Poor Thais

I have nothing but sympathy for the people of this supposedly peaceful, predominantly Buddhist kingdom

First they (the Bangkok elite) cannot tolerate a good Prime Minister (Thaksin) who cares for the poor so much so that they instigate the army and support a coup d'etat. OK he may have mixed business with politics, but that must surely be a case of the pot calling the kettle black for I can't imagine a Thai politician who's in politics with the sole purpose of serving his/her fellow countrymen. There's always a hidden agenda somewhere and this normally starts from a hunger for power and recognition, evolving into business propositions from people around them, and inevitably leading to some form of corruption, collusion or cronyism.

In the so called affluent Western world, this is not dissimilar to the work of lobbyists, and politicians laying the ground for campaign funds at the next election - its not called corruption or cronyism. Look at what happened to Bush and Cheney and their relationship with oil giants. Here in the East, it's called corruption and cronyism, plus nepotism in the words of the Indonesians.

"One man one vote" is just not good enough for the urban elite in Bangkok and surrounds. Farmers are deemed "children of a lesser God" and don't deserve to have the equal vote that the "intellect and elite" have

So why did the security apparatus and the army in Thailand let these PAD bandits and bullies run amok to the extent of isolating Bangkok from the outside world and inconveniencing tourists by closing their airport? Doesn't this smell of collaboration? Doesn't this suggest that some "high power" up there is tacitly supporting the bullies and bandits who wear yellow purportedly in support of the King. This high power is so powerful, for otherwise the PAD movement would not have rendered the army and police ineffective. How should the monarch feel when bandits and bullies further their crimes under the auspices of loyalty to the monarch?

They asked for Prime Minister Samak to resign when they occupied government house in Bangkok. Samak resigned but they didn't disperse from government house. Now they want replacement Prime Minister Somchai to resign and the government to step down. Who's going to govern if the government steps down? They, the PAD who's holding the country at ransom even though the government is a democratically elected one?

When I was in Bangkok during the Thaksin era, a lot of the established business people dislike Thaksin openly. The cushy contracts and relationships they had with the "old school" politicians suddenly disappeared in the face of billionaire Thaksin and his business empire. It's not unlike the Suharto kids in Indonesia - before the children grew up, business deals were spread out "quite equally" among Suharto loyalists under a "somewhat successful" patronage system; but when the children grew up and entered the business world, the best deals were snatched up by the Cendana family leaving the "bones" for the others.

How can Thais get out of this quagmire.

Maybe they need a strong Prime Minister like Thaksin to come back and resolve this once and for all - through negotiations and diplomacy. Thaksin must have learnt his mistakes by now - maybe he isolated the powerful elites so badly that they have but one aim and that is to put him out of power. The person who's so instrumental in reshaping the country and giving the rural folks a breathe of fresh air may have moved too fast for the urban folks to accept. I'm quite sure that a smart person like Thaksin will not make the same mistakes, IF given a second chance.

If only Indonesia has the same strong willed and committed leader in next year's elections. Rural Indonesians, perhaps even all Indonesians will be able to breathe the same fresh air Thaksin provided to the rural Thais - corrupt officials who pilfer from education and welfare funds for the poor excluded, of course.

Asia's young democracies

News out of Thailand and Malaysia are hoarding the headlines now; soon it will be Indonesia when they move into election fever in 2009. All these point to the fact that most countries in Asia are still going through a young and immature democracy.

Thailand has been notorious for their coups d'etat for as long as people can remember. Malaysia is slightly different in that the Barisan Nasional has been a stabilizing force in the country made up of diversified ethnic groups, until their General Elections in March 2008. From developments so far, the populace seem to be "fed up" with the pro-Malay/bumiputera policies which survived Malaysian politics up until now. The feeling on the ground, it seems, is that the pro-Malay policies are responsible for the culture of cronyism, nepotism and corruption in Malaysia which Indonesia - referred to as KKN in their own language - is trying to shed .

Malaysian politics is based on a patronage system not unlike the Indonesian system under the late President Suharto. Sort of an old boys' network not dissimilar to what's common in the UK, USA and Canada and other western countries. The difference in the affluent West is that they try and be as accountable as possible, save for the way the Bush administration appointed their security contractors in Iraq. In Malaysia, it's very different; for the government seem to award projects like they were "distributing the spoils", the way warlords or conquerors in history, east and west, used to do to reward their loyal subjects who helped them win territories.

Thailand is unique as the elite failed to deliver voter numbers to ensure that the party they support wins the election. Its probably arrogance which allowed Thaksin and his party to win over the greater numbers from the rural poor compared to elitists in the capital and major cities. The Indonesian politicians are better at this, knowing how to spread their campaign efforts over the areas where the numbers count. That's why I feel that the Thai elites who want to control Thailand are really arrogant.

Of all the democracies in Asia, Thailand is probably worst off. Malaysia a close second. The Philippines is too corrupt to count and Singapore's "managed democracy" probably doesn't fall into that league - and Singapore's leaders don't want to be in the same league of "western styled" democracies anyway. That leaves Indonesia, which is probably the closest to the western definition of "democracy" as we can get, not that it is the best form of governance for such a diversified country like Indonesia for now. But I'm sure that with a lot of hard work, the Indonesians will find the equilibrium on a democracy which works for their country, assuming there are enough politicians committed to the secular approach as the best way forward for their country in the next generation.