From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Thailand Election Results
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:55:02 GMT

/** reg.seasia: 201.0 **/
** Topic: Thailand Election **
** Written 11:08 pm  Sep 14, 1992 by NOSCA@f214.n61.z90.pegasus.oz.au in cdp:reg.seasia **
[Forwarded by NOSCA in peg:reg.seasia on 14th Sept 92]

 * Originally forwarded from Asia-Pacific Solidarity (Bangkok)
 * Originally dated Sun 13 Sep 92 21:58

The general election held today gave an already-expected
results.  No parties received a majority seat to form the 
government.  So, coalition is inevitable. The matter now is 
whether those which "appearred (or pretended) to be 
progressive" political parties can work out the "formula" 
(i.e. quota for ministerial positions) among themselves. 
If not, right-winger and political-opportunist parties will 
intervene and take a share.  I don't really know whether I 
should pray for the former or not as I can really predict 
that we will very soon have to launch a campaign against 
policies of these coalition government.

Vote-buying, though less blatant, was by no means less 
wide-spread.  Reports made to the Poll Watch Committee 
confirmed that political parties continue to buy their way to 
the Parliament by "cash" (e.g. 50-100 baht) than convincing 
the electorates of their policy platform.  Despite a very 
strong campaign in all mass media by the government, NGOs, 
and even private sector, vote-buying remained an undeniable 
fact of Thai politics.  However, blaming the poor is not at 
all fair.  For the rural poor, it makes really no 
differences (in term of policy direction) who would become 
the new PM or government.  Agricultural product prices 
would remain low.  Genuine development would continue to 
by-pass the rural poor.  Natural resources in rural areas, 
the livelihood based of the rural poor, would continue to 
be plundered for the benefits of the urban rich under the 
name of "the national prosperity".  Accepting some money 
from the contesting candiates is better than nothing.

In Thailand, or any other "newly advanced countries", 
vote-buying is always an effective election tactic employed 
by political parties in power.  Development projects, 
public services, and urban-biased policies are very often 
approved or provided in the wake of election period.  This 
kind of vote-buying is just more sophisticated than the one 
we see in rural Thailand, even though their essence is the 
same. In Malaysia, rivalies between the state and federal 
govts (especially those of opposite parties) represent this 
phenomnon very well.  In Singapore, cheap public housing 
services by-pass certain constituencies that there was an 
electorates' swing against the government party.  What are 
the differences?

An interesting phenomenon is the role of media.  There 
seems to be a very unified and vast interests in covering 
the election news, right from the beginning of the campaign. 
Every night, there were talk show programmes, interviews, 
and news on the election, so much so that I myself became sick 
of it. It appearred as if the election was THE only 
thing in democracy, in which if you went out and voted, then 
everything would be taken care of by the MPs.  Well, what an 
elite political bull-shits!

Asia-Pacific Solidarity (Bangkok)

--- FD 1.99c
 * Origin: Network of Overseas Students Collectives in Australia(NOSCA) (90:61/214)
--  
** End of text from cdp:reg.seasia **
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive