What could have been

Love him or hate him, Thaksin has left a permanent mark in Thai history. Looking back, the rise of Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai was remarkable. Against the backdrop of 1997 financial crisis, coupled with the IMF’s predatory demands and the Democrats’ inability to rescue the country from financial crisis, Thaksin saw opportunity and seized it. He portrayed himself as a revolutionary leader who could get Thailand out of the financial crisis. And indeed he did, but in the process he created another crisis.

Millions of people – including me – voted for and initially had high hopes for the TRT. I had genuinely believed it would make a positive difference.

Appointing himself as “CEO of Thailand”, Thaksin drew on business-management theories to execute his policies. His efficient and swift policy executions were unheard of in Thailand. What’s more, Thaksin challenged the bureaucrats, provincