From: ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong)
Subject: Re: Subject of 'unusually rich' politicians
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:27:23 GMT

col@megadata.mega.oz.au (Colin Newell) writes:

>At the start of 1991 there was a military coup in Thailand.  One
>reason given by the coup leaders for their action was to remove
>from power 'unusually rich' politicians.  This action had some
>popular support as it was widely believed throughout the country
>that the accused politicians were guilty.  Such politicians were
>barred from being members of parliament.

It was the NPKC that raised such accusations to JUSTIFY their coup.
Yet, Suchinda was not reluctant to seek cooperation from the politicians
whom were accused by he and his NPKC colleages as "unusually rich." 
Ironically, it was Chatthai Party, the party of Chatichai who was ousted
by the NPKC, which centered the support for Suchinda. If the House Speaker,
Dr. Arthit Urairat, did not perform his surprising nomination of the PM
to the King, it would have been Somboon Rahong, the Chatthai Party's leader
who would become the PM. 


>Now here we are 18 months down the track.  A highly respected man
>is leading the country, and organising elections.  Who is standing
>for election?  Many of those accused politicians!  How can that be?
>Incredibly it seems that after all this time, the courts have
>not yet decided whether the politicians were guilty or not!
>As long as the courts have not found them guilty they can
>enter parliament.  It is a state of limbo.
>Is it not incredible?  I really wonder about Thailand's future
>when it lets issues like these just hang about without tackling
>them.  

In political discourse, there are some truth. Yet it is mixed with some
politicization. The accusations were done in non-jurisprudent condition
in the first place. The NPKC appointed a group led by Gen. Sithi Jiraroj
who until being appointed had long been known at "Mr.Clean." He could
come up with dozens of names of those who were "unusually rich." There
was a deal between these politicians and the military at the time. Some
who assured the military a support in the coming election were known to
released from the list. I understand this deal went beyond the control of
"Mr.Clean" who later suggested those "unusually rich" politicians be put
on trials. The whole thing is just a political game. The military had
ignored the legal system in the frist place by staging the coup. What the
hell they meant when they said the whole thing would be cleared in the
court? Now let's return to the concern expressed by Khun Colin about
the future of Thailand. In Khun Colin's words, "I really wonder about 
Thailand's future when it lets issues like these just hang about without
                       ^^
tackling them." I want to stress the term "it." If Khun Colin intended to
represent Thailand with such pronoun (it), he is probably equating Thailand
with some advanced Western countries in which most societal instutions 
are well integrated. In Thailand the legal system are not one of the 
three branches of power as believed in Western world. When a coup occurs,
the first thing the coup makers would do is to transfer all legal authority
into their control, e.g. by abolishing the Constitution, setting up martial
court, and the likes. The notion of "unusually rich" was initiated by
the military. When they lost their influence, their jargon has gone with 
them. I am not saying that there was not corrupt politicians but to 
let the military set themselves as a "moral authority" undermining the
legal system is not a solution. 

>This situation reminds me of most of the other pressing problems
>facing Thailand today: e.g. politican and traffic congestion in Bangkok
>being 2 good examples.  The Thai authorities will not face problems
>until they are already out of hand.
>(I was recently in Bangkok and was amazed by
>the worsening traffic conditions.  As we sat in a mind-numbing
>traffic jam, my old boss proudly pointed to a
>freeway under construction: "all the traffic problems will be over
>in 5 years" - I had to laugh.  The freeways (and skytrain) are a case
>of too little too late and will do practically nothing to help
>Bangkok's immense traffic problems.)  Ten years ago, Bangkok had
>appalling traffic, Chiengmai was OK.  What is the situation today?
>Chiengmai's traffic is regarded by many as worse than Bangkok's!
>The reason: the government will not plan ahead and tackle problems
>as they arise.  Why spend public money on infrastructure when it
>will only reap a benefit 3 to 5 years down the track.  Better to
>just ignore such problems.

I don't see the analogy between these two problems--the politics and
the traffic broblems. Yes, every problem involves politics but to say
they are analogous might not be helpful in deriving a solution. It is
legitimate to be concerned with the (political) future of Thailand. 
Yes, it is also legitimate to be concerned about such physical problem
like traffic jam. Khun colin attributes these two problem on the same
ignorance Thai people have. I can agree that we have been ignorant and
short-sighted in the case of traffic jam but we have not been ignorant
in the case of political development. The impact of traffic jam is real
while the impact of not dealing with those "unusually rich" politicians
(which was created by the NPKC) is much less substantial. To put those
whose names were listed by the NPKC's appointed investigating commission
to the court does not, IMO, help boosting political development. Khun Colin
might have not realized that Thailand's political reality is far more
complex than it may appear. The military has not been completely "buried".
It is struggling to return to the power center. Every move on the part
of civilian government much take this reality into consideration. In
such political reality, there is priority of things to be done. With just
a little mistake, the fruit of the May event would be swept away. The US
court may be able to lead Nixon to resign. The Thai counterpart, by any means,
should not be expected to put any powerful men in jail. Yes, the legal 
system needs change. Such change will not come if political context is
still the same. 

BTW, any government planning is naturally politicized. It involves priority.
Even such priority can be finalized, it still involves another round of
politics,---the allocation of resource. Bangkok suffer from too many cars
beyond the capacity of its streets. Too increase the cars is done by
lobbying efforts on the part of the car dealer corporations. To increase
the capacity of the streets either by building more space or by regulating
the usage of such space is  the sole effort on the part of the government
both at national or local levels. IMO, Bangkok (or Chiangmai) traffic jams
are not sole engineering problems. It is human ecological problem. Bangkok
needs to let go its monopoly in all aspects--military, education, business,
culture, transportation, government, etc. How about moving the military units
which are supposed to be the "fense" of the nation to the border. Khun Colin
(at Don Muang). It takes at least 30 minutes to pass through it (assuming 
there is not traffic congestion). This ecological solution is of course 
much harder than the engineering one. Unless the military submits to
the polity, the idea of moving them will be put off. What if they want to
stay, and the others are moved? How about the notion of the new capital
city? All these ideas need more constructive political context. The power 
must be in hands of those who are authorized to use it. This our first
mission to be achieved!

>Best regards,
>Colin Newell

Same to you,
Samart Srijumnong