New Thai Prime Minister Says People Must Wait for Democracy

Posted January 23, 2009

REVIEW deputy editor, Colum Murphy, recently sat down with Thailand's new prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva. Mr. Abhisit said he will not "return power to the people" until calm returns to Thailand's political scene and the economy is fixed. Read the full transcript below or listen to highlights from the interview in an exclusive podcast by FEER.com (here).

It's probably understatement to say that you're facing a lot of challenges right now. Do you think the circumstances under which you came to power could hamper achieving these goals and overcoming these obstacles that you face?

Obviously I would have preferred to have come into this position under different circumstances. But I think what matters to the people now is whether the new government can make sure that the country gets through both the economic and political crisis. I think that’s their top concern and so long as those concerns are addressed I don’t see any problems otherwise.

But you've been quoted as saying you came to power under parliamentary procedures, but in terms of the spirit of democracy...

I take the cue from the Westminster model and people say if parliament expresses its will that is the spirit of democracy.

It's not unusual for parliamentary systems for governments to be formed midterm with different composition and it is even more natural for a number of systems where clearly where one party has had a chance – in our [Thailand’s] case two chances of running the country and running into problems that the other side gets a chance.

Do you think that you've had to compromise in order to put this coalition together?

They say that politics is the art of the possible. We have put together a coalition. It might seem imperfect from one perspective, but it is something that makes the government workable and at least as we have started work the country is already seeing a difference which is that we now have a government that really functions that moves ahead very rapidly to address to the top most concerns of people which is the economic problems. We are moving very fast, we should have the [economic stimulus] package, the mid year budget into parliament by the end of this month. So while people may have views about the composition of the cabinet, what matters now is the work that the cabinet does. I think so far we are making progress according to the way I have planned.

Going back to the way you came to power: some are saying it's a coup by another name. How do you respond to that?

I don’t see how they can claim that. There was an open vote in parliament. Parliamentarians even have a clause in the Constitution that gives the individual members independence in making the decision, and the majority voted for me.

What about this incident that I'm hearing about, where the secretary-general of your party has allegedly visited a military compound ...

I know that all politicians admit that they talk to the military, and I believe that the armed forces when they say that all they do is that they express concern about the political situation, [and] that they won’t engage in any partisan politics, and that should be the way.

What then is your top priority moving forward?

Two things clearly. We want to keep the economy growing, because it suffered negative growth in the last quarter of last year. We want to bring unity back to the country, and lay the ground work for a stronger democracy in the future.

In terms of economy: could you describe the plan you announced this week?

It’s a basic stimulus package. It will involve a midyear budget. It will involve spending through various state banks and also it will involve the speeding up the spending of local authorities’ and state-owned enterprises. In the package, all key groups will benefit from the package: farmers, workers, the elderly, parents, and we think this will sustain domestic demand while our trading partners suffer recessions. This will hold up the economy through to second, third quarter this year.

...so very short term in nature.

Well obviously because all the components of the package are designed for swift spending, putting money in people’s pockets, make them spend and get the multiplier effect. And then of course by the third quarter, we may be under different circumstances and we’ll see at that time, when we do the annual budget, as well as consider other forms of spending, how to take it from there.

How is this different from Mr. Thaksin's policies, how is it different from the previous governments' policies?

I’ve never seen Khun Thaksin address education in the last 8 years, and the elderly.

But there are a lot of similarities in the types of programs.

Do you see any differences in all the Keynesian stimulus packages models all over the world in history? All economies at the moment face the same economic conditions and for quite a long time there hasn’t been a consensus on the need for a Keynesian package. There is now [a consensus]. We are not different from that view.

In fact, if you look at the individual components of the package that we have for this month compared to what the previous administration was preparing there was a lot of difference.

The first time we met [in 2005] you were highly critical of what you termed populist policies. 

All those criticisms still stand. And they will have been taken into account in designing our package.

So you don't think this is a populist move?

I think it is a standard stimulus package in the Keynesian tradition.

In terms of fundamental change to the economy, it doesn't seem to be as far reaching as maybe some would have expected.

If I came into this position when the economy was under normal circumstances, it would be different.  The fact of the matter is that we are threatened with a contraction in the economy and the only solution is to make sure that people continue to have purchasing power, and there aren’t many choices in terms of doing that effectively.

Are you thinking of that scenario of when things return to normal?

When things return to normal obviously some of these programs will be continued because something like free education is what I fought for a long time and it was clearly a missing piece in all the previous administrations over the last eight years.

You're expanding it from 12 years to 15?

Yes…well no, it’s not really an expansion because there was never free education with the previous administrations, it was on paper, it was never real. We want to make it real and it’s something that is required by the Constitution but its something that was never respected by a number of administrations.

In terms of programs for farmers and workers and for the poor in general beginning maybe the next fiscal year I will try to put in place a more systematic welfare or workfare program rather than ad hoc spending.

What about broader reform to the economy? Are there any things we can look forward to?

We will address the key factors affecting competitiveness and in fact education and skills is probably the most urgent issue. Technology is another. But it would take some time before the investment in research and development—which we intend to increase—pays off. But equally significant I think is good governance.

Despite the fact that Thailand has adhered to what we still believe to be a correct approach, which is one of competition and private sector led growth, there has always been a problem concerning governance issues, both in the private sector and the public sector and perhaps more importantly the relationship between the public and private sectors.

What about in your area in terms of accountability? We had the airports closed, but supporters of the PAD ...

The cases are proceeding.

So you think these people should be punished?

I think it is up to the police, the attorney-general and the courts. My policy is that they have to treat all the cases straightforward.

But you picked your cabinet. In some respects, if you picked someone that's associated with the chaos of the past year, doesn't that reflect poorly on the government?

[Foreign Minister] Khun Kasit [Piromya] has been picked for his experience. He has been ambassador to a number of key countries, he’s a very knowledgeable person on the economy. He may have addressed or joined some of the rallies but if he has done anything illegal he will be prosecuted.

And he would be removed from the post?

Obviously. At the moment there are no cases brought against him.

How would compare this economic downturn to the one in 1997?

It’s different. I think in 97 … people say “we” [Thais] started it all off here in Thailand…the problem then was one of instability…reserves running down, no confidence in financial institutions. This time it’s almost the opposite. The crisis basically comes from outside. It begins in the real sector. So exporters are hit and subsequently export demand is hit. And then it may feed through to the financial side. So its completely different. Which is why the way we go about [addressing] it will be different.

And the impact on tourism is partially due to the global downturn and partially due to factors here.

If you look at the numbers, the number of tourist began to decline in the third quarter, and that was even before the airport incidents.

But surely it didn't help

Of course it didn’t help [quick laugh] …

What are you going to do to rectify this?

So far the sector is picking up quite well. We will obviously have to enhance more measures and we will need to bring back confidence, part of that is to make sure that the ASEAN summit is held as quickly as possible and we are moving toward that.

In terms of structural change and tax reform: is anything coming up soon? 

Not in the immediate term because we need to get money out and there are constraints as to how much we can do at the moment. But if we can get through this situation, then there will be subsequent structural reforms on the tax side as well as on public spending as a whole.

Any incentives to attract more foreign companies to Thailand? 

Yes, although given the climate in the global economy, lots of countries and companies are adopting a wait and see attitude. We will continue to increase the attractiveness of the country which is why I talk about addressing the basic factors. But also the Board of Investment will look into various avenues to make it attractive to invest here.

What about last year you mentioned briefly the pharmaceutical industry and the whole issue of generics ...

That has been largely resolved. The health ministry has now made clear that it will not adopt more measures along that line and I will explore the avenue of buying consortium type to get people to have cheap access to essential drugs.

Are you considering of going to the people and having a general election?

I think if we can get the economy rolling again, if we achieve a more stable environment as far as the supporters of either side are concerned, then I will look for the appropriate time to return the power to the people.

You don't have any timeframe in mind?

I don’t think that I should have a timeframe. We need to look at the situation and I will pick a time when it is appropriate.

But don't you think that a mandate would help you push forward with policies?

At the moment, I don’t think the country can afford to delay the economic stimulus package, to delay the ASEAN summit, and even during the bye-elections, given that there are still some people actively preventing people from campaigning we need to calm that down first.

Do you think you will be in a stronger position in the parliament in terms of majority after the by-election [of Jan. 11. 2009]?

I think the balance in power in parliament would be largely unaffected.

You mentioned people as preventing others from voting, I assume you're referring to the so-called Redshirts. How big of a threat do you consider them to political stability?

I think what matters more is how the government handles the situation. Since I assumed power we have not provoked or taken a stance that would worsen feelings and conflicts. We are also using the time in power to prove to everyone that they will be treated justly. And I believe that when given time for this approach to carry on there will be more stability.

And you believe they will be treated as equally as the PAD people?

Of course.

Why do you think this divide has occurred in Thailand?

The fundamental conflict is one concerning the different aspects of democracy. On one side there are people who attach great importance to electoral politics and majority rule—and rightly so. But the other side looks at the other aspect, the essential aspect, of democracy which is accountability, and what has led the country into this situation is that the majority in the past abused power pretty much broke all the rules and principles of democracy except for majority rule and that is why it has brought our people into conflict. The way to resolve it of course is to make sure that our democracy has both aspects in place, which is that there is a majority rule, there is electoral politics, but also that that elected government would be accountable, respect the rights of the minority and adhere to the principles of democracy.

Does Thai-style democracy actually exist?

It would be hard to define. I think that each country could have an unique set of rules, but not contrary to the fundamental principles. For instance, I wouldn’t call a system that has appointed officials or parliament in the majority or to a significant number or in the lower house a democracy, whatever style. But we can have our own electoral system, we can have our own system of checks and balances, we have a fairly complex network of independent organizations, it’s different from other countries, and given the nature of Thai people, there may be some compromises and so on, but that’s all within the framework of democracy, that might be unique.

What about the army?

The army should be professional armed forces and they shouldn’t be dragged back into politics. When the Democrats were last in power we actually almost succeeded in achieving that. It is a shame that subsequent administrations dragged them back into politics. I would just say previous administrations had taken another actions which dragged them back. My job now is to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Would you consider some sort of reconciliation with Mr. Thaksin?

I think if Khun Thaksin would allow himself to be treated as any other Thai would, which is that he must be under the law, I think Thai society is a forgiving society but you have to accept your responsibilities first.

So he should serve a prison sentence?

Well he should at least come back and respect the decision of the court.

What do you think the possibilities are with reconciliation?

I am very straightforward. I need to uphold the rule of law. And as I say, there are avenues to be explored in the future concerning reconciliation but the need to uphold the system is more important. So it’s his choice.

What about the South, do you have any fresh perspective for how you're going to handle [the conflict in] the south?

We’ll set up an inner cabinet if you like to deal with the issue and bring the economic, education and cultural aspects of the solution to bear more weight, rather than leaving the problem to the security forces.

What about the security forces that have been pointed out as responsible for deaths under torture. You would agree they should be prosecuted in the courts?

Yes. I do.

I wanted to ask you about the les majeste situation. I get conflicting reports. I hear Web sites will be shut down. I wonder if you're familiar with the case of Australian Harry Nicolaides?

[pause]

Also [journalist] Jonathan Head, and the former commerce minister. In other words a lot of people are caught up in this issue at the moment. Do you think it’s an obstacle to free debate in this country?

I have made clear to the police and the authorities concerned that the law is the law. But this law should not be abused for whatever purposes. And the reason we have this law is because we have a revered institution that should remain above conflict because such an institution has no defense mechanism when people abuse the institution. So people respect the law. Then there is no problem. Is it counter to free expression? Well is the law on contempt of court …why do countries have that? Because the courts are above conflict and if you drag them down you are upsetting key institutions that preserve balance in the country.

So there is a reason for the existence of the law. If the law exists, you enforce it but you must be careful not to interpret and abuse the law, and maybe in some cases in the past, interpretations and abuses and uses are questionable.

So shutting down Web sites is acceptable?

Well, it’s no different when Western countries shut down extremist Web sites. You know what offends in one country might not seem offensive in another. But I have also said very clearly that they should, as far as they could, avoid any restrictions of freedom of expression. But you know, freedom of expression has to be used under the law.

Just regarding America, what could the United States do to help Thailand in this situation?

The first thing is that we hope that the United States will have a good economic plan that will not involve a move towards more protectionist stance. Keep markets open to us. That would be a great help.

An FTA was under negotiation but I believe the fast track authority would need to be renewed on the side of the States.

What about closer to home: Cambodia and Burma?

I believe we have a frame work of negotiations to resolve problems with Cambodia. As far as Myanmar is concerned, we will continue to join with other ASEAN countries to encourage change and hope that there will be change in Myanmar. But we also have to deal with the problem that neighbors have with such a long common border.

Last year you said you don't want to be a Prime Minister that fails. Looking forward, how do you evaluate your chances of success?

I do my best. I am determined to succeed. The people will judge. And being a democratic politician I will accept the judgment of the people.