From: ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai
Subject: Re: Decentralization = promoting local mafia
Date: 4 Oct 92 08:20:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

In responding to Khun Anuchit, Khun Monthien (bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu) 
writes:

>I agree that decentralization may offer more benefits than harm.  However,
>we should keep most of the basic social services at the national level,
>such as, health care, equal rights to basic education and employment,
>including what I hope to see more "disability act".

>I have a little reservation about electing local governers in some cases. 
>A good example is in Prae, my own native town.  If we were to elect our
>governer at this time, a person like Khun Narong and his people would
>probably be elected with a majority votes  Within ten years, I'm afraid
>there will be no forest left in this  province.  My serious concern is
>that without proper education, the majority of people in Prae will
>continue to  be misguided to believe that cutting trees is the only way
>for them to  survive.  I can see this fact because most people in my own
>village earn their income this way.  No surprise, Khun Narong remains
>their favorite son.

Election into the office of the governor should be done hand in hand with
election of provincial legislative body. Currently we have Sa'PaaJangWad'
which has not had much role since the governor appointed by KromKaanPok'Khrong
(Department of Government, MIA) has universal authority. He is the 
head of every division of public services whose national ministries ask
the governor to take care of them. Anyway, the elected governor should be
checked and balanced by the provincial house of representatives. Khun Narong
might be able to use his influence to become the governor of Prae but he 
could not do anything without the knowledge of the provincial house. Of
course if his party could also control the house it would be easier for him
to abuse his power. I have full hope that things could be better. The people
of Prae, like their other Thai fellowsi, will learn along the road to democracy.
I also have strong belief that with self-governed politics local mass media
should grow as well as local pressure groups (watch-dog). 

In fact, I doubt if Khun Narong would like to play politics at the provincial
level. Prae in the past had a lot of resources to attract corruptible guys.
Prae nowadays has lost most of its forest. With the new consciousness about
environment I am pretty sure that the people of Prae will demand their 
governor to pay attention to this problem. 

Centralized politics is very much like Miss Thailand Contest in that every
province has elected its representatives who will compete in the national
arenaAs Khun Anuchit had suggested that in fact Thai people have already
elected their PM, e.g Korat-Chatchia, Trang-Chuan, Bangkok-many of them, 
for example. Chatchai could have bad image for many but probably not for
Korat people. Centralized politics have fostered this rediculous sense of
pride. Remember? When Narong was protested by Bangkok and other Thais, 
Prae people resented. Local election, to me, could creat the feeling that 
politics is not distant thing but right at their lives. 

There are both pro and con for either the centralized or decentralized system
but the extreme is dangerous. I would want to urge us to read a small book
entitling "The Federalist" which portrays the past experience of American
pioneers. They discuss pro and con of both the federation and the states.

Politics should not be judged only from functional or pragmatic point of
view. We should not expect politics to heal all kind of social problems we
have. One dimension of politics is that it allows the people to excercise
thier human/civil rights. The right to choose is a pride of the nation. 
We were so insulted by the coup in 1991 which, according to a Far Eastern
Economics Review's author, had listed Thailand in the same group as Burma
when democracy is concerned. Having the right to elect their governor, local
people should have sense of control over their life. 

Probably the thing that has been missing from Thai politics is that it has
involved only at national level while the whole society is governed by 
a giantic machine of national bureaucracy. As termed by Riggs, Thai politics
is bureaucratic polity. After the event of October 14, 1973, Thai politics
which had been a toy of Thai bureaucrats has enjoyed participation from 
business sectors. The idea of having the Senate appointed has reflected the
struggle of the bureaucrats to control Thai polity instead of the
other way around

should lead to a new condition in which polity can control bureaucracy.
At the present, it seems like the military Bigs are consulted first for
the choice of whom to be appointed as the defense minister. 

Samart 
Champaign, Illinois
October 3, 1992.
Organization: Doctoral student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA