A policy recommendation for the new cabinet… For Thailand’s next step forward

A policy recommendation for the new cabinet…

For Thailand’s next step forward

Dr.Kriengsak Chareonwongsak

Senior Fellow, Harvard Univerisity

As you read this article you will notice that Thailand is now in the hands of its new cabinet, led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajeva. While a variety of different attitudes to this new cabinet will inevitably lead the Thai people in their reaction to the new lineup, certain inescapable and important tasks now press on cabinet agenda and to these crucial tasks, attention must be given. Policies are to be formulated for each ministry and old problems remain to be solved. Thailand must even be protected from an inflowing barrage of problems; not only economic in nature – though this will very soon be a back-breaking burden for the government, but a plethora of other chronic problems also queue for the attention of Thailand’s new cabinet, whether the serious issues of crime, poor-quality education, or environmental degradation, to name a few.

To find success in the pressing tasks, there are two words which our new cabinet would do well to bear in mind; these are “Alacrity” and “Integration.”        The new cabinet must not adopt a “wait and see” approach in order to solve the problems. They should also be careful not to work individually, but by collating world resourced knowledge, vital connections should be made that can drive Thailand harmoniously forward, without conflicts of interest. If the new cabinet can succeed to achieve such a goal, Thailand’s old image of evil politics may be effaced from the people’s nightmare of memories.

                  In keeping with a truly collaborative approach, the favorable direction for the new cabinet should be to utilize each minister’s capacity completely; not to let any ministers “stand out” just because they hold positions of more responsibility and are due to receive a greater portion of budget. I believe that to “put heads together” will yield the overall optimal output, both short-run and long-run.

            Let me exemplify what I mean by integration. Supposing the Ministry of Energy’s vision is to promote alternative energy production, the Ministry of Energy would cooperate with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives to plan an agricultural area systematically. They can cooperate in exploring an appropriate area for alternative energy plants and can protect agricultural product prices from being lowered by middlemen. Moreover, by cooperating with the Ministry of Science and Technology they can conduct research and thus accumulate new knowledge about alternative energy that is compatible with Thailand’s resources.

            While the case of illegal deforestation in Kao Yai National Park stands testimony to the bureaucratic sluggishness of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, this Ministry must instead actively plan and then act out its role to revive natural resources throughout Thailand, instead of merely inspecting received complaints, as it does now. The Ministry should promote the participation of the people to protect their farmland and surrounding areas. It should develop community eco-tourism, which goes hand in hand with environmental conservation.

            Local people can also become the “eyes & ears” of civil servants far removed from their areas of responsibility by reporting illegal deforestation and other illegal activities. The new cabinet should therefore grant rewards as incentives for reporting. Should public participation grow well, the government will save administration costs and the public participation programme itself will be stronger.

            How well the new cabinet will perform and the evident truth of the new Prime Minister’s inaugural promise, “I will work on behalf of all Thai people” will depend on the integrity and determination of every minister in the new cabinet. Please don’t let the Thai people down by running your en masse megaprojects sponsored for selfish reasons without recourse to the humanitarian needs of all Thais, as has happened before.

10 MRT lines: An unacceptable and far-fetched policy

10 MRT lines: An unacceptable and far-fetched policy

           

Professor Kriengsak Chareonwongsak, PhD
                                 President of the Social Science Association of Thailand
                                         kriengsak@kriengsak.com,http://www.kriengsak.com

            In December 2005, the government invited all foreign ambassadors to Thailand to hear its modernization proposals for the whole country. After discussions of the full details, foreign companies or trade emissaries will be invited to submit tenders on projects.

            I am absolutely certain that government policy on this proposed addition to the MRT system is as unclear as it was when the project was first announced as part of a pre-election platform.

            Vagueness of the construction budget

            Because the government is proposing to exchange investment in the MRT project with latex rubber, it is apparent that the government doesn’t have the finances for this project. Economic slowdown and, in particular, the now suspended privatization process have put financial pressure on the government. Therefore, it is forced to barter to obtain enough funds the project. This doesn’t look good.

Moreover, five countries – England, USA, France, Germany, and Japan – all who are the biggest names in MRT technology, have recently rejected the project. So, offering latex rubber, will not work in this case.

            In addition, if the government wants to exchange MRT system with rubber, it is necessary to deal with Thailand’s greatest para rubber buyer, namely, China. Yet, China is unlikely to have the best MRT technology because China only began building MRTs a few years before Thailand.

However, if there is a country willing to invest in a Thai MRT and willing to exchanging its investment with Thai goods, the specific source of Thailand’s financing portion still has not been definitively named. Furthermore, this barter system assumes that the investing nation lack the goods Thailand is suggesting for an exchange. Also, if the government produces these goods using private sector financing, who will be willing to pay the private sector the goods they have extended as a part of raising finances for the MRT ?

Vagueness of MRT type

Because the Thai government will invite foreign companies to submit tenders on projects without project specifications, it is clear that the government is not clear about the type of MRT construction it wants to have.

The uncertainty of government plans is further evidenced by its back-and-forth policy changes, i.e. from seven lines to five lines and then to ten lines. What is the government doing? Has the government conducted feasibility studies yet? Simply, because of the ambiguity of government plans, these public declarations by the PM may merely be stall tactics, a way to delay MRT construction.

In addition, if the government really wants foreigners to bid on the project, why hasn’t it taken the time to clearly define issues that would concern Thailand, that is, foreign technology issues within which Thailand has no knowledge ? For example, “What criteria will the government use to choose one particular type of MRT?” “Is it desirable for Thailand to choose foreign investment based on foreign options?” and “Will the decision be transparent?”

Such obscurity makes people doubt the validity of such projects. If foreigners reject the government’s proposed barter trade system, what can the government do? How can the government seek other investment? And if the type of rail system still has not been clearly identified, when will people be able to use the new MRT lines?

----------------------------------------