Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at the New York Stock Exchange30/09/2009
By Thitinan Pongsudhirak
Bangkok Post
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is as popular abroad as he is disconnected to the masses of Thai voters at home.
While his good looks, English-language eloquence, masterly grasp of issues, personal integrity and gentlemanly demeanour appeal to foreign audiences, he is regularly pelted with bottles and shoes when he travels around the country outside Bangkok with a security detail provided by the army's 21st Infantry Regiment.
Farang investors generally hope the best for him. Farmers in the North and Northeast want to see the back of him.
Such is the odd dichotomy for which he stands. It mirrors Thailand 's larger and deeper political polarisation.
Mr Abhisit appears a lost creature imprisoned by his patrician past, unable to face up to Thailand 's future needs and expectations.
Whether he continues to be beholden to his backers, who currently see him as their best hope, or breaks with them to stamp an effective leadership, is critical not only to Mr Abhisit the prime minister but also to Thailand as an aspiring democracy.
His latest trip to the United States, where he made two signature speeches - at Columbia University and the United Nations General Assembly in New York - reveals a man best suited to be a roving prime minister to spruce up Thailand's international image, rather than a national leader who knocks heads at home in search of reform and reconciliation and a way forward from the political quagmire of the past few years.
At Columbia University, Mr Abhisit spoke about a post-crisis Thailand and its alleged new democratic society. It is not the Thailand we have today, where crisis and confrontation pervade the political landscape.
He attributed Thailand 's ailments to the economic crisis abroad and the political crisis at home. Yet even without the global economic crisis, the Thai economy has been exposed as uneven and lopsided, resulting in an income disparity which is the source of the polarisation between the countryside and Bangkok.
Mr Abhisit suggested that his ability to show up and deliver a speech in the US meant the situation at home was "in good order", that international confidence had been regained. It implicitly alluded to the fact that, unlike former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was overthrown just as he was about to make a speech at the UN three years ago, no military coup would take place in his absence. But whether Mr Abhisit is at home or abroad, unlike Mr Thaksin three years ago, makes no difference in coup calculations.
Mr Abhisit spoke of his government representing "people of all colours" and the rule of law in Thailand's democracy "vibrantly at work". But in truth, Mr Abhisit is seen by the reds as yellow and by the yellows as not yellow enough, occasionally yanked from side to side by the blues and the greens.
He visited the yellows when they illegally occupied Government House last year, publicised his opposition to the reds' pro-Thaksin petition on prime time state-run TV channel hosted by a yellow core member, and recently presided over the opening of the yellows' new English-language satellite TV station.
By his own doing, the prime minister has ruled himself out of being an even-handed representative of all colours.
In both speeches, Mr Abhisit trumpeted the sufficiency economy philosophy as inspired by His Majesty the King. But in implementation, the Abhisit government's sufficiency drive has been mired in corruption allegations, operational inefficiencies and wasteful expenditures, giving the sufficiency economy a bad name.
Moreover, the government's economic policy thrust is all about stimulus packages. How stimulus is supposed to be squared with sufficiency is an inconsistency and contradiction left unaddressed.
The prime minister spoke further about Asean and its dynamics. Thailand's limitations from the nexus of domestic crisis and regional leadership were glossed over.
Talking up Thailand is challenging under ongoing circumstances. Mr Abhisit and his advisers should have set the bar lower and conceded more shortcomings with more full truths and fewer wishful thoughts.
To the uninitiated, the speech at Columbia University came across well because of the PM's fluid articulation and style. Those who tracked Thailand's goings-on were given the impression of outright half-truths and misinformation.
It was a fantastic speech about a fanciful Thailand that may at best emerge one day after the dust settles. It was not the Thailand over which PM Abhisit now presides.
It was Sanan Kachornprasart, the wily old warhorse of Thailand's bygone political era where policy hardly mattered, who presciently warned Mr Abhisit of not going the way of William Hague, the former Tory leader whose enormous talents and skills were never able to match Tony Blair's.
Mr Abhisit is now outclassed by the Thailand, with its warps and baggage, that he has taken on. By the time he comes out of this mess, Mr Abhisit will be so tainted and tarnished that his political fortune may well have been spent, the price of being too beholden to backers and of coming up too soon with too little to offer. It will be a huge loss for Thailand which will need a prime minister like Mr Abhisit, perhaps in eight to ten years' time.
Unless he can muster the wherewithal to break with his backers, a window of rehabilitation requires Mr Abhisit to expeditiously wrap up the crooked proceedings known as Thai politics of the past year by retooling the constitution to return power to the people. The longer his rule drags on, the less the PM will be able to rehabilitate his political career.
The writer is Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
While his good looks, English-language eloquence, masterly grasp of issues, personal integrity and gentlemanly demeanour appeal to foreign audiences, he is regularly pelted with bottles and shoes when he travels around the country outside Bangkok with a security detail provided by the army's 21st Infantry Regiment.
Farang investors generally hope the best for him. Farmers in the North and Northeast want to see the back of him.
Such is the odd dichotomy for which he stands. It mirrors Thailand 's larger and deeper political polarisation.
Mr Abhisit appears a lost creature imprisoned by his patrician past, unable to face up to Thailand 's future needs and expectations.
Whether he continues to be beholden to his backers, who currently see him as their best hope, or breaks with them to stamp an effective leadership, is critical not only to Mr Abhisit the prime minister but also to Thailand as an aspiring democracy.
His latest trip to the United States, where he made two signature speeches - at Columbia University and the United Nations General Assembly in New York - reveals a man best suited to be a roving prime minister to spruce up Thailand's international image, rather than a national leader who knocks heads at home in search of reform and reconciliation and a way forward from the political quagmire of the past few years.
At Columbia University, Mr Abhisit spoke about a post-crisis Thailand and its alleged new democratic society. It is not the Thailand we have today, where crisis and confrontation pervade the political landscape.
He attributed Thailand 's ailments to the economic crisis abroad and the political crisis at home. Yet even without the global economic crisis, the Thai economy has been exposed as uneven and lopsided, resulting in an income disparity which is the source of the polarisation between the countryside and Bangkok.
Mr Abhisit suggested that his ability to show up and deliver a speech in the US meant the situation at home was "in good order", that international confidence had been regained. It implicitly alluded to the fact that, unlike former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was overthrown just as he was about to make a speech at the UN three years ago, no military coup would take place in his absence. But whether Mr Abhisit is at home or abroad, unlike Mr Thaksin three years ago, makes no difference in coup calculations.
Mr Abhisit spoke of his government representing "people of all colours" and the rule of law in Thailand's democracy "vibrantly at work". But in truth, Mr Abhisit is seen by the reds as yellow and by the yellows as not yellow enough, occasionally yanked from side to side by the blues and the greens.
He visited the yellows when they illegally occupied Government House last year, publicised his opposition to the reds' pro-Thaksin petition on prime time state-run TV channel hosted by a yellow core member, and recently presided over the opening of the yellows' new English-language satellite TV station.
By his own doing, the prime minister has ruled himself out of being an even-handed representative of all colours.
In both speeches, Mr Abhisit trumpeted the sufficiency economy philosophy as inspired by His Majesty the King. But in implementation, the Abhisit government's sufficiency drive has been mired in corruption allegations, operational inefficiencies and wasteful expenditures, giving the sufficiency economy a bad name.
Moreover, the government's economic policy thrust is all about stimulus packages. How stimulus is supposed to be squared with sufficiency is an inconsistency and contradiction left unaddressed.
The prime minister spoke further about Asean and its dynamics. Thailand's limitations from the nexus of domestic crisis and regional leadership were glossed over.
Talking up Thailand is challenging under ongoing circumstances. Mr Abhisit and his advisers should have set the bar lower and conceded more shortcomings with more full truths and fewer wishful thoughts.
To the uninitiated, the speech at Columbia University came across well because of the PM's fluid articulation and style. Those who tracked Thailand's goings-on were given the impression of outright half-truths and misinformation.
It was a fantastic speech about a fanciful Thailand that may at best emerge one day after the dust settles. It was not the Thailand over which PM Abhisit now presides.
It was Sanan Kachornprasart, the wily old warhorse of Thailand's bygone political era where policy hardly mattered, who presciently warned Mr Abhisit of not going the way of William Hague, the former Tory leader whose enormous talents and skills were never able to match Tony Blair's.
Mr Abhisit is now outclassed by the Thailand, with its warps and baggage, that he has taken on. By the time he comes out of this mess, Mr Abhisit will be so tainted and tarnished that his political fortune may well have been spent, the price of being too beholden to backers and of coming up too soon with too little to offer. It will be a huge loss for Thailand which will need a prime minister like Mr Abhisit, perhaps in eight to ten years' time.
Unless he can muster the wherewithal to break with his backers, a window of rehabilitation requires Mr Abhisit to expeditiously wrap up the crooked proceedings known as Thai politics of the past year by retooling the constitution to return power to the people. The longer his rule drags on, the less the PM will be able to rehabilitate his political career.
The writer is Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
6 comments:
Thais PM spreading liar outside the country...
The economist magazine said this month that the PAD is the Thailand's rowdy royalists.
the world ought to be more educated than this. don't buy everything siem thugs are telling you. wake up, people. there are more to cambodia than you and i, really!
Abhisit is one of the elites, the extremists. After Pumipon (Bhumibol) dies, his elites will rule and reign. Because whoever becomes the next King or Queen won't be so popular like Pumipon anymore. The red shirts have to get rid of the elites before they can declare their victory.
But one most obstacle thing is Americans are in Thailand for more than 170 years, and perhaps, some of us have to know that the US have a secret prison in Thailand to torture the muslims whom they accuse as terrorists and to torture the political opponents, though Abhisit recently denies.
People used to say "if any country has Americans support they'll have a better life". No, not like what they usually say. Americans only do for their own interests. As we all know too many million Thai people are living under the poverty.
Abhisit Vejjajava is just fucking man who win the power without real election!
England help, coz they blind
Abhisit Vejjajiva is using land invasion as a scaped goat because they are going through their political turm oils. So, their government is trying to change the topic by misleading Seim people to focus on other things rather than on him as an incapable Prime Minister and they know it too well that the Temple is belonging to Khmer people but yet they are trying to make trouble to convey the Thai people to focus on something else rather than on him, on the other hand, it is a way of getting their people back on track, like instead of fighting with each why not fight with the Khmer? This is called politic! They are trying to promote love and unity for their own people and stop fighting each other. So, therefore Khmer government needs to learn more about politicians' intention because it could lead into an effective outcome for the whole nation just like Thai government does. Aust
Post a Comment