned, including the yellow shirts, to stop the violence and to stop hurting the country – an allegation totally unacceptable to the writers whom I believe may belong to the extreme yellow-shirt camp.  The writers contended that the seizure of the government seat of power and the airport were morally justified and their prolonged protest was legitimate unlike the red-shirt protests to oust the Abhisit government.  Also, the writers suggested that the campaign leaders might harbour hidden political agendas.  I hope this radical view is not shared by most of the yellow-shirt people who, I believe, want to see a stop to violence and restoration of peace in the country.

First of all, the fingerpointing argument which I would like to point out.  Under the present circumstances when people are distinctly divided into two camps characterized by the colours of red and yellow who are so hostile against each other,  I wonder whether it makes any sense at all to brand them as culprits if you want to ask them to do something such as to stop violence.  The immediate reaction is likely to be “F…. off” from the people of both sides, even those who consider themselves moderates.  Without fingerpointing, perhaps, the appeal will fall on the receptive ears of most of the people if not the radicals of both camps. 

The sensible approach is not to offend the two opposing sides when you make the appeal to stop the violence.  Unless if you think you have the power or the influence to force them to stop.   Which the peace campaigners feel and believe they don’t have and thus chose to be diplomatic and sensible.  Suspicion that they may harbour hidden political agendas is just a pure fantasy.

Both the yellow- and red-shirt people have a tainted hand although the yellow shirts may feel that they have higher moral ground and that their crusade to get rid of a corrupt regime like the Thaksin regime or his proxy administrations was morally justified.  The seizure of the Suvarnabhumi airport by yellow-shirt protesters was as bad and damaging to the country as the storming of the Asean summit venue in Pattaya and the Songkran riots in Bangkok by the red-shirt protesters.  Both incidents by the two rival groups were totally unjustified, illegal and should be condemned.

The peace campaigners saw no point of fingerpointing as it would not help in their appeal for a halt to violence and acts deemed harmful to the country.  Also,  fingerpointing may further incense the two rival groups. 

The radicals of both the red and yellow camps may never change their viewpoints.  But what matters most to the peace campaigners appear to be the moderates among the two camps and the non-partisan members of the public or the silient majority.  They are the people targeted by the campaign with the hope that they will wake up from complacency and deliver a unified and foreceful voice:  “Enough is enough; stop the violence and all harmful acts to the country” to the two opposing protagonists in this prolonged destructive political conflict.

It is OK if the peace campaign is not welcome by those who share a different opinion.  But the people instrumental behind the campaign are definitely not people seeking self-glorification or who may harbour hidden political agendas. 

BangkokPost.com
Veera Prateepchaikul

Adolf Hitler once said: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it." And Franklin P Adams, the well-known American journalist and radio personality: "The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all the time."

These two famous quotes pertaining to lies were deliberately selected to describe the conduct of our legislators, particularly the opposition Puea Thai MPs, during the joint parliamentary session in parliament last Wednesday and Thursday which was originally intended to be a brainstorming forum to search for solutions to the country's protracted political crisis.

Instead of a constructive discussion in a civilised manner, the entire event was turned into a circus with one after another Puea Thai MP piling scorn and accusations on the Abhisit government and the military for their alleged brutal handling of the red shirt protesters during the Songkran riots in Bangkok with the support of questionable video clips, unsubstantiated evidence, hearsay, wild imagination or pure fantasy.

Piecing together the essence of the Puea Thai MPs' vicious barbs during the debate, one could draw a picture of the riot and the government's response to it as seen from the Puea Thai's distorted perspective, apparently intended to mislead the gullible.

The key message to the public from the Puea Thai party is that what the public saw from the television or the actual riot in action with their own eyes might be just an illusion; the black colour they saw might actually be white and vice versa.

Here is the Puea Thai's summarised version of the red shirt protest, the riots and the crackdown by the military.

- The red shirt protest was peaceful, non-provocative and none of them were armed. The red shirt protesters who were seen making Molotov cocktails right at the protest site or who were seen lobbing petrol bombs on advancing troops were mere fake protesters probably on somebody's payroll to discredit the red shirts.  The protesters were as clean as a sheet of linen.

- Red shirt protesters did not storm the venue of the Asean plus 3 and Asean plus 6 summits at the Royal Cliff Beach Resort. In fact, they were allowed onto the premises by police and soldiers. Also, they were not responsible for the cancellation of the summits. On the contrary, it was Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva who chickened out and cancelled the summits.

- The red shirt protesters did not intimidate or attempted to take the life of  Mr Abhisit when he went to the Interior Ministry to declare the state of emergency for Bangkok and neighbouring provinces. Instead they were there to rescue him from a mob masquerading as red shirt protesters.  What you saw on the television screen a frenzied mob smashing Mr Abhisit’s car with chairs, bricks, plant pots and iron pipes had nothing to do with the red shirts. 

- Red shirt protesters were totally in the dark about all the gas tankers hauled to Din Daeng and other spots nearby to block the advance of the soldiers.  The tankers were parked there by elements probably linked with Newin Chidchob.

- Soldiers used live bullets to fire on unarmed protesters, several of whom were believed to have been killed and their bodies hauled away in army trucks to be destroyed at some unknown locations to cover up the crime. 

- The burning of hijacked buses, the vandalising of a mosque in a Muslim community on Petchaburi Road and the shootings which were widely thought to be perpetrated by red shirt protesters were in fact staged by third-hand elements in the guise of red shirt protesters. Anyone could don a red shirt and be seen as one of them, so said a Puea Thai MP.  Also, the red shirts were not involved in the fatal shooting of two Nang Lerng residents. 

- And last but not least, Prime Minister Abhisit was solely to blame for causing the worst political divide ever seen and for causing incalculable damage to the country's economy for imposing the state of emergency without any justification.  You are all wrong to put the blame on Thaksin Shinawatra.

Having initially heard some of these absurdities, I simply could not believe my ears that they actually came from our grown up and well-educated MPs. After all, my hearing is all right and also I was not in the field among sheep.  Then someone reminded me of the above two famous quotes which helped enlighten me about the Puea Thai’s whole circus in the parliament.  Of course, there might be people out there who are gullible enough to fall victim to this shameless hate campaign.

It was indeed an achievement by the Puea Thai party if that actually qualified as an achievement and if its real agenda was to add fuel to fire to stir up hatred of the government and the military and to further deepen the ever-widening political and social divide in this country.

In contrast to the Puea Thai MPs’ shameless performance in the parliament, Prime Minister Abhisit has demonstrated his political maturity and composure and leadership.  Despite the apparent hate message, he decided to lift the state of emergency and to set up an independent and impartial panel to look into the Songkran riot and the handling of the riot by security forces.

by Veera Prateepchaikul

Once describing himself as a “tamed dog”, it appears that convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has now irreversibly turned a full-time “vicious and mad dog” biting at the hands which once fed him and barking at everyone even at his own shadow.

Completely devoid of any sense of guilt, shame, decency and self-respect, Thaksin still has the temerity to call for His Majesty the King’s intervention to end the political crisis despite the open fact that he played a crucial role in inciting his red-shirt protesters to rise up against the Abhisit government through his almost nightly phone-ins and video linkups with the protesters.

In his interview the France-24 television on Wednesday from Dubai which Thaksin has been using as his overseas home base, the fugitive ex-premier said he had urged His Majesty to intervene and that the King should work to reconcile the factions in Thailand.  To quote Mr Thaksin’s statement:  “He (the King) is the only person that can intervene otherwise the violence will become wider and also the confrontation would be more and more.”

Mr Thaksin’s appeal for the King’s intervention smacks of hypocrisy and is also highly improper.  Firstly, the crisis situation in Bangkok was over after the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship decided to end the protest and to allow the protesters to return home even though the problem of political divide which appears to have worsened remains to be resolved.  As such, there is no need for the King to step in.  Secondly, Mr Thaksin himself had the capability to end the violence perpetrated by his loyal supporters by simply telling them to stop and they would undoubtedly heed his words since he himself was largely responsible for their protest.  But instead, he chose to let his red-shirt protesters to go on the rampage by holding the city hostage, hijacking and torching public buses, blocking and paralyzing road traffic, terrorizing innocent people with their terrorist tactic and forcibly breaking up the Asean summits in Pattaya.  But when the situation turned against the protesters in a way which would render the protest futile, the ex-premier abruptly changed tact and sued for peace by seeking the intervention of His Majesty the King.

Mr Thaksin might have lost memory of what he had said to his red-shirt crowd in his many phone-ins during the height of the protest in front of the Government House.  Or he simply didn’t care any more of what he said as they no longer had any credibility.  For a reminder, here is an interesting statement from his own mouth.  He said he would return to lead the protest in a “long march” (obviously copying from the late Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung’s long march) if the army fired the first shot at the protesters.  But in an interview with the western media after the protest ended, he said he didn’t want to return home because he was quite happy with life abroad.

While Mr Thaksin urged on his red-shirt supporters to bring their children to join the protest for “real” democracy which was, in fact, a cover for his own good, he and his whole family, including his divorced wife, Khunying Pojaman, were having a good time shopping in Dubai.  So much so for a protest leader who boasted to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with his red-shirt rank-and file in Bangkok.