Wednesday 10 April 2013

Is Readiness Our Problem, or Lack of Ambition?


Titipol Phakdeewanich 

People walk under train tracks in Bangkok

Political gamesmanship relating to the Bt2-trillion infrastructure loan bill is now playing itself out through parliamentary debates, as well as through the mainstream media and social media. Although both the Pheu Thai Party and the Democrat Party claim in principle to be in favour of the proposed infrastructural development project, the counter-arguments to the bill have primarily focused on both the means of funding and the seemingly inevitable and ever-present factor of corruption.


According to an official statement by the government led by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, this project will "make Thailand a strategic hub connecting Asean and its 600 million citizens under the conceptual framework of 'connectivity'". This argument appears to synchronise with findings from a joint study conducted by the Asian Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank Institute in 2009, entitled "Infrastructure for a Seamless Asia". This stated: "Building roads, railways … across the region should be a priority for the region's policymakers. In these uncertain times, Asia must not pause or turn back.… Such integration will help boost economic growth and disperse its benefits more widely." 

In the broader context therefore, we can perhaps see why Thai policymakers would not want to appear to be resisting Southeast Asian regional integration at a time when we are talking about the build up to the Asean Economic Community in 2015. Nevertheless, we should not be dissuaded from asking legitimate and pertinent questions when the country is committing itself to its greatest ever borrowing requirement, when corruption remains so pervasive, and when unprecedented levels of inter-generational indebtedness are being advocated, in order to support such an ambitious project. 

When considering the approaches taken in arguing their respective cases, we can observe that the stakes are obviously high for both Pheu Thai and the Democrats, whilst also recognising how critical the implications are for the country. The way this scenario plays out therefore, will be a significant learning process for Thailand.

If we also look back to consider the development of Suvarnabhumi Airport as a case study on infrastructural development at the nexus point of politics and corruption, this may well indicate something about the way in which politicians are approaching the Bt2-trillion loan bill today. In relation to both scenarios, the Pheu Thai coalition has been bold in acting as the driving force behind these large-scale projects, with the Democrats taking the more circumspect position.

Now we can begin to see the current scenario in the context of the apparent success of the airport project, which has nevertheless succeeded quite well, despite the questions asked relating to corruption. On their part, the Democrats are presumed to be concerned about being outmanoeuvred over the proposed infrastructural projects, and paradoxically this may indeed indicate their belief in their ultimate potential.

It is evident that the public overwhelmingly considers politicians of all persuasions to be corrupt and to be compromised by conflicts of interest, regardless of whoever leads the government. Accordingly, many Thais now argue that corruption is okay if it generates economic growth. Although this "pro-growth corruption" mindset is understandable in attempting to be realistic about the ongoing state of the Thai political system, unless we tangibly act to mitigate the problem, such a mindset may actually help to both support and perpetuate this very same problem. 

The Democrats have indicated the possibility of challenging a parliamentary bill in the Constitutional Court, if the financing relating to such a bill was unacceptable to them. In addition, a number of the drafters of the 2007 Constitution have now submitted their request that the National Counter Corruption Commission investigate whether the Bt2 trillion loan bill is constitutional. 

The fact that Thailand is as corrupt as it is today - Transparency International's 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked Thailand 88th out of 176 countries and territories - indicates that regardless of the potential opportunities provided by such infrastructure projects, there is the very real possibility that they may not ultimately deliver on promise. Therefore, although its advocates assert that the projects should be a net benefit for Thailand and will make a return on investment over the next fifty years, should this not ultimately be the case, then such words will count for little in assuaging the anger of future generations. 

But if we can recognise we are now engaging with that age-old question of ambition versus readiness, then we can also recognise that Thailand has perhaps reached a certain level of maturity within its emerging democracy. This important question should not dissuade the country from attempting to make real progress by forging ahead with viable and well-thought-out strategies towards societal advancement. 

We can look to our neighbour Laos and the progress it has already made in committing to the Laos-China high-speed railway project, costing US$7 billion. Accordingly, many Thais have asked the question as to why Thailand has not made such progress. 

At the same time, we should also consider the historical example of the UK, which pioneered the development of railways during the Industrial Revolution. At that time, Britain seemingly had no lack of ambition, but sceptics still quibbled as to whether that country was ready for such a ground-breaking undertaking. 

Today, however, Britain is more advanced yet less sure of itself as a nation, and lacks something of that Victorian spirit. Nevertheless, its policymakers continue to understand the importance of investing in Britain's future. Despite the current uncertain economic climate in the UK, in his Autumn Statement in 2012, George Osborne, the UK chancellor of the exchequer, stated, "All the money saved in the first two years will be re-invested as part of a 5 billion-pound capital investment in the infrastructure of our country. It is exactly what a government equipping Britain to compete in the modern global economy should be doing." 

For this political generation in Thailand, one of the key challenges to overcome is the temptation to resort to political gamesmanship as a way of distracting from an often serious lack of genuine resolve to bring about tangible, bona fide progress. As John Locke, the British political philosopher of the 17th century, once stated: "If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unperformed." 

Thailand must seriously consider its ability to compete in the global economy, and in doing so, its capacity to connect with the rest of the world. When we contemplate Thailand's future, and the progress that can be achieved through large-scale projects, we should realise that political expediency must not overshadow national dialogue, for it is the quality of debate on all levels that will tell us the most about Thailand's readiness and ambition. 

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.