The root cause of the latest bloody political turmoil stems from the very weakness of the Thai society.
Thailand is so prone to the coup d'etat as a mean to overthrow a popularly mandated government.
This is added with a near-naïve reverence by large section of the society to a monarch for reconciliation when he himself is so frail and according to some commentator is most probably complicit in legitimizing the coup and the latest government.
What makes it worse is the utter lack of respect to democracy by the established interest, the aristocrats and the army.
Whenever a government is backed up by army with strong will to impose brute force against the civilian, it is inevitable to have the bloody carnage. It happened many times in Thai's history.
On Abhist, I feel sorry for him. He has a smiling baby face and it’s difficult to see him as the head of the government that crack down the red shirted protesters. He maybe outmaneuvered, but he has a choice to resign.
Had he chosen this path, his integrity and that of his party can be preserved. By holding on to it, he gains nothing for his nation and his peoples.
If he considers himself being able to solve the conflict without shedding blood, the recent events have proved him wrong. Whatever his credential, I am sure he has lost all of them.
Even if the red shirt is overcome, what is left in him is just a puppet of the real power-to-be.
On the Bangkok streets, confronted with an iron-willed military, the blood is the means and we got to respect the courage of those who defended against the professionally trained soldier who are equipped with the modern weaponry. It is ultimately a test of wills - the will to kill and the will not fearing dead.
Whoever outlast the other wins.
I am sympathetic to the red shirted for sheer reason that the party they supported won the last election.
Hopefully, the Thai soldiers (many are Buddhist) are sensible enough to reflect on Buddha birthday (this Friday) to give up the bullet for ballot.
Showing posts with label Thailand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thailand. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
ASEAN's Generation Gap - Stuck With Our Parent's Leaders?
Just a short post reflecting on a web-chat I had with my good friend Nasri about the developments in Thailand. I was reflecting that although I liked him PM Abhisit's political life is - sadly - numbered because historically in Thailand when protests turn violent, that crosses the line that makes the status quo unteneble. My thesis is that either the palace will step in, or there would be a deal for the opposition to step in, or the Prime Minister would be removed in a face-saving deal that preserves the interests of the powers-that-be. My friend's view is that would be a shame because his colleagues in the foreign ministry who have dealt with Abhisit up-close found him "damn impressive...and he was a breath of fresh air for ASEAN". I was struck by that second point.
The leaders of ASEAN are increasingly disconnected with the demography of ASEAN nations. In 2000, the median age in ASEAN was 23.9 years old, meaning 50% of the population was below the age of 23.9. This ranges from a little less than 18 years in Cambodia and East Timor to Singapore which at median age of 34.5 had the "oldest" population. The rest of the original ASEAN 6: Malaysia is 23.3, Brunei is 25.7, Indonesia 24.6, Thailand 27.5, Vietnam 23.1 and the Philippines 20.9.
On the otherhand, in terms of age (and probably in world view and outlook) ASEAN leaders are invariably one - or even two - generations removed from the majority of their population. Thailand's Abhisit is by far the youngest at 44. The Sultan of Brunei is 63. Singapore's PM Lee Hsien Loong is 57. Malaysia's new PM Najib is 55. Indonesia's President Yodhuyono is 59. President Gloria M.Arroyo is 62.
In terms of the gap between median age (2000 figures) and the age of the leaders of the original ASEAN 6, the lowest is Thailand at 16.5 years and the highest is Philippines at 41 years. The rest from lowest to highest: Singapore about 22.5, Malaysia is about 32, Indonesia is around 34 and Brunei around 37.
Using the rule of thumb of 25 years for every "generation", ASEAN leaders are therefore approximately 1.5 generations older than their people as a whole. Perhaps this is not a topic to apply any logic, but I would consider any gap beyond one-generation older than the median age to risk a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the population; both in life-experience, priorities but more fundamentally in their respective risk-horizons.
Granted that it would make sense for people in national leadership to have sufficient experience and gravitas to leaven even the best minds and talents; and granted that Asian societies have a reverence for seniority; and granted that it takes years in any system to reach the top - be it in government, business or in society as a whole; but to be more than a whole generation older than the average age of the entire population could not be a very healthy sign for any society. What more for societies that managed to compress (and are still compressing) perhaps a century of change into one or two generations.
One could correctly argue that changes are only superficial. Beneath the glitter on the surfact, the people themselves have not changed as much: that age-old conflicts, dramas and demons still unresolved and would therefore need to be managed by those who knows them best. These people may not know much about the internet or finance but they "know" nationalism, racial politics and exercise of power.
Nonetheless, I would still conclude that those skills while useful are backward looking and do not move society forward. Their people will be looking - nay, they will demand leadership and new ideas both of themselves as well as to define their common purpose. And more and more, those in their 20s and 30s will not simply inherit their parent's leaders. Within the next 10 years, I see this realignment between generations (and also between the old power elites and the new power structures) to be a relentless and continuing challenge for every ASEAN country.
Ironically, Abhitsit not withstanding his age happens to be with the old power structures. His predictament unfortunately is due not to his age, politics or policies - its simply one of timing. His Democratic Party is well-respected but often a pawn at the mercy of other more powerful political forces/personalities in Thailand in need for a "legitimate" face. This time is probably no different.
My personal dealings with Abhisit was limited to little more than showing him the bathroom. In 2003, I helped organize a small conference in Kuala Lumpur where Abhisit was invited to speak. And because he was on a flying visit from Bangkok to speak at the conference, I asked Firdaus one of the helpers at the conference to personally see to his journey from KLIA to the Mandarin Oriental and back to the airport. He spoke - not to memorably - and as he was leaving for the airport, Firdaus asked if he minded taking the LRT and the KLIA express to the airport because it had been raining cats and dogs and when that happens the KL traffic became unmoving. Being a polite and unaffected politician, he quickly agreed. And then he asked me to show him where the bathroom was and so I did. Not to be outdone by this anecdote, Nasri says he had a similar bathroom directing experience - his with the former Japanese PM Mori.
The leaders of ASEAN are increasingly disconnected with the demography of ASEAN nations. In 2000, the median age in ASEAN was 23.9 years old, meaning 50% of the population was below the age of 23.9. This ranges from a little less than 18 years in Cambodia and East Timor to Singapore which at median age of 34.5 had the "oldest" population. The rest of the original ASEAN 6: Malaysia is 23.3, Brunei is 25.7, Indonesia 24.6, Thailand 27.5, Vietnam 23.1 and the Philippines 20.9.
On the otherhand, in terms of age (and probably in world view and outlook) ASEAN leaders are invariably one - or even two - generations removed from the majority of their population. Thailand's Abhisit is by far the youngest at 44. The Sultan of Brunei is 63. Singapore's PM Lee Hsien Loong is 57. Malaysia's new PM Najib is 55. Indonesia's President Yodhuyono is 59. President Gloria M.Arroyo is 62.
In terms of the gap between median age (2000 figures) and the age of the leaders of the original ASEAN 6, the lowest is Thailand at 16.5 years and the highest is Philippines at 41 years. The rest from lowest to highest: Singapore about 22.5, Malaysia is about 32, Indonesia is around 34 and Brunei around 37.
Using the rule of thumb of 25 years for every "generation", ASEAN leaders are therefore approximately 1.5 generations older than their people as a whole. Perhaps this is not a topic to apply any logic, but I would consider any gap beyond one-generation older than the median age to risk a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the population; both in life-experience, priorities but more fundamentally in their respective risk-horizons.
Granted that it would make sense for people in national leadership to have sufficient experience and gravitas to leaven even the best minds and talents; and granted that Asian societies have a reverence for seniority; and granted that it takes years in any system to reach the top - be it in government, business or in society as a whole; but to be more than a whole generation older than the average age of the entire population could not be a very healthy sign for any society. What more for societies that managed to compress (and are still compressing) perhaps a century of change into one or two generations.
One could correctly argue that changes are only superficial. Beneath the glitter on the surfact, the people themselves have not changed as much: that age-old conflicts, dramas and demons still unresolved and would therefore need to be managed by those who knows them best. These people may not know much about the internet or finance but they "know" nationalism, racial politics and exercise of power.
Nonetheless, I would still conclude that those skills while useful are backward looking and do not move society forward. Their people will be looking - nay, they will demand leadership and new ideas both of themselves as well as to define their common purpose. And more and more, those in their 20s and 30s will not simply inherit their parent's leaders. Within the next 10 years, I see this realignment between generations (and also between the old power elites and the new power structures) to be a relentless and continuing challenge for every ASEAN country.
Ironically, Abhitsit not withstanding his age happens to be with the old power structures. His predictament unfortunately is due not to his age, politics or policies - its simply one of timing. His Democratic Party is well-respected but often a pawn at the mercy of other more powerful political forces/personalities in Thailand in need for a "legitimate" face. This time is probably no different.
My personal dealings with Abhisit was limited to little more than showing him the bathroom. In 2003, I helped organize a small conference in Kuala Lumpur where Abhisit was invited to speak. And because he was on a flying visit from Bangkok to speak at the conference, I asked Firdaus one of the helpers at the conference to personally see to his journey from KLIA to the Mandarin Oriental and back to the airport. He spoke - not to memorably - and as he was leaving for the airport, Firdaus asked if he minded taking the LRT and the KLIA express to the airport because it had been raining cats and dogs and when that happens the KL traffic became unmoving. Being a polite and unaffected politician, he quickly agreed. And then he asked me to show him where the bathroom was and so I did. Not to be outdone by this anecdote, Nasri says he had a similar bathroom directing experience - his with the former Japanese PM Mori.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Cherish our liberty and the rule of law
The Thailand Prime Minister's office compound has been occupied by anti-government protesters for weeks and yet the PM has chosen restraint rather than taking action against the trespasser.
Ironically, the Malaysian government, facing with increasingly critical online commentaries, has resorted to arrest a prominent "cyber transgressor" - an online political blogger - under a draconian security law that allows for indefinitely detention.
The Umno-led Malaysian government, with all law enforcement agencies under its control and a record of oppresive encorcement, clearly favors the strong arm approach to thwart the opposition.
Whereas the Samak/Thaksin Thai government, with a likely partisan Royal House and a watchful military, all that could be meted out by the administration is a softie restraint.
In my view, Malaysia needs a full jab of human right and Thailand needs a strong dose of the rule of law.
Seeing our neighbors situation, we ought to be thankful and hence watchful of our liberty and the rule of law in Hong Kong
Ironically, the Malaysian government, facing with increasingly critical online commentaries, has resorted to arrest a prominent "cyber transgressor" - an online political blogger - under a draconian security law that allows for indefinitely detention.
The Umno-led Malaysian government, with all law enforcement agencies under its control and a record of oppresive encorcement, clearly favors the strong arm approach to thwart the opposition.
Whereas the Samak/Thaksin Thai government, with a likely partisan Royal House and a watchful military, all that could be meted out by the administration is a softie restraint.
In my view, Malaysia needs a full jab of human right and Thailand needs a strong dose of the rule of law.
Seeing our neighbors situation, we ought to be thankful and hence watchful of our liberty and the rule of law in Hong Kong
Where Cookery is Crookery - Thai Democracy
It was the Thai military junta who crafted the latest constitution which allowed Samak and his party and allies winning the recent election which in turn led to his appointment as the prime minister.
It is constitutional (never mind that it is frequently thrown out and replaced). Tt is democratic (never mind the farmers are not as educated as the middle class). Period.
If there is any violation of election law. It is the court that should adjudicate (never mind it makes a mockery over cookery). This is called the rule of law. Otherwise, the country might as well revert to absolute manarchy or just anarchy instead of feigning or aspiring to be a democracy.
The action by the unruly mob occupying the government building and airports are undemocratic mean tyring to bring down the popularly elected government. This is beyond legitimate civil disobedience.
The Thai King held in awe by most Thai is eerily silent. This is a big surprize to most observers. The King is known to be interventionist when the country is in difficult time. No wonder that the western media believes in royalist' involvement in this anti-Samak/Thaksin movement.
Thailand cannot allow a determined minority to thwart the will of the majority. Let's the rule of law and democracy prevail!
note: this is written in response to the Economist article "Where Cookery is Crookery" on Sept 13th edition.
It is constitutional (never mind that it is frequently thrown out and replaced). Tt is democratic (never mind the farmers are not as educated as the middle class). Period.
If there is any violation of election law. It is the court that should adjudicate (never mind it makes a mockery over cookery). This is called the rule of law. Otherwise, the country might as well revert to absolute manarchy or just anarchy instead of feigning or aspiring to be a democracy.
The action by the unruly mob occupying the government building and airports are undemocratic mean tyring to bring down the popularly elected government. This is beyond legitimate civil disobedience.
The Thai King held in awe by most Thai is eerily silent. This is a big surprize to most observers. The King is known to be interventionist when the country is in difficult time. No wonder that the western media believes in royalist' involvement in this anti-Samak/Thaksin movement.
Thailand cannot allow a determined minority to thwart the will of the majority. Let's the rule of law and democracy prevail!
note: this is written in response to the Economist article "Where Cookery is Crookery" on Sept 13th edition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)