If the clashes in Bangkok were transposed to central Paris, international commentators would be talking excitedly about revolution, class warfare, the future of the social contract, looming economic catastrophe and the end of democracy. Outside pressure to calm the situation would be immense.

Indeed there have been complaints by frustrated Thais as to why the Bangkok crisis has not got more international attention. But if the conflict drags on, that may well change.

[...]

Thailand’s continuing democratic example matters to Malaysia, to the south, where tensions over ethnic, civil and human rights sometimes produce autocratic responses, and even more so in Burma, to the north, where pro-democracy forces oppose a brutal military dictatorship. But sustaining Thai democracy also matters to Britain and other western countries, which look at a region increasingly influenced by the Chinese communist hegemony and wonder how long key states such as Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, will uphold western democratic values and standards if neighbours discard them.

Generally speaking, Thailand used to be regarded as the region’s “beacon of democracy” especially in the 1990s and early 2000s. The coup in 2006 did much to destroy that image, and currently Indonesia – with its increasingly robust democratic politics – seems to be the Western world’s new darling in terms of setting an example for other Southeast Asian countries to follow.

Yet, it is still premature to think of the reds as a definitively pro-democracy movement for the reasons I have pointed out before (see here and here). And in the next section, Tisdall is cautious enough not to overplay the reds’ and Thaksin’s democratic credentials (although calling the red-shirts “a pro-Thaksin movement” is inaccurate as well):

The political, as well as physical, collision between the redshirts – a pro-Thaksin movement ostensibly representing the urban and rural poor – and establishment forces comprising the political and military elites, royalists and Thailand’s newly wealthy bourgeoisie also has a significance reaching beyond Bangkok. The rich versus poor theme can be overplayed. The reality is more complicated.

The billionaire Thaksin is no Robin Hood, and his time in power was marked by a violent war on drugs, high-level corruption and harsh military measures in the south. [...]

Tisdall goes on to give us his last reason why the world should be worried:

Southern Thailand is home to a long-running separatist insurgency involving ethnic Malay Muslims who reject direct rule from Bangkok. There is evidence that al-Qaida-related activists in Indonesia and Malaysia have tried to fan and exploit this conflict in the past.

A collapse, or prolonged paralysis, of the central civil authority would be an invitation to further polarising unrest. And the last thing world needs is another battlefront with militant Islam.

In other words, a state failure.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council
3. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

David Cameron will pledge to confront Britain’s “culture of irresponsibility” with a promise to reward self-sufficiency and hard work.

…

Mr Cameron will pledge: “I can look you in the eye and tell you, that in a Conservative Britain: If you put in the effort to bring in a wage, you will be better off.

“If you save money your whole life, you’ll be rewarded. If you start your own business, we’ll be right behind you. If you want to raise a family, we’ll support you. If you’re frightened, we’ll protect you.

It remains to be seen whether, in a year’s time, the Cameron government will feel it is necessary to waste public money on a massive, pretentious, ostensibly youth-oriented campaign to promote sufficiency among individuals. It will also be interesting to observe whether the Tories will be able to come up with a clear, concise definition of ‘self-sufficiency’ or just a vague, catch-all notion that will merely serve as a political tool to plaster over the government’s lack of real substance, as is already the case in a certain country in Southeast Asia.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Korbsak, Abhisit and Ministerial Responsibility

Amid all the publicity surrounding the red shirts’ petition for a royal pardon and the endless media circus around the National Police Chief, one important issue seems to have slipped under some people’s radar.

Korbsak Sabhavasu, the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economic affairs, is currently under pressure following revelations in the media that the Sufficiency Community Project, which he supervises, is tainted with corruption and irregularities.

While the Democrat Party has attempted to both play down the scandal and absolve Korbsak of any blame, it is evident that the damage has already been done.

For one thing, the name of the project itself carries an obvious royal connotation. ‘Sufficiency Economy‘ is a body of philosophy promoted by HMTK in response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis. It advocates moderation and awareness of one’s capability rather than greed and blind pursuit of profits. Over the last few years ‘sufficiency’ has become somewhat of a buzz word in the Thai political circle, and the decision of this Democrat-led government to revive the Thaksin-era SML village-fund scheme and rename it to Sufficiency Community Project is one of the many examples of the influence of Sufficiency Economy over government projects.

Given the revered status of the Thai monarch, the government is naturally under extra pressure to ensure that a project bearing the sufficiency mantra operates smoothly. For a government that has put such high priority on protecting the monarchy, this corruption scandal is not just embarrassing but also undermines the government’s royalist credentials.

It is way too early at this stage to say whether Korbsak is personally linked to any of these irregularities. As part of the 26 billion baht scheme, money has been disseminated to around 31,000 qualified communities across the country. The nature of this project means that there are so many opportunities for local officials and politicians to profit from such a huge budget. The Democrats’ own internal investigation has put the blame on certain government officials and denied Korbsak’s involvement. The opposition Peua Thai Party is also accused of being linked to some of these corruption cases itself. Yet, as it is predicted that the corruption may cost the country billions of baht, is it enough for the government to deny Korbsak’s role when he is the Minister directly responsible?

Already, comparisons are being drawn between this case and the case of Witoon Nambutr (see Matichon and ASTV-Manager [in Thai]). In March, Witoon resigned from his Ministerial position following a scandal over contaminated tinned food which was distributed to flood victims as part of the government’s disaster relief effort. At the time, the government’s early response was to defend Witoon before relentless public pressure compelled Abhisit to privately ask the Minister to quit.

Now, how long can Korbsak carry on before suffering the same fate? How long can Abhisit remain aloof from the issue? The Oxford-educated Premier knows full well that there is a convention in British politics whereby Ministers voluntarily resign to show responsibility for big scandals. The Matichon article speculates that it is politically harder to sack Korbsak than Witoon given that the latter is an MP from the northeast faction, the least influential in the party. It seems today is a golden opportunity for the PM to protect the reputation of the Democrat Party, to set a new standard for Thai politicians and to actually fulfill his early promise to run a clean, ethical government.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Abhisit Too Nice To Lead?
2. Abhisit Faces Foreign Diplomats
3. Democrat and Land Tax