Someone should take up thePM's challenge

Someone should take up the challenge by Premier Yingluck Shinawatra: Go out and ask farmers whether their lives are better off because of the controversial paddy mortgage scheme.

The prime minister doesn’t usually speak out. It was quite a surprise for me therefore to read an “exclusive interview” she gave to Thai Rath daily to mark the first anniversary of her assuming office.

PM Yingluck hasn’t really made a big fuss over her having been made the country’s chief executive for 365 days now. She didn’t offer her own assessment to the public. She made no public appearance to answer questions about her performance so far. She was spared a House censure debate from the opposition which has postponed the motion until an unknown date. And her popularity hasn’t suffered. Not if you consider all the recent polls reasonably accurate, that is.

It may seem strange but Thailand’s first female premier isn’t even expected to respond to the most controversial policy issue so far. That’s why it is highly significant that she gave the clearest statement yet in an interview with Thailand’s mass-circulation paper on the issue, without so much as hitting the headlines although it contains some very new elements to the issue.

Her boldest statement was: “The government policy on this issue never said it would make a profit. It’s a policy that is in itself a loss but it will boost farmers’ income.”

Therefore, she insisted, even if the paddy pledging policy suffered a loss, “it should be acceptable” because it would enrich farmers and thereby boost local consumption.

But she also admitted that some missteps might have been made. “Nobody can do everything right,” she said, adding that all the way from the prime minister down to all Cabinet members couldn’t possibly oversee the whole operations

“because many factors are involved in the process, all the way from rice farmers to rice-mills.”

Then came the real challenge from her: Why hasn’t anybody gone back to the rice fields to ask farmers whether their livelihood has improved as a result of that policy? Why is it that only some groups of people have been asked of their opinion on the issue?

The premier insisted that the current massive rice stock has depressed prices. “But that’s because we have only launched the scheme a few months ago. Wait 8 months from now, we will witness the world rice price rise much higher than it is now,” she claimed.

But isn’t Thailand losing its top position as rice exporter? If you were surprised, the premier wasn’t. She said Thai farmers could at most plant two paddy crops a year while countries like Vietnam and India have been growing more rice. “So, naturally we can’t so anything about it. They have overtaken Thailand in the world market as a matter of course,” she added.

I am sure a good number of critics who have taken up the controversy to criticize the government’s mishandling of the scheme would be anxious to question the premier over her logic on these points. But then, she didn’t get any follow-up questions on her claims and most of her statement went unchallenged.

Whether you agree with her or not isn’t the point. The real question is why the country’s leader has chosen not to engage in discussions on this vital issue in public forums that will benefit the people.

And, more important, why has nobody actually taken up the premier’s challenge to really ask farmers whether they are better off with the policy? Many critics have claimed that only a small number of “elite” farmers are the real beneficiaries of the plan and that the real gainers are the politicians.

If her Cabinet members haven’t given her the whole picture, those who know otherwise are obliged to keep our prime minister up to date or else the big risk for the country is that her confidence might be misplaced. And that could be dangerous indeed.

Amsterdam and Thaksin: End of lobbying contract?

Here is an item from Legal Times blog on a recent move by Robert Amsterdam on his relationship with Thaksin Shinawatra. Amsterdam says he is still a supporter of the "red shirts" but isn't quite clear about his role as Thaksin's lobbyist in the future:

Firm Quits U.S. Lobbying for Former Thai Prime Minister
A small international law firm has ended its lobbying relationship with the former Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.



Amsterdam & Partners on Monday submitted a lobbying termination report that says the firm's government advocacy work for Thaksin ended on June 30, two years after it began. The firm provided "counsel and guidance with respect to Mr. Thaksin's interest in Washington, DC and abroad," contacting the U.S. Justice, State and Treasury departments, according to congressional records. Amsterdam & Partners partner Andrew Durkovic in D.C. was the lobbyist on the account.



Robert Amsterdam, the founding partner of Amsterdam & Partners, said the firm has done "virtually nothing" in the United States for Thaksin, a billionaire who has lived in self-imposed exile after he was ousted during a military coup in 2006. The firm, which has offices in Washington and London, has focused most of its attention abroad on helping Thaksin and Thailand's "red shirt" protest movement, which supports the former prime minister. Amsterdam & Partners, which used to be known as Amsterdam & Peroff, in 2011 filed a petition to the International Criminal Court in The Hague urging prosecutors to investigate crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the 2010 Thai government crackdown against the red shirts.



"We do these filings out of an abundance of caution," Amsterdam said, adding that Thaksin remains a client of the firm.

It is unclear how much Thaksin has paid the firm. All of the quarterly lobbying reports Amsterdam & Partners submitted to Congress for Thaksin say the firm received less than $5,000, but they do not give an exact amount. Amsterdam declined to say how much Thaksin has given the firm.



Thaksin is scheduled to visit the United States in August to promote U.S. investment opportunities in Thailand, the Bangkok Post reported on Tuesday. The former prime minister, who was convicted in absentia on a conflict-of-interest charge brought in Thailand, secured a visa to travel to the United States, which generally won't let convicted felons enter the country.



Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip.



Posted by Andrew Ramonas on July 31, 2012 at 03:36 PM in Lobbying
Permalink

Abhisit turns red!

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the opposition leader, delivered a surprise blow this evening when he put on a red T-shirt and declared: "Red is everybody's colour. I am reclaiming red because this colour doesn't belong to any particular group of people in this country."

The Democrat leader was apparently launching a counter-move in his major speech last night announcing that the ongoing conflict isn't between political parties or colours. "It's a battle between the people doing the right thing and those who are bent on doing evil. It's between those who want to do things for the country and those trying to do things to benefit their own relatives," he said.

It's an obvious counter-attack from Abhisit who has come under a renewed assault from the ruling Pheu Thai Party claiming that he had dodged army conscription. Defence Minsiter ACM Sukampol Suwannathat has taken the trouble to lead the latest attack on the opposition leader by producing army's documents to show that Abhisit had been dubious about his conscription. The opposition has threatened to sue him for defamation.

Now, if Abhisit wears red, would Thaksin Shinawatra wear blue?

Yingluck says govt isn't in retreat

If you think the Yingluck government has been beating a retreat, think again. Or that's what the premier said yesterday.

She told a major gathering of Pheu Thai MPs that by stalling on the constitutional amendments and withdrawal of the "reconciliation bill" from Parliament, her government wasn't "backing out" at all. In fact, it's the other way around. "We are moving full steam ahead," she declared.

The "tactical move" that may be interpreted in certain quarters as a retreat, she said, was merely to create an atmosphere of reconciliation -- and avoiding any confrontation.

It's obvious that the powers-that-be are shifting their power game. The strategy is to calm down and wait for the right moment to attack. Her brother Thaksin Shinawatra, speaking through a tele-conferencing system on the same day, told his MPs that they must adhere to a "cooling down" strategy so that the Yingluck government could operate for a lengthy period of time.

The clear adjustment of tactics is to keep the government afloat for as long as possible so that the main objectives could be achieved without disruption.

Without a doubt, Pheu Thai leaders have come to realize that every day that they remain in power means the continued weakening of opposition Democrat Party.

Constitutional Court's verdict adds new ambiguities

First, there was euphoria on both sides. Then, there was doubt. Now, the protagonists are set for another showdown.


The Constitutional Court’s ruling last Friday was initially hailed by both the ruling Pheu Thai Party and opposition Democrats as well as their respective supporters as being a compromise that should calm down the country’s tense political atmosphere.

The government side praised the court for rejecting the opponents’ petition to rule that the ruling party’s move to amend the constitution was constitutional and that it was aimed at overthrowing the country’s democratic system.

The judges said there was no evidence to back up the claim since the petitioners were only “anticipating” a scenario which wasn’t supported by any substantial actions.

The opponents, on the other hand, were delighted that the government and the ruling party could not rewrite the whole charter without a prior referendum.

At one point during the aftermath of the verdict reading, some analysts even suggested that the court’s ruling was a “win-win” decision for all sides concerned. These academics said the court had finally come up with “way out for society.”

But hardly had a day passed when both sides began to cast doubts on just what the verdict actually meant.

The first question is: Can the Pheu Thai Party and supporters proceed with a vote in the third, and final reading, of the constitutional amendments to set up a new constitutional drafting assembly to rewrite the charter?

Nobody can come up with a clear answer to that question. The court’s verdict “suggested” that since the current constitution was put into force by a referendum, therefore any attempt to change any part should first seek approval from the public through another referendum.

“Is that an opinion or a judgment?” asked Samart Kaewmeechai, chairman of the Constitution Amendment Panel in the House.

Another related question: And if a new referendum is to be held on the issue, should it be held before or after the new constitution draft is completed?

Yet another follow-up question is: If a referendum is to be held, what question is to be put to the public?

The verdict made it clear that if the ruling party wants to make changes to the constitution, it could do it on an “article-by-article” basis, not a total rewrite. In that case, the government-backed party with a majority in the House would have to start the process all over again – back to Square One, so to say.

Some Pheu Thai Party members say that route would in fact provide a speedier process for them to amend the constitution since they have the majority votes in the House and could push for all the changes they want without the added burden of having to hold a referendum.

But there could be a trap there. Some government MPs fear that if they followed that option, their opponents could file a new petition to the Constitutional Court yet again, arguing that Pheu Thai was deliberating challenging the spirit of the current constitution.

“We might fall into a new trap – whether we proceed with voting on the third reading of the pending constitutional amendments or if we restart the process to go the route of changing the charter article by article,” another senior Pheu Thai Party leader said.

Even those against Pheu Thai’s moves are beginning to wonder how the ambiguities of the verdict could be cleared up so that they could not be exploited by the powers-that-be to tinker with the constitution to suit their ultimate political aims.

Now, as you can see, things could change overnight. The initial joy by most parties concerned have has turned into skepticism and a sense of desperation.

“Victory” for the political parties, however short-lived and illusory, doesn’t necessarily translate into “victory” for the people.

That’s because this is Thailand and every legal ruling is plagued by all shades of interpretations that end up as stalemates. This is just the latest, not the last.

The danger of solving one crisis with another crisis

Another “constitutional crisis” in the offing this week? You must be joking. We don’t consider a “crisis” a crisis anymore. It has become just an ordinary part of your political life.


The origins of a crisis are quite easy to come by in Thailand’s political circus these days. All you need is for a politician to point an accusing finger at his opponent and starts filing a complaint with one of the “independent agencies” for a ruling.

It doesn’t even have to be a political issue. The complaint could be about anything at all as long as it pits one against the other and that a “third party” has the constitutional right to decide who’s right and who’s wrong.

The first sign of a “crisis” is when one of the parties concerned begins to believe that he or she stands to lose in the process. The first salvo would be against the independent agency involved. It would be portrayed as being biased or leaning towards the other side.

The forming of the crisis continues into the second stage even before the first hearing on the case begins. Supporters of one side would start to give interviews with a threatening tone: If the verdict doesn’t come down in favour of us, we will mobilize people to protest.

The party that is convinced that it would win the case will trumpet the whole exercise as the process of real democracy that the other side is trying to undermine.

It used to be that members of the independent agency would keep mum, believing that as long as they carry out their duties strictly according to the law of the land, the public would understand and no amount of public outcry from one side or the other would affect their work.

But that’s not the case anymore. Even members of “independent agencies” set up under the constitution aren’t quite sure about the public being on their side only if they do what they are supposed to. “The public,” it seems, has been split into factions by the relentless pressure from parties to the conflict – so much so that it has become a general belief that if you keep quiet in a storm of verbal exchange, you might be admitting the allegations they thrust upon you.

That’s why we have recently witnessed prosecutors, judges and other members of the judicial branch joining the fray of public discourse, which, unfortunately, has been mostly negative. The judicial officials have felt the need to explain their position so that some segments of the public would not be swayed by pure self-serving politicians.

This week, the Constitutional Court is holding hearings over allegations that the ruling Pheu Thai Party’s attempt to amend the constitution is “unconstitutional.”

It’ classic confrontation Thai political style once again. The ruling party says the current constitution isn’t democratic enough. They promised the electorate that once elected, they would push for charter changes. Now that they have the majority in the House, they would fulfill their election pledge.

The opposition and some senators say that the ruling party’s move is aimed at rewriting the “whole” constitution which, according to this line of argument, is “unconstitutional” because changes could be made only article by article.

Of course, both could right and both could be wrong. So, the opponents to the government brought it up to the Constitutional Court to decide who’s right and who’s wrong.

As soon as that happened, the ruling party said they sensed a conspiracy which, they claimed, could lead to the dissolution of the Pheu Thai Party. That means the ruling party thinks it could lose the battle and is doing everything possible to tell the judges that the red-shirt people won’t tolerate that kind of verdict. They say it’s not a threat. It’s simply a statement of intention.

The Constitutional Court is inviting both sides to produce their witnesses and written statements. It is due to hand down a decision soon. No doubt, the judges, once again, have come under intense pressure, not for the first time, of course.

Another crisis? No, to some Thais who can’t bother to follow political news with any great interest, it’s just another hiccup.

And when you treat a serious ailment as a mild cold, that’s when the country has been plunged into a real time warp. We don’t learn from the past. We can’t handle the present. We can’t see the future. It’s pitch dark out there.

Why we will never get qualified professionals at state enterprises

Several state enterprises, including Thai Airways International (THAI) and Mass Communications Organization of Thailand (MCOT) are inviting candidates for the top Chief Executive Officer post.

They aren’t going to get any really professionally qualified managers to apply. In other words, the best and the brightest would not want to work for them.

That’s not because there aren’t enough qualified people who are keen to try their hands at running major state enterprises that should be made competitive against their peers in the regional scene.

Neither is it because the financial and prestige aren’t there.

The most obvious and recurring problem is the “selection committees” assigned to pick the most qualified person to become the CEO just aren’t qualified from the very outset.

The rotten system begins at the process of picking members of the screening committee. They would have to follow the instructions, direct or otherwise, from “the boss up above.”

The more prestigious position, the higher the rank of the person giving the order of who must get the CEO’s post.



Therefore, lobbying starts at the selection of the “selection committee members.” They would have to be ready to play the game, meaning that whatever the requirements published in advertisements calling for candidates, the selection process will just have to end up with just one person in mind. Other candidates are eagerly sought just so that the whole exercise could claim to be “fair and transparent.”

When the selection committee is “orchestrated,” what do you expect the final outcome of the choice of the CEO to be? In the end, while the process of picking the next manager of the state enterprise may appears to be “open and fair,” the heavy political manipulation inherent in the system will produce only mediocre CEOs at best and political cronies or lackeys at worst.

From time to time, we got a professional executive into the post by default. He or she set about overhauling the organization, trying to “de-politicize” the enterprise and getting the staff to stick to KPI (key performance index) rather than PPI (Please Politicians Index). That promised to make his term a short-lived one. But he or she did leave some marks or professionalism, only to be wiped out by the next CEO picked by the strenuous screening of the selection committee. The “typical guy” was finally back in office.

Piyasavasti Amaranand was one of the few “professionals” who got in to a leading state enterprise (THAI) and unceremoniously kicked out. The board checked his KPI and he got a nice pass of over 80% but he was told to leave anyway.

His crime? The board’s official reason given to the public: “Lack of proper communications with the board of directors.” That suggests that the board of directors would only tolerate a CEO who is ready to obey its orders and not someone who can challenge the board’s line of thinking.

The real question therefore lies not with the CEO but with the board of directors of state enterprises. How is the board selected? Ah, that’s the real question. It’s neither transparent nor fair.

Boards of directors of state enterprises are usually picked by Cabinet members whose only yardsticks are whether the directors can serve their interests or not. It is therefore small wonder that we can’t expect a professional CEO to last in any state enterprise considering the fact that we don’t get a professional board of directors in the first place.

Directors don’t get sacked for not being able to communicate well with the CEO. That’s because they are supposed to keep a CEO who can follow the instructions from the board who gets the marching orders from the Cabinet members who have to follow their bosses’ instructions in the first place anyway