Asean on right track, but moving much too slowly

Bangkok Post 24/02/2010

Mahathir Mohamad has earned his reputation as one of Southeast Asia's most influential figures. The former Malaysian prime minister has been credited with modernising Malaysia and playing an active role in integrating the regional bloc that is Asean. Now retired from political duty, his favourite pastime is writing blogs while taking the time to advise foundations and the business sector.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad: ‘‘Asians don’t go around telling people what they should do in their own house.’’—Photo by Nampeth Vorakanonta.

In a recent interview with the Thai media, including Bangkok Post's Assistant News Editor NAOWARAT SUKSAMRAN,Dr Mahathir offered his candid views on Asean and his role in alleviating the strife in Thailand's far South.

What keeps you busy these days?

People come to see me for various reasons. I give interviews to local and foreign newspapers. I write on my blog, and I give stops to many countries. Sometimes I think I'm much busier after retirement. I'm preoccupied.

Looking at Asean, in the '70s or '80s, all the countries in the region had to manufacture a lot, export a lot. But now we're all into tourism and education. For you, looking into the future, what will be some of the new sectors that Southeast Asia should tap into, to earn more income?

Well, most of the East Asian countries depend upon export earnings. They have to manufacture for export but now we find that the markets have shrunk because the markets are in trouble because of the crisis.

So we need to see how much our countries can depend on each other, develop each other's economies so that you don't have to depend that much on foreign markets outside East Asia.

Developing East Asia makes you rich and therefore it makes a good market for all of us.

Is there any particular country that you think we should look to as a model? South Korea, maybe, or China?

We have a policy called "Look East" policy. It was introduced in the early 1980s. By the Look East Policy, we took Japan and South Korea at that time, or even Taiwan, as a model for development. Now, of course, we include China. And we think that by looking at these countries and interacting with them, we can gain knowledge, skills, technology, and also they can become good markets.

Military coup no solution to political impasse

Bangkok Post 01/02/2010

Despite all the known disadvantages of a coup and the certainty that another unlawful usurpation of power would be roundly condemned everywhere, there are, regrettably, still elements in our military establishment who believe the army is the cure for our worst political crisis.

The coup rumours that swept across Bangkok last week were largely fuelled by the unannounced appearance of a dozen or rmore armoured personnel carriers on the city’s streets, the unusual nationwide “show of force” by army soldiers in support of Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda -- and by red-shirt leaders

Despite strong denials by the army chief himself, the rumour refuses to go away and remains a subject of topical debate.

Is the rumour founded? Or is it completely baseless?

Prominent academic Chai-anan Samudvanich, a member of the Royal Academy, believes he has the answer.

Writing in his column in The Manager newspaper and website yesterday, Mr Chai-anan said that he had sought the opinions of a veteran political analyst whose views were regularly sought by politicians of different colours and shades.

According to the analyst, the idea of a coup came from four sources:

- First, the “old soldiers who never die”. These retired soldiers, whom he did not identify, are unhappy with the current top brass for their deemed failure to deal with the criticism made against them.

- Second, the current top brass and their predecessors who have turned politician, and who are worried that they may be exposed for their alleged involvement in the attempt on the life of media proprietor and political loudmouth Sondhi Limthongkul.

- Third, supporters of deposed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who have been trying to woo some military men to stage a coup.

- And, lastly, young army officers who are staunchly royalist and who are disturbed by the brazen challenge to the army chief’s authority which, in their view, does not only hurt the army chief’s reputation but also the honour of the army as an institution.

Mr Chai-anan said the army believes that a dissolution and general election would usher in a new government but would not end the political impasse, and the country would lose any opportunity to compete with other countries in the region.

A coup, if it does take place, would not only change the political rules of the game, but would allow the army to make adjustments and allow a strong leader to the reins.

In such a scenario, Mr Chai-anan expressed grave concern and predicted that the situation would turn violent.

The red shirts, meanwhile, have been trumpeting the possibility of a coup some time around the end of this month or early March, when Gen Anupong will be overseas and his shoes will be temporarily filled by Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, the army chief-of-staff who has been very vocal in his criticism of Thaksin and his supporters

A red-shirt leader, Arisman Pongruangrong, was reported to have urged the red-shirts to descend on Bangkok during this period, and that each was told to carry a one-litre container of petrol, without specifying its purpose.

Although no one seems to have the an answer to the political impasse which is acceptable to all parties in the conflict, a military dictatorship is not the solution either.

Worse still, this primitive method of settling differences would only plunge the country deeper into the politiical abyss -- a hole it would take many years to emerge from.

What is happening to the land of 'mai pen rai'?

The Nation 23/01/2010

I HAVE BEEN back in Bangkok now for almost two weeks and am finding discussions about Thai social institutions and politics quite unsettling. Something new and sinister is afoot and it is not just the pontificating and bluster from the red and yellow shirts.

What has happened to the land of smiles and mai pen rai?

400 armoured sedans have been sold in Thailand in the past year - a previously unheard of number

Wives are being trained in the use of pistols

Prices of protective amulets are on the rise
Expectations are being set in many quarters of a great struggle about to break out that will decide Thailand's future as a polity and a nation. Some say that the deity that protects Thailand is asleep, therefore everything is up for grabs. There is talk of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra preparing for his last great battle to influence recovery of his frozen assets, political parties are manoeuvring for knockout blows on constitutional reform.

I was told that some 400 armoured sedans have been sold in Thailand in the past year - a previously unheard of number. Wives are being trained in the use of pistols. Someone was said to have fired a grenade at the office of Army chief Anupong Paochinda. Prices of protective amulets are on the rise.

What has happened to the land of smiles and mai pen rai?

My Viking ancestors, some of whom sacked Paris with Ragnar in the late 700s, used to believe in the Ragnarok - or the final battle at the end of the world where there were to be no winners, only losers, and only two survive to repopulate the world.

I myself have come to the position that violence is to be used on rare occasions only; that moderation is the far wiser course in life.

Extremism perpetuates injustice and prevents the emergence of natural balances and the constructive interaction of forces and counter-forces.

The importance of the centre, of the middle way, of moderation was central to Aristotle's understanding of ethics.

We can all take good counsel from the words of William B Yeats in his poem "Second Coming":

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

For Yeats, when the centre cannot hold and things fall apart, the great beast is coming, an evil thing that no one wants or needs.

Much sound counsel, therefore, can be found in Thai values and traditions that expressly seek the middle-way and avoid open confrontations. Buddhism, of course, is a middle-way between sensualist and ascetic deprivation.

But I have a sense that in Yeat's terms, the Thai centre is not holding, pressed between essentially farang values and judgements on one side, and very hierarchical old Thai social practices on the other. Therefore we see in Thailand recently a tendency where the best appear to "lack all conviction" and the worst are filled with "passionate intensity".

So, what is to be done?

The time has come to reframe the great questions before Thailand and upset the forces pressing for polarisation and confrontation.

Farang perspectives on individualism and hierarchy, resting as they do on emotional, psychological, intellectual and philosophical nihilism of post-modernism, offer little in the way of constructive visions for a common good for Thais.

Unreflective social traditionalism offers little in the way of a constructive vision for the 21st century.

Cooperating, balancing, blending, amalgamating, keeping the core and letting go of the periphery - classic traits of successful Thai modernisation, not to mention successful resistance to the Khmer, the Burmese, Colonialists and the Communists - should now be in vogue.

It is a time for a grand consultation and compromise, and not for demands and rigid self-seeking.

Stephen B Young is a 1963 graduate of the International School of Bangkok and a 1967 graduate of Harvard College. In 1966 he discovered the bronze age site of Ban Chiang.

POST BAG Cambodia pours scorn on Thai scholar's article

Bangkok Post 22/01/2010

Re: the article by pseudo Thai scholar Pavin Chachavalpongpun published in your newspaper on Jan 18, 2010 under the title, ``In spat with 'Siem', Hun Sen needs Hanoi in his corner.''

This article is completely ridiculous, absurd and vulgar. It fully demonstrates how your newspaper has simply become a political tool serving the government in power and those who have a political agenda to undermine relations between Cambodia and Thailand, without having any sense of professional journalism, truth, tactfulness and politeness.

Your newspaper has allowed such a vulgar scholar to express his ultra-nationalistic and fundamentally provocative views, which have significantly contributed to the worsening of bilateral relations and escalating tensions between the two neighbouring countries. Both your newspaper and this pseudo, cocky scholar would be held accountable for the growing tensions between the two countries.

First, for Cambodia, the restoration of diplomatic relations depends on several important factors:

1. Thailand must stop demanding for, and encroaching on, Cambodia's land near the Preah Vihear Temple.

2. Thailand must stop opposing the inscription of Cambodia's Preah Vihear Temple on the World Heritage List.

3. Thailand must stop demanding to use its own term [Phra Viharn] for Cambodia's Preah Vihear Temple which has long been used by the Khmer people since the 11th century when it was built and named, as well as has been recognised by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) since 1962 and more recently by the World Heritage Committee.

Second, to say that ``Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen continues to challenge the Thai leadership'' shows complete ignorance. Samdech Techo Hun Sen has never challenged the leadership of any country, including Thailand's. Prime Minister Hun Sen only defends the national interests, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Cambodia. As the prime minister of Cambodia, he has the right to appoint any person to be adviser to the Cambodian government. This is the sovereign right of Cambodia.

Third, Cambodia's leaders do not engage in a ``zero sum'' game and would not use the balance of power in Cambodia's relations with its neighbouring countries. Our Cambodian leaders would never play ``one neighbour against the other'', as pretentiously claimed by this unscientific, discredited author. In fact, they are only dealing with real politics in Cambodia's relations with its neighbour.

Fourth, your newspaper should stop misleading the public on the history of Cambodia. Historically, the Army of the United Front for National Salvation of Cambodia was set up in 1978 by Cambodian leaders, namely Samdech Chea Sim, Samdech Hun Sen and Samdech Heng Samrin, and appealed to Vietnam for help in order to topple the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime.

Without the collapse of the Khmer Rouge at the time, there would not be any Khmer Rouge tribunal today. In fact, the Vietnamese troops all withdrew in 1989, two years before the signing of the Paris Peace Agreements in October 1991.

Fifth, the bilateral relations between Cambodia and Thailand are fundamentally based on mutual respect. If a neighbouring state treats another neighbouring country well, that country would certainly reciprocate in kind. This is the principle of reciprocity, which is widely used in international relations.

Sixth, I think that this pseudo scholar has quoted an opposition party leader in Cambodia, who is well-known as being ultra-nationalistic and xenophobic. By quoting Sam Rainsy's words on the Cambodia-Vietnam border issue, this vulgar scholar has allowed himself to become the spokesperson of Sam Rainsy, without knowing it.

Finally, to claim that His Excellency Deputy Prime Minister Hor Namhong, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation; Ambassador Hor Nambora, Cambodia's Ambassador to the United Kingdom; and Ambassador You Ay, Cambodia's Ambassador to Thailand, are of Vietnamese lineage is absolutely insulting.

This Thai ill-bred scholar, if he is civilised and well-educated, would not have stated such a thing _ that Cambodian leaders and high officials are ``Vietnamese proxies''. It should be recalled that these words were the favourite terms used by the Khmer Rouge to attack the government which had overthrown the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in 1979. Do you know the name of the neighbouring country which helped and sheltered the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s and for most of the 1990s?

OUK SOPHOIN

Charge d'Affaires, Royal Embassy of Cambodia

Little help for migrant labour

Bangkok Post 22/01/2010

Despite the cabinet's decision to extend by another two years the nationality verification deadline for migrant workers, the problems of underground labour and exploitation will not go away.

It is estimated that there are about 2-3 million migrant workers in Thailand, mostly from repressive Burma. The deadline extension will allow the registered workers, numbering about a million, a two-year grace period to have their nationality verified and passports issued by their governments as preconditions for obtaining work permits here.

But there are still many stumbling blocks ahead.

To start with, the Thai authorities are not equipped to help the workers deal with a complicated system which concerns various agencies as well as the governments from the workers' countries of origin.

In addition, if the Burmese government still refuses to speed things up by processing the nationality verification requests in Thailand and still requires the workers to travel back and forth to Burma, the chances of meeting the deadline are zero.

Political outcome could be a horror show or fairy tale

The Nation 20/01/2010

WHERE Thailand's political prospects between now and February 26 are concerned, I have become something between a doom merchant and a we-can-tango-our-way-out-of-this optimist. This way, I'm not losing too much sleep, while staying firmly on my feet. Yes, things could go very wrong, but that is shamelessly assuming that we have been on the right track to begin with.

This much we know: Thaksin Shinawatra has now become far more desperate than ever. Banharn Silapa-Archa is upping the ante in the purported charter showdown with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. The opposition Pheu Thai Party is almost ready to submit a no-confidence motion against the government, and once the motion reaches Parliament, Abhisit will lose his House dissolution trump card that could keep disgruntled allies in line.

The red shirts have been weakened, but desperation can make them dangerous and unpredictable. As for the military, we only see uneasy calm.

Last but not least, the Supreme Court will certainly hand down its ruling on Thaksin's assets case on February 26. Nothing short of a real upheaval can change the schedule.

So, what's next? Some may see all the ingredients for a disaster, but others may hold out hope that those ingredients may cancel one another out.

"You have to evaluate the situation day by day," yellow-shirt and New Politics Party leader Sondhi Limthongkul has said, and I couldn't agree more.

Make probe reports public

Bangkok Post 20/01/2010

For a government that occasionally pledges openness and accountability, the actions of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his subordinates in two recent cases must raise eyebrows. The premier seems fully conversant with the report into possible corruption at the Public Health Ministry by Dr Banlu Siripanich. Members of his government also seem highly knowledgeable about "baggage-gate", the Thai Airways International probe into the case of a now-former senior executive who apparently used his influence to fly 398kg overweight. But the government has shut the public out of both cases, and in the most unfair way.

Mr Abhisit, ministers and THAI executives have used what they insist are facts from both cases to cause shakeups at the very top of the government and airline. The actual reports on the two incidents, however, remain secret. This has already caused the disputes to shoot into the public sector, as those who are close to the two scandals dispute those facts which the government has allowed to emerge. On Monday, doctors from the Public Health Ministry took out full-page newspaper advertisements to dispute some accounts of the Banlu commission report. This may make good public entertainment, but it makes very poor government policy.

In spat with 'Siem', Hun Sen needs Hanoi in his corner

Bangkok Post 18/01/2010

Relations between Thailand and Cambodia have shown no signs of improvement. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya has insisted that normal diplomatic ties cannot resume until Phnom Penh ends its relationship with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Keeping relations sweet: Cambodian PM Hun Sen, right, with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung.

Meanwhile, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen continues to challenge the Thai leadership. On January 12, 2010 Mr Hun Sen said that ties might be restored soon because Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's embattled government would not last much longer.

To understand what has been happening in Thai-Cambodian relations, one must not analyse them solely in the bilateral context. The need to consider other geopolitical factors, particularly within mainland Southeast Asia, is imperative in order to comprehend certain behaviour of political leaders and the reasons behind their policies in regard to their neighbours.

Cambodia is a small state, being sandwiched between two bigger neighbours: Thailand and Vietnam. Leaders in Phnom Penh have taken the advantage of its location by playing one neighbour against the other. This is not a new tactic. Siam used the same strategy when it dealt with the British and the French during the colonial period. Some Thai historians agree that it was this strategy that helped Siam escape colonisation.

http://bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/31105/putting-an-end-to-corruption

Bangkok Post 16/01/2010

Transparency International ranked Thailand 84th out of 180 countries in its 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index.

The no-nonsense attitude taken by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in dealing with the latest corruption case to come out of the Public Health Ministry has had an unexpected result.

Possibly influenced by the rarity of seeing a government minister ordered to fall on his sword, opposition MPs are talking of postponing the censure debate they had intended to hold immediately after Parliament reopens on Thursday. Puea Thai executives say the party might wait until it has more ammunition.

No matter how it plays out, Mr Abhisit should be given full credit for the firm stance he has adopted on corruption. His administration must be encouraged to get even tougher on graft in the coming months. With economic recovery will come the need to attract greater foreign investment, rejuvenate flagging businesses and overhaul the worst aspects of the system we live by. This will mean an emphasis on innovation and accountability. There will be no room for bureaucratic overkill, outstretched hands or a return to "business as usual" if we are serious about success. It is time to eliminate these problem areas and bottlenecks.

Surayud has a chance to take the high ground

The Nation 13/01/2010

AT THIS HOUR, former interim prime minister Surayud Chulanont is unlikely to resign as a privy councillor. That is a shame, because if there were ever a real opportunity for troubled and confused Thailand to make sense of it all, this is one of them.

The red shirts are smart to make "double standards" the focal point of their campaign against his luxurious retreat on Yai Thiang Mountain. But they are also like a desperate, badly bruised boxer hurling himself, with his guard down, against his opponent. If Surayud had given up the property and quit the Privy Council, he would have, in effect, unleashed a near-fatal blow.

As things stand, the red shirts' gamble seems to be paying off. They had expected Surayud to take the usual path in dealing with controversy, and he did just that. Let's wait until the authorities rule that I have to return the land, he said. That apparently rules out speculation whether he should step down from the Privy Council.

Surayud's close aides are having a hard time explaining to the public why his acquisition of a plot of land that should have gone to the poor is "not the same" as Thaksin letting his wife buy a state-auctioned piece of land when he was prime minister. Of course, the cases are different in their legal technicality, but the crux of the matter is that Surayud is supposed to be "not the same" as Thaksin.

Of standards and duplicity

Bangkok Post 12/01/2010

No other words seem to prick the easily excitable hearts of Thai protesters and their belligerent ringleaders more sharply than this coinage, always recited in its foreign form: "double standard." These past few years, the phrase has morphed from a foreign term scarcely used or understood here, to one of the most commonly heard and effective marching orders. When someone - of whichever coloured camp - shouts "DOUBLE STANDARD!" the rest of the column becomes instantly roused and willing to go to any lengths to rectify that injustice, inequality, indiscretion... all the myriad things that are less than fair in this country... in their own way and, well, by their own standards!While there is no doubt the phrase has caught on with the protesting crowds, I wonder what the practical use will be of its constant recitation and regular usage as a pretext to protest.

On Monday, members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) went one step further and unfurled a red banner reading "Village of Double Standards" at Khao Yai Thiang, Nakhon Ratchasima. Their target was a 14-rai property owned by former prime minister and Privy Councillor Surayud Chulanont. The UDD protesters said they were making a point against what they perceived as the government's (and judiciary's) "double standards" in dealing with forest encroachers. While some villagers who occupied forest reserve land on the mountain have been sued for encroachment, Gen Surayud, who bought and thus occupied a piece of land there which technically couldn't be sold, was only asked to return the land without facing prosecution.

The Office of the Attorney-General ruled that Gen Surayud and the man who sold the plot to him did not have to face punishment because they only violated a cabinet resolution that allowed landless farmers to use forest reserve land for farming, without the right to sell it to other people.

The devil, they say, is in the details, and I think the same applies to the practice of double standards. The UDD did not specify if the villagers they upheld as committing the same mistake as Gen Surayud had purchased the land that technically can't be bought on Khao Yai Thiang? Or did they simply occupy land that was actually classified as forests? This is not to say that the villagers are wrong if they are forest squatters. This is to say that that would be a completely different problem requiring a completely different set of standards to deal with it.

Forced to be accountable

Bangkok Post 12/01/2010

The Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), or at least some of its leading members of Parliament, are angry and disgusted. The reason is that one of their colleagues, Manit Nopamornbodee, has been forced to quit, as the lesser choice of being fired. BJT leaders were quick to tell the media on Sunday that the virtual ultimatum to Mr Manit by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was a violation of the rules, as if national politics were a game and holding the government accountable is somehow not part of the action.

Mr Abhisit deserves major credit in this disgraceful case, where imminent corruption was exposed at the highest echelons of the Public Health Ministry. Neither should there be pity for Mr Manit, the deputy minister who was publicly named but apparently not shamed by the investigation, which found possibilities for acts of corruption in the 85-billion-baht Thai Khem Khaeng stimulus programme within the ministry.

Mr Abhisit could have been more direct, and would have won more public support by demanding Mr Manit's resignation immediately after the latter's superior, Health Minister Witthaya Kaewparadai, stepped down in a show of responsibility. But the end result is that Mr Manit has been forced to take the action he should have taken voluntarily, and Mr Abhisit has boosted his own reputation as a corruption fighter.

Is the UDD serious in opposing double standards?

Bangkok Post 12/01/2010

By selectively picking on Gen Surayud Chulanont, a privy councillor and former premier, in its campaign against what it sees as the government's use of double standards, the UDD appears set on discrediting the Privy Council, not just attacking the government.

The Khao Yai Thiang land controversy represents just a tip of the iceberg of the extensive forest land encroachment problem in this country, which involves as many as 400,000 families nationwide.

Without the high social standing of Gen Surayud it would have received scant attention.

But the dramatic targeting of Gen Surayud by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) in its weekend protest over his alleged illegal land ownership on the Khao Yai Thiang mountain in Sikhieu district of Nakhon Ratchasima puts it in a different context and appears to be intended to discredit the Privy Council.

No refuge here in 2009 for Rohingyas and Hmong

Bangkok Post 09/01/2010

Thailand used to be friendly to us. The fear of being killed made us flee to Thailand, to survive. Now it seems they detain us only so that they can deport us.''

These were the words of a Lao Hmong refugee who spoke to Amnesty International in late 2008, frightened of being forced back to Laos.

One year later, his fears came true. On Dec 28 and 29, 2009, Thai authorities forcibly returned to Laos around 4,500 ethnic minority Hmong. Among them were 158 recognised refugees who had been in arbitrary detention in Nong Khai for three years, despite four countries considering to resettle them. The others, who included asylum-seekers, had been living in a camp in Phetchabun province for several years.

Indeed, after more than three decades of widely recognised generosity in protecting asylum-seekers and refugees, Thailand reversed its course in 2009.

This country needs urgent change, 'Obamark'

Bangkok Post 08/01/2010

When a wonderful kingdom like Thailand ceases to attract the best and the brightest for public office; when capable, honest, law-abiding citizens become a rare commodity and when society rewards only those who are well-connected rather than those who are competent, then in my view it's time for change.

I have compiled a short list of things that we as a nation should think about, although there are many more. I've only put into the list the few that can be implemented through legislation.

- First, Thailand should revert back to being called Siam. Siam is the ethnically and culturally inclusive name we were given at birth and it is the name we should have kept. Continuing to call ourselves by a name which was bestowed upon us by a trigger-happy military dictator, who effectively sided with Hitler and declared war against the Allies in World War Two, is anything but auspicious.

- Second, the Abhisit administration should show some courage by doing what is right and give us back the "People's Constitution". The current charter amendment process employed by the government is tainted by the clammy and sinister hand of vested interests, which will result in yet another one of Siam's "unconstitutional constitutions". We the people deserve a constitution written by the people, for the people - and if amendments are required, it should only be with the approval and involvement of the people.

PM Abhisit is monopolising the moral high ground

Bangkok Post 08/01/2010

The moral high ground is a status - real or perceived - that politicians strive to capture in order to legitimise their political position on issues and the public offices they hold.

Mr Clean: PM Abhisit Vejjajiva greets villagers at a function to open a road in the restive southern province of Yala yesterday.—AFP

US President Franklin D Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of England held the moral high ground of protecting freedom and democracy, ultimately leading to victory over the fascist regime of Adolf Hitler in WWII.

President Abraham Lincoln, in refusing to deny the basic rights of human beings by abolishing slavery, fought and won the Civil War, to firmly establish his ideals of justice, goodness and honesty.

