From: ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong)
Subject: Re: Decentralization = promoting local mafia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:47:54 GMT

Khun Burlur who seemingly does not agree with the proposed idea of having
each province's governor elected, argues that:

>        Our friend on the network had sent a letter to PM Chuan supporting
>the election of provincial governors.  So far as money can buy votes, the
>election of provincial governors is nothing but promoting local mafia all over
>the country.  Look at the last general election in many provinces, what kind of
>"some" persons had been elected.  If provincial governors were elected, I can
>assure you that mafias like the local riches, big business men, illegal casino
>owners would be elected, not people like the former Bangkok Governor Chamlong
>for sure.
>                                Bunlur

I am afraid I don't agree with Khun Bunlur here. It is true that vote buying
still prevails and provincial governor election will suffers from it. However,
the decentralization program should cover more than the election. We need to
allow each locality to search for self-government. At the present, except
Bangkok and Pattaya which have their own charters, other provinces' governors
are appointed by the Department of Government (KromKaanPok'Khrong), Ministry
of Interior Affairs. Who can guarantee that there is no "mafia" type of 
connection involved in the promotion. Since the central government, in general,
or the Ministry of Interior Affairs, in particular, whose order is obeyed to 
by these governors, the voices of the provincial people are easily ignored. 
Why worry about them since they don't have any impact on the promotion the
governors get. It is the Minter or Secretary-General of MIA that counts. 
The Secretary of the Department of Government is another influential person
these governors listen to. 

I believe decentralization will help lessen the burden of the national parlia-
ment when well-being of the whole Thai people is concerned. Actually, the 
members of the Parliament are LAW MAKERS. They are not elected to boost 
community or provincial development. It is the governor that is responsible
for his/her respective province's well-being of its people.

I have dreamed to see every province has its own charter which should respond
to each individual province's condition. We have faced super-centralization
problem: Bangkok gets most of the best. Yet, the result is ironic. It has
the most complicated problems, traffice jam, pollution, crime, prostitution,
AIDS, you name it! Bangkok's problem is explicitly mentioned in the latest
National Social and Economic Plan as if Bangkok = Thailand.

When rurul people, mostly farmers, have problem, they head to the Prime
Minister Office in Bangkok. They know their governor can not do much to 
ease their problem. 

As I said somewhere, Thailand need a radical reform in the domain of
government. At the present, the MIA has three system of governments:
central (Suan'Khlang), provincial (Suan'PhuuMi^Phaak"), and, municipal
(Suan'Thong^Thin'). The category does not have real substance since 
the central MIA often wants to impose its influence on the other two
types of government. Even before the coup, they were talking about
equating Bangkok as a department in the MIA. Some suggested it was under
control of the MIA Secretary-General. During the May Bloody Event, 
the then newly elected governor, Krisada, was about to be punished by
the government for allowing BMA's facilities to have been used by the
demonstrators.

We've heard a lot about the indifferent attitude of the rural people toward
most general elections. It is not unusual since law-making process is too
remote from their everyday life. Governor election, on the other hand, 
should be more interesting to them since it brings to them the leader 
who could better or worsen their lives. Vote buying can find its way into
this election but since the election yield more visible impact to the
people lives, should we expect that it should re-educate the people what
election means.  In turn, these provincial people will become even more 
politically conscious and actively take part in the parliamentary system. 

This centralization program should lead to another good cause: lessen the
power of central government. Hence, we also should expect less vote buying
on the part of the national politicians. Most ministries will be reduced,
except for some which are needed at the center, e.g. defense, foreign affairs,
or finance. Some other may stay buy with much less responsibilities. Other
likes education, health or labor will be much better dealt by local 
governments. 

After this level of decentralization, we should aim at the township, and,
ultimately, the villageship levels. Those who have advocated one country one
government notion might be a bit frustrated. But their contention has not
done any good to the country except allowing the power to be built up at
the center. 

The issue of provincial and central governments was tackled by the American
immigrants more than two hundred years ago. They discussed the conflict between
DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC (the origin of two party system...Democrat/Republican?).
Isn't it impressive to see those descendants looking much further into the
future? Yet, in this 1992 year, two undred and thirty years later, Thailand 
has just begun to touch the issue. At the present, it is not at all certain
that the bill of this government reform could easily pass the Parliament.
Nonetheless, let's keep our hope alive!

Samart Srijumnong
Champaign, Illinois
October 1, 1992
(Five more days to the anniversary of October 6, 1976 massacre at Thamasat, 
and 13 days tothe date to commemorate the Event of October 14-16, 1973)