Interim govt must reassess its goals : Perhaps ministers should quit wasting time on policy initiatives best left to the next elected cabinet

ANALYSIS / THAILAND POLITICS

Interim govt must reassess its goals : Perhaps ministers should quit wasting time on policy initiatives best left to the next elected cabinet.

By CHIRATAS NIVATPUMIN

One quarter of the way through the interim government's self-appointed one-year term, what has been accomplished? Not much. National reconciliation seems as distant as ever, with political dissent only held in check by the ever-present authority of the armed forces.

Personal security has never been so fragile, not in the aftermath of the New Year's Eve bombings in Bangkok and the increase in violence in the southern border provinces.

And investor confidence has all but collapsed, thanks largely to self-inflicted wounds by the authorities and its baffling inability to articulate and execute its policies. Moves to stabilise the baht and safeguard the country's exports, as well as reform operating rules for foreign businesses are all fine and good. But the ham-fisted approach, with hardly a care to the sensitivities of the market, pose questions about the competence of this interim government.

Good intentions are meaningless without sound execution. Unfortunately for the coup-makers and their appointed ministers, policy missteps and an inexplicable prioritisation of goals have taken a sorry toll on public confidence in Gen Surayud Chulanont and his lieutenants.

The generals of the Council for Democratic Reform justified the Sept 19 coup as the only solution to head off what seemed an inevitable conflict between Thaksin Shinawatra and the Thai Rak Thai party and their opponents.

Widespread corruption during the five-year rule of Mr Thaksin had made a mockery of the 1997 constitution and left Thailand a democracy on paper only, so the argument goes. Hence the necessity to take one step backwards in order to make a leap forward.

But what is the goal? Some would argue the sole task of this interim government is to push forward with constitutional reforms and return power to the people with a new general election.

Others might say that the government, cut free from the need to curry political favour, should implement structural and legal reforms that have long constrained social and economic development.

Both will require a careful balancing act. Gen Surayud and the armed forces are certainly wary of the fact that Mr Thaksin's self-imposed exile can hardly last forever. While the intentions of the billionaire tycoon remain veiled, nothing in his personal history suggests he will be willing to accept forcible early retirement. On the contrary, Mr Thaksin's business and political careers have been based largely on the principle of attaining _ and keeping _ monopolistic power.

So keeping Mr Thaksin in check is of overriding importance to the government and the generals of the Council for National Security. Yes, political reform and new elections remain the priority for this government. But only with the unspoken codicil that Mr Thaksin and his proxies be excluded from the process.

Hence the Asset Scrutiny Committee and state agencies have been working around the clock to dredge up any evidence of corruption and cronyism from the five years of Thai Rak Thai power. Over 20 cases have been highlighted for possible criminal action, including the CTX scanner procurement scandal, tax evasion by Mr Thaksin's children related to the sale of Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings and a land procurement deal by Mr Thaksin's wife with the central bank's Financial Institutions Development Fund.

This frontal assault strategy suits the mindset of the generals and the anti-Thaksin groups, most notably the members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the umbrella group of activists who helped bring down the last government with public rallies in 2006. Media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul, the charismatic leader of PAD and a former business associate of Mr Thaksin, was able to draw huge swaths of the middle class to his banner with sordid allegations of government corruption and self-interested business dealings by Thai Rak Thai.

Allowing these allegations to die quietly would only undercut the key principle voiced by PAD and the coup-makers _ that corruption under Thai Rak Thai was so excessive and pervasive that an elected government needed to be changed outside of the constitutional framework.

The danger, of course, is that the smoking gun will never be found. Allegations of wrongdoing aside, it remains uncertain when or if any of the dozens of projects highlighted by the Asset Scrutiny Committee for action will reach the courts. Indeed, Mr Thaksin and his army of lawyers are eagerly awaiting their time in court as a prime opportunity to voice their argument that the entire corruption investigation has been a witchhunt.

Of course, the government absolutely cannot afford to risk losing any case against Mr Thaksin, as any verdict other than guilty would have profound repercussions reaching to the very roots of the Sept 19 coup. Yet Mr Thaksin cannot be found guilty by simple diktat, if the integrity of the justice system is to be maintained. No, clear irrefutable proof must be shown to the court of law and public opinion. Digging up such evidence will take time, particularly as the state technocrats are unlikely to co-operate in any investigation that could show their own complicity in political corruption under the last government.

So the government is working against the clock. The longer the delay, the greater the public uncertainty about whether allegations and fact are truly one. Already, the public haranguing of Mr Thaksin with an absence of solid evidence has created a groundswell of sympathy and undercut the government's position that the ex-prime minister's rule deserved to be overthrown.

This political conundrum has led some members of the government to consider a more subtle approach. Rather than a direct confrontation between Mr Thaksin and the government, some ministers are favouring taking the higher ground and pushing forward with a strategy of showing the Thai Rak Thai is not the only viable choice for the future.

Mr Thaksin revolutionised Thai politics by implementing policies that directly touched upon rural groups who have long felt disenfranchised by the central government in Bangkok. Never mind that many of the policies were based on questionable economics or created distortions that will prove costly for future generations. Thai Rak Thai was able to capture widespread popularity by delivering what voters wanted. If the price to be paid was the fact that some interest groups took a bigger slice of the pie than deserved, so be it _ in the minds of many, political parties of all stripes are inherently corrupt. Better to at least choose a party that at least promises some returns to the people. Cynical, yes. But logical.

But adopting a populist-plus programme will not succeed for this interim government. The Democrats, after all, were badly beaten in the 2005 election under a bland platform that paled in comparison with Thai Rak Thai's more nuanced programmes. The current government also has neither the time nor the resources to spend on more than a handful of issues, and urgently needs to refocus its priorities to focus on its one-year goal of transitioning to a new elected government.

The next government will undoubtedly be a coalition government, possibly including splinter groups from a dismantled Thai Rak Thai. Ensuring that the next government has as broad a representation as possible might not be efficient, but it would help promote the goal of national reconciliation and ease political tensions for the medium-term. Unspoken, of course, is the fact that the interim government will absolutely not permit the next government to include Mr Thaksin or his immediate minions.

So the interim government will continue to expose the flaws underpinning Thai Rak Thai's basic development programmes and communicate why populist policies will undermine long-term stability. Political reforms will strengthen the hands of the independent agencies to guard against domination by an authoritarian government.

Given the results of the past several months, the current ministers should also reprioritise their sectoral goals and focus on a more narrow reform agenda, rather than take a scattershot approach that attempts to adopt controversial policy positions that would be best decided by the next elected government.

Bangkok Post
Monday January 15, 2007