Few modern politicians can claim such a status. Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi come to mind. And although there are those truly committed to their beliefs, many are merely trying to create a perception of being moral as a ploy to ensure their political survival.

But in the end, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you can fool the people some of the time but not all the time, as the truth will eventually prove the politicians' true worthiness.

In addition, on the issue of moral high ground, Robert H Frank, in his book: What Price the Moral High Ground? Ethical Dilemmas in Competitive Environments (Princeton University Press, 2009) challenges "the notion that doing well is accomplished only at the expense of doing good", that "honest individuals often succeed, even in highly competitive environments, because their commitment to principle makes them more attractive as trading partners" (Wikipedia, "Moral High Ground").

Keeping the concept in mind, a disturbing trend has emerged in Thai public perception in recent years. Polls show that Thais are willing to compromise honesty with the ability to work effectively. Politicians can be "a little" corrupt so long as they can deliver goods and services as promised.

The coming decade: Thailand's ten greatest fears

The Nation 04/01/2010

WE LIVE in the great paradox of our times. Thai people live longer and better than their ancestors enjoyed centuries ago. Yet, as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century, we are today more afraid of everything than before - just read the headlines in the Thai press during the past three days. To survive, a clear mind about ourselves and society - shortcomings and potential - is needed. The following ten greatest fears must be wrestled with and brought to ground.

1. CONCERN OVER HIS MAJESTY. The Thais have taken for granted that their King would live forever. Universally they would never think of losing a king. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is 82 years old and has recently recovered from a month-long illness.

Sooner or later, the people of this country will have to decide on their political future - as nobody else can or will. Since 2001, political developments have pushed forward myriad forms of governance. Constructive and open debate on the unique institution he represents, so far enjoyed by foreigners, must be encouraged among local intellects. For the time being, lessons and insights culled from present and former kingdoms, near and far, would be useful.

2. FEAR OF LOSING THAI WAY OF LIFE. The easy-going life style which Thailand is famous for has long gone. At present we are a country of cynics who do not allow other people to excel at things they can do well. Every act seems treacherous these days. The usual Land of Smiles and Amazing Thailand is no more. Thais need to think outside the box and live on. A new Thai way of life that is more dynamic and multicultural will emerge incorporating traditional and new values. How can we stay free, as the word Thai means, if we remain static, narrow-minded, passive with agonised faces?

3. FEAR OF LOSING NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. Thailand, formerly Siam, has warded off enemies and maintained the country's independence and freedom. The leaders of yesteryear were triumphant because the people were united and followed common leaders. However in present fragmented Thailand, many power wielders exalt their own demagoguery. As a result, ugly national tendencies have popped up. Right-wingers and nationalist extremists rear their ugly heads once more and are making news headlines everyday, recalling lost glories and territorial integrity.

Fear of autonomy, in terms of lexicon, has blocked many doable resolutions of century-old violence in southern provinces.

2010: Advocates of worst-case scenarios will be biggest losers

The Nation: 07/01/2010

WE DON'T NEED a rocket scientist or a political pundit - or even a famous astrologer - to predict a year of continuing political tension or even turbulence for Thailand.


Considering all the potentially explosive issues awaiting this government this year, hurling negative forecasts is the easy part. In fact, there seems to be fierce competition among the forecasters to see who can produce a more frightening worst-case scenario.

The more challenging task, however, is how anyone can come up with a scenario whereby none - or only part - of the "bad news" will actually materialise. You can call me a hopelessly optimistic observer. But I see in every bad scenario the "window of loss" - not opportunity - for one or more of the major protagonists. In other words, there is no such thing as a zero-sum game for all the parties concerned in this prolonged confrontation.

To start with, the first time-bomb for Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva this year will be the possible break-up of the coalition over the proposed charter amendment. Some coalition partners have already threatened to go their own way if the Democrats refuse to go along with their proposed changes.

The other looming explosive issue is the upcoming court decision on whether to confiscate Thaksin Shinawatra's Bt76 billion in assets. The former PM's supporters have indicated that chaos will break out if the verdict goes against him.

The third major incendiary issue in the first few weeks of this year is whether the Election Commission will decide to disband the Democrat Party. A negative ruling could have some serious repercussions on the political landscape.

The fourth potentially divisive conflict is whether PM Abhisit will reshuffle the Cabinet - and if so, how to do it to genuinely improve the administration's performance rather than just to satisfy his own party's and the coalition partners' demands for portfolios in return for political loyalty.

Fine example for the region

Bangkok Post 04/01/2010

One of the world's most admirable leaders died last week. It is lamentable that the name of Abdurrahman Wahid is less known than the villains and tyrants he fought and overcame. The former president of Indonesia was the major reason his country emerged from brutality and chaos to become the best example of democratic advances in Southeast Asia today. Known both affectionately and respectfully as Gus Dur, Wahid has left a legacy that will be difficult to live up to, but highly deserving of the effort.

Gus Dur _ a Muslim honorific combined with the nickname of his own first name _ was just 69 when he died after a long series of illnesses. The man of modest means suffered for decades from diabetes, and was functionally blind when he defeated the well-connected, fabulously rich Megawati Sukarnoputri in the first Indonesian presidential election in history, in 1999. His popular appeal was as simple as his campaign platform. Indonesia needed to get over the violence and systemic corruption of the Suharto years and move towards full democracy with a pluralistic government.

Many believed that the Indonesian army would never cede its power. Indeed, for several years after the overthrow of Suharto in ''people power'' demonstrations centred on Jakarta, it was assumed the army would simply retake control. Wahid, however, understood the concerns of the huge and widespread nation. The disgusting corruption and brutality of Suharto and supporters had been imposed at gunpoint. Wahid struck the correct chord in stressing religious freedom, accountable government and a goal of full democracy. Wahid himself had seen and suffered the brutality of the Sukarno and then the Suharto dictatorships. But after the overthrow of Suharto, he refused to join the hotheaded calls for revenge. Instead, he counselled a policy to look to the future, and to build a democratic and tolerant country. This was a difficult role to play. On one side, the army constantly threatened violence to return to office. On the other, bigoted Muslim extremists, no longer checked or controlled by the government's threats, undertook major terrorist operations, in Jakarta and across the country.

History will probably record that Wahid's greatest achievement was to face down extremists on both sides, but particularly within the Muslim community. He insisted that the two great Muslim ''schools'' of Indonesia _ his own Nahdlatul Ulama, with 40 million members, and the 29 million-member Muhammjadiyah _ retain moderate and inclusive goals. He spoke out against extremism, including against the Jemaah Islamiyah group which, prior to the 9/11 attacks on the US and its Bali bombings, was attacking Christians and non-Islamic targets with murderous bombs across Indonesia.

Wahid's world travels, always with an entourage and often colourful, emphasised his belief that men and women, and their nations, should receive equal treatment. His frequent request to Indonesians and to world leaders was that ''Upholding democracy is one of the principles of Islam''. He made enemies among extremist groups with such talk. But largely as a result of his personality, the world's most populous Muslim country did, indeed, become a democracy and help to lead the worldwide battle against murderous extremists at the same time.

Say no to National Reconciliation

Bangkok Post 03/01/2010

Let's start the New Year with a bit of a controversial thought: Let's say ''no'' to national reconciliation! Why? National reconciliation isn't healthy for democracy. Therefore, let's continue with political and social conflicts, but let's do it without the violence and illegality.

Should the Democrats and the Republicans over in the US reconcile? Should the Labour and Tory parties over in the UK reconcile? No and no.

A state with a single ideology is dangerous, as it flirts with absolutism. Democracy is a system that thrives on conflicts. It is based on the right of man, and as every man is different, thus democracy is an ideology that prospers through differences.

And if politics is divided, society is also divided, always, as it should be.

Differences beget conflicts, opposing forces competing in a never-ending battle, because no one side has absolute power over the other, thus no one may win absolutely, hence the state of democracy is one of balance among the forces.

To simplify it: If the Democrats were the single ideology in the US, then they would have a nation of free-loving hippies. They would get beaten up all the time. And who wants that?