GREAT FLOOD OF 2011: Crisis management versus political expedience

GREAT FLOOD OF 2011

Crisis management versus political expedience

• Published: 9/11/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

In the first few weeks after the Boxing Day tsunami struck Thailand in 2004, a local representative in Phang-nga province described how chaotic things were, in terms of the way in which the government was handling the situation.

It seems these sculpted figures at Wat Wichitraram in Bangkok are trying to keep a stupa safe from encroaching floodwaters.

He was confused about who he should listen to, since he was being ordered by ministers and bureaucrats from the Interior, Science and Technology, and Public Health ministries to focus on different priorities at the same time. This state of affairs was a result of the overall lack of hands-on experience in crisis management within the ministries and the coordination required between them.

He argued that there was no clear line of command, which was desperately needed in managing the crisis. Furthermore, politicians were competing for the public's attention in order to gain political credit for their personal contributions in the handling of the crisis.

Although this is an example of a problem we experienced in 2004, how much have government officials and those now in power learnt since then?

In 2010, a tsunami struck Japan and the Japanese government did whatever it could to mitigate against the inevitable effects of such a natural disaster. Sadly, the same cannot be said of Thailand.

A systematic and long-term approach to flood management is not yet in place, despite the fact that floods are not at all uncommon to Thailand. Much research has been undertaken in relation to handling natural disasters within Thailand following the 2004 tsunami. Theoretically speaking, the country should be much better prepared for natural disasters of this scale. It is thus most regrettable that, in practice, the effects being felt right now from the current flooding apparently contradict this.

What went wrong? When will the water come? When will it go? How should we prepare? Such questions are being asked in day-to-day conversation and in Thai cyberspace. Thailand has been suffering from floods for almost three months now, and the level of severity has escalated to the point where floodwaters are now reaching well into the central part of Bangkok.

Although Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has attempted to protect the capital, the city's defences have been breached. The cause of a great deal of frustration for many, and perhaps most especially those in Bangkok, is the conflicting and unreliable information released by different government agencies. Although this is not a new problem in Thai bureaucracy, people perceive this acutely because it directly impacts on the flood situation. In addition to this level of confusion is another contributing factor, which is the "deluge" of information flowing throughout the Thai cyberspace, especially via Facebook and Twitter.

In addition to being particularly occupied by the flooding crisis in Thailand, many Thais are becoming increasingly worried about the likely implications of the ongoing "colour-coded politics" in relation to the handling of the crisis.

Currently, the yellow shirts are being unusually quiet within the realm of the Thai political arena, and yet the flood crisis has not acted as a unifying factor with regard to the political climate overall. There has as yet been no sign of any accord to temporarily halt the politicking in the national interest. Indeed, the crisis has acted as a catalyst for an even greater division in perceptions between the red shirts and the rest.

In the context of the overall political paradigm, it is not unexpected that Ms Yingluck is experiencing such strong criticism, which relates to the competence of her government in flood management, and significantly undermines her credibility and ability to govern.

In addition, a significant section of the Thai cyberspace intends to bring Ms Yingluck down by attacking her on the personal level because she is a sister of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Yet, if we are to judge her capacity and quality of leadership objectively _ as we must if we are to prioritise the reality on the ground and the matter at hand _ then should we not leave those factors that politicise and polarise us aside for now, however temporarily?

How can we ever focus on the actual problem of the crisis today, when there is so much focus on the perceived problem of Thaksin throughout Thai cyberspace: on Facebook, Twitter and other social media?

Political attacks that focus on personality rather than the substance of an argument inevitably lead Thailand nowhere other than in the direction where divisions within society are deepened.

On the ground within the flood-affected areas, Thais can observe moving scenes of people helping each other, regardless of red/yellow political affiliation. A picture of Abhisit Vejjajiva with a red shirt supporter sends out a good signal, and gives hope for unity and reconciliation.

But in the more abstract world of cyberspace it is somewhat different, and the battle between the red shirts and the rest has only heated up. Both sides are trying to do whatever they can to destroy the credibility of their perceived arch-enemies. The battle against the elements to impede the floodwaters on land, has spilled over into the political battlefield in cyberspace. This is worrisome for the progress of Thai democracy, and a growing number of Facebook and Twitter users are now posting along the lines that "it's time to think before you post", since even those strongly identified as red or yellow can see when the political play-out in cyberspace is distracting enough to adversely impact on the flooding situation.

Whilst it is true that Ms Yingluck as prime minister has ultimate responsibility for the management of the current flood crisis, in the midst of a crisis we have to focus on where the express responsibility for "water management" is. This then brings us immediately to the problem of inter-ministry coordination, which is an ongoing and, at least in principle, apolitical challenge, over which all sides ought to be able to cooperate.

Although we have a number of existing agencies involved in taking responsibility for this crisis _ the Royal Irrigation Department, the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, and the Meteorological Department _ the current government initiated the Flood Relief Operations Command (Froc) in September. By implication this reveals a long-term failure in the functioning of governments and the bureaucracy, and the Froc was a reaction to the current flood crisis. Pro-active measures, which would have implied that there had been sufficiently constructive forethought involved, should have been in place long before any suggestion of an impending flood scenario.

It is sad for any country that a prime minister should be begging for unity and reconciliation at a time of national crisis. As a nation, we have observed both Ms Yingluck and Mr Abhisit working tirelessly day and night in attempting to alleviate the crisis. And so it is going too far when cynics appear so certain that politicians are simply focused on mobilising political popularity and gaining a media platform, to the exclusion of all else.

In looking towards the future, it becomes the responsibility of the citizenry to reasonably and objectively observe the actions and statements of all involved actors, in order to hold the elected representatives to account. As citizens of Thailand, we all have a duty to insist that, as a nation, we learn from our previous collective mistakes in order to create a brighter future for us all. We all have a responsibility to ask ourselves if we have the intention of positively contributing towards finding solutions, or if our opinions and actions are simply intended to destroy reputations and bring down governments. This is our choice.

---

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

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/265369/crisis-management-versus-political-expedience

As citizens, what's in store for children?

• Published: 13/09/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

In a representative democracy, the voices of the citizens are central. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra repeatedly emphasises that she will listen to and consult with all stakeholders, before making important decisions relating to government policies. So in this regard: who are then, the stakeholders?

Today a PC tablet, tomorrow the world. A citizen waits for the government to do as promised.

Of course, we all are stakeholders. And yet, we are living in a society where the educated, urban middle class routinely disparages the viewpoints of the rural poor, and where parents generally (and perhaps more understandably) make decisions which may override the creative impulses of their children, generation after generation.

This cultural conditioning must therefore be challenged, in order to promote a more balanced policy-making process, in which all stakeholders have more of a voice.

An actuality of both contemporary and historical politics is that politicians tend to listen most especially to those voices that would vote for them, and then to those with voting rights. Accordingly, those who cannot yet vote (namely, all children), can hardly participate within the political system. Yet this demographic is, historically, amongst the most dynamic in society in promoting change, which is critical to the ongoing process of democratisation. It follows therefore, that the voices and perceptions of the children must also be given proper consideration within the network of the policy-making process.

Accordingly, we must continue to challenge the entrenched hierarchical structure which continues to operate.

Despite there having been a number of debates that have allowed for both pro and con arguments in relation to the new PC tablet being made available to school children en masse, the process thus far has been flawed.

Although Pheu Thai Party and the opposition parties have all been involved, and academics have also been brought into the debate, the government has yet to truly involve all stakeholders in its consideration of a policy declaration.

Neither the government nor the opposition have made sufficient reference to the perceptions of the children themselves and, in addition, how the rural population more generally feels about these computer tablets.

The opinions and perceptions of the rural population towards this policy contradict the way in which they are being stereotyped and generalised by the educated middle classes, who tend to see the rural population in terms of this situation, as being politically unaware and as "victims" of populist policies.

To illustrate this point, there is an example of an unnamed 53-year-old rice farmer, from Khong Chiam district in Ubon Ratchathani province, who'd voted for Yingluck Shinawatra in the election, but who now argues that "the PC tablet is a good idea, but it is unnecessary for us in the rural areas, and we'd be better off if the government paid the costs of our kids' transport so they can go to school".

From this not untypical argument, it follows that the centralisation of the decision-making process in Bangkok has generated a policy that is unlikely to truly benefit people all across the country.

At Ban Donjod in Buntharik district of the same province, Jarurat Pornpin, an 8-year-old girl, states: "I could use a PC tablet to improve my knowledge. I will look after it carefully by keeping it in the wardrobe, so it will last long."

Charnchai Dankhuntod, a 13-year-old boy also from the same village, says: "I can use it to search for information and play computer games."

Oftentimes, academics and journalists can be too presumptuous when it comes to anticipating the capacity children have to be able to think for themselves. This can be a problem here in Thailand, where we would also like the children to be both more aware and more creative in relation to their understanding of their rights. A fuller understanding of the "rights" and "responsibilities" that are for all citizens can be promoted, by providing this opportunity to all.

The education of the younger generations can in this regard be the catalyst for promoting a more progressive, dynamic and integrated society, where empowered citizens can all play their part in a cultural paradigm shift.

The children then can be the key to the unlocking of our society's untapped potential. In the 21st century world, the combination of creativity and technology will likely be the major driving force of change in all sectors, not least in education, in economic growth, and in the emergence of innovative societal dynamics.

The role of government is generally accepted to include the provision of opportunities for outsider groups and for a redistribution of resources, because the market mechanism does not necessarily work to benefit the public at large without the intervention of the state. Access to both information and technology is becoming increasingly important in this century, and the free tablet policy is considered to be a priority in improving the quality of education. Yet, to give only one not untypical example, a 12-year-old boy from Ubon's Det Udom district, who is a student in Matthayom 1 (Grade 7) at Ban Kut Prathai School, still cannot read the word Ratthamnoon, or Constitution.

But this clearly is not the only case to be found within rural areas, which highlights failings in the Thai educational system as it stands today.

With regard to the provision of a good standard of education in Thailand, technology as such is not actually the most significant contributing factor, as it has been found that both the quality and quantity of teachers has been a major problem.

By rushing through the implementation of the tablet policy without having a comprehensive explanation in relation to the content to be provided on them, exposes the government to potential accusations. These could imply that the policy is to be enacted in order to benefit vested interests from within the computing and telecoms industry, rather than being straightforwardly in the interests of the school children themselves.

Margaret Thatcher argued during her time as British prime minister, that "The state could not just ignore what children learned: they were, after all, its future citizens and we had a duty to them."

She emphasised the significance of the educational curriculum and the overall standard of education in the United Kingdom.

The quality and content of the teaching are perhaps what is most important in education, and these could be the factors which Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra should focus on, in order to promote the educational attainment of the rural populations.

Ultimately, broad educational improvements have been shown to benefit a country in the long term, and the responsibility to provide a good education to a country's young citizens can be achieved, not just by focusing on technology.

Yes, we are now in a 21st century world, where technology is more and more becoming a major part of our lives. However, we must not become too distracted when it comes to the essentials of our children's education, which of course still include the core subjects of mathematics, written and spoken language, the sciences and the arts.

This government, as with all governments, has a duty and responsibility towards all the citizens. In relation to the distribution of the computer tablet, many of those from within the rural population remain relatively concerned about the potential for negative impact upon their children.

As Praneet Phungpa, a 43 year-old fisherman, from Khong Chiam district argues: "A simple life is their way of life, but the children might change, and I cannot control the websites they access, since I don't know much about this thing."

Local decision-making is the key factor in the context of this whole paradigm. The party's political slogan _ Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Implements _ implies centralised orders and top-down policy-making, which may raise alarm bells whilst the Pheu Thai Party remains largely unchallenged.

This is happening while major policies are being quickly introduced that side-step a comprehensive consultation period, where the full implications of a policy could be investigated first.

Ms Yingluck should introduce a new framework to ensure due process and public consultation in relation to major government policy initiatives in order to promote open and transparent debate.

---

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

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/256233/as-citizens-what-in-store-for-children

Poll just the beginning in bringing in new politics

ANALYSIS

Poll just the beginning in bringing in new politics

• Published: 12/07/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

'I congratulate Pheu Thai for its chance to lead the next government and wish Yingluck Shinawatra every success as the first female prime minister of Thailand," said Abhisit Vejjajiva, after conceding the election result in which the Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin's proxy party, won by a landslide. Out of this defeat, Mr Abhisit and the Democrat Party can demonstrate statesmanship and dignity in defeat, through the formation of an effective and constructive opposition, which will advance the democratic process.

Pheu Thai’s top party-list candidate Yingluck Shinawatra thanks supporters for the poll victory at the party’s head office. PATTANAPONG HIRUNARD

In pursuing such a path, more will be done to promote representative government and the institutions of democracy than by any other means. This period will pose a great challenge in relation to the progress of Thai democracy as a whole, and this will be a test of all the actors within the political arena; not just for Pheu Thai or for Ms Yingluck. Ongoing political differences, tensions, and factions are a part of the democratic process, and the accommodation of this is something which becomes more accepted as democracy evolves and matures. Accordingly, there can be no democratic society without the differences being given the space in which to be voiced within the debate.

That election results do not please everyone is inevitable, and is intrinsic to the dynamics of democratic systems, out of which there is political, social, and economic progress. Elections are the mechanism for representatives of the people to govern, and election results are not a licence for those elected into power to use that power indiscriminately.

Rather, it is the qualified consent that has been granted within the law for the life of parliament to represent the interests of all the people, whilst delivering on election promises and manifesto commitments; and a government shall be judged on that. If there is a case to be made of abuse of power, it is for the legislature and judiciary to intervene and to balance the power of the executive; with a responsible media and active civil society highlighting problems, in order to more fully hold the government to account.

On June 26, Mr Abhisit campaigned in Ubon Ratchathani urging his supporters that "it's time to get rid of the poison of Thaksin". However, this argument only worked amongst his core constituency, whilst managing to alienate many others. In the interests of the important debate of the substantive issues, which affect the lives of ordinary citizens; to put every effort against Pheu Thai because of its apparent connection to Thaksin is ultimately a distraction that is counterproductive. For example, at the polling station in the district of Khong Chiam, Ubon Ratchathani, Jamnong Jamsri, a 47 year-old rubber plantation farmer, who voted for Pheu Thai, said that he wanted his voice and his vote to be recognised.

In 2008 we observed the dissolution of Thaksin's proxy party, the People Power Party. Then prime ministers Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat, regarded as Thaksin's surrogates, were both removed from office. These actions were taken in the hope of weakening Thaksin's political influence, although this approach seems to have backfired. With Thaksin appearing victimised, he gained more sympathetic support from his political base in the rural parts of the country.

History shows that Thaksin has been an influential political figure since taking office in 2001, and this also suggests that his influence will be a part of the Thai political system for the foreseeable future. Rivals ought perhaps to learn to live with him, rather than making attempt after attempt to exclude him from this system.

In a broad context, current political problems in Thailand cannot be primarily attributed to the influence of Thaksin, as significant political problems predate his time within the existing Thai political system. One of the most entrenched political problems in Thailand is the dysfunctional legal branch and the enforcement of the law, a weakness that compromises many aspects of the political structure. Although the electoral system in many democratic societies cannot ensure elected representatives of integrity, there is not any particular institution or groups outside of the legislature, executive and judiciary, such as the military, that can ultimately promote the progress of the Thai democracy.

Outside authorities can not simply override the electoral process, regardless of particularly "unfavourable" results, or short term problems, as this undermines the long term credibility of the system as a whole. When such a precedent has been set, then this only encourages further undermining of the system. Thailand cannot afford to continue to entertain the possibility of non-democratic interventions occurring, due to ongoing systemic political problems as has happened in the past. After a number of coups against various governments, this approach has not at all demonstrated that it can solve the problem of corruption in Thailand.We should be continually questioning and inquiring into the integrity of the political system and its functioning; and not be questioning and challenging the integrity, motivations, "qualifications" of voters, as and when this approach most suits the short term strategic benefit of those who are dissatisfied by electoral results. This is because it is the system itself which becomes undermined.

---

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

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/246613/poll-just-the-beginning-in-bringing-in-new-politics

Democracy without liberty is illiberal democracy

POLITICS OF RECONCILIATION

Democracy without liberty is illiberal democracy

• Published: 30/06/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

It has been more than one month since the military operation to disperse protesters took place on the streets of Bangkok. Yet the state of emergency, which was declared at the time, still remains.

A red shirt protester kicks away a tear-gas cannister lobbed at protesters during the height of their seige in Bangkok last month.

This is apparently in order to ensure that security is maintained across the country. The decree, which looks set to be extended next week, grants the prime minister some special powers, which may be regarded as excessive.

The state of emergency decree remains in place in Bangkok and 23 other provinces in the North and Northeast regarded as strategically important red-shirt political bases. Without an independent body to verify the necessity of maintaining such draconian power in the hands of politicians during a highly sensitive period, the decision whether to keep the law in place will be almost inevitably politicised.

The action could be aimed at staving off a potential new series of red-shirt protests, something that the government itself admits even though the reasoning can by all definition only be speculation. Worse, by hanging on to the "state of emergency," the government can find itself engaging in the dangerous game of "politics of fear".

It is understandable that many Bangkokians are worried about maintaining their personal safety and would resent future disruption to their lives, which occurred when the protesters shut down business areas in the capital. Accordingly, they are likely to accept whatever approach the government wants to take in order to keep Bangkok safe from "terrorism" or, in other words, from the red shirts.

Although PM Abhisit and his government do not explicitly accuse all the red shirts of being terrorists, his repeated use of the term can lead people, especially his supporters, to arrive at such a broad conclusion.

In the eyes of the rural population, this perception goes against, even undermines, the validity of the claim to have their voices heard in the political heartland of Bangkok and by the capital-based political elite.

With the broad terrorism paint brush, the red shirts now feel that they are subject to accusation by Mr Abhisit and the momentum is there to ensure that the political rhetoric in the media reflects this government's perspective.

The truth, however, is that almost any protest movement around the world throughout history would be subject to such an accusation, as it only takes a small minority of protesters to take extreme and possibly unjustified action, whether or not their convictions are sound.

Regardless of the extent to which this is the case within the protest movement active in Thailand today, a large part of the innocent but misunderstood rural people feel tarnished by the "terrorist" tag. They are troubled by this broad label, and this negative perspective which is widely held by the more privileged urban middle-class, will ultimately undermine any attempt at national reconciliation.

If there is anything the latest development in the history of political protest has shown us, it is that Thailand has proved itself incapable of ensuring the right of individuals and groups to protest freely and openly without fear of harassment by those who hold power.

Constitutionally speaking, the political or bureaucratic office holders do so on behalf of the people, namely those they represent. Any abuse of this power is contrary to the concept of "liberal democracy" which, as leading scholar of democratisation Larry Diamond explained, "provides, by definition, comparatively good protection for human rights". Accordingly, suppressing the ability of the red shirts to express their constitutional rights is no way to end the schism, which has continued to divide Thailand these last few years.

During his remarks at the May 29 briefing with members of the diplomatic corps and journalists regarding the military's attempt to retake Ratchaprasong, PM Abhisit stated that "we wanted to solve everything through democratic means". However, his emphasis on endorsing democracy and the rule of law appears to contradict some of the approaches that the government has actually adopted. For instance, freedom of speech and expression is extremely limited for those who support the red shirts, especially in relation to the use of the Internet.

Since the Bangkok protests of 2010, restrictions and monitoring of websites have been at a high level, resulting in the closure of certain websites viewed as being supportive of the red cause.

These actions would be considered a violation of civil liberties in a liberal democratic society, and in the context of "liberal democracy", reconciliation and unity can only be achieved when fundamental rights are guaranteed while differences and disagreements are accepted.

By continuing to alienate and suppress the red shirts and by presuming that they merely act as proxies for ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, the government can only prolong and deepen Thailand's political divide. Indeed, Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker argued that: "This thinking is a way of avoiding questions about what has been happening in Thai society over the past generation, a way of plugging one's own eyes and ears. But it leads nowhere - or to another May 19, sooner or later."

Accordingly, the people of Thailand and their representative government will at some stage have to make a choice. There is a "proto-democracy", which purports to represent the collective desire of its people but which lacks a true mandate to govern, and is in essence, an "illiberal democracy".

Or we have to move towards a fully-fledged democracy, which can rightly claim for itself the title of "liberal democracy" and can only be realised when every player sticks to the rules of constitutional law and the judiciary maintains its non-discriminatory standard.

Thailand needs to avoid the paradoxical situation described by Fareed Zakaria, an international politics commentator, in which "democracy is flourishing, liberty is not".

---

• Titipol Phakdeeawanich is with the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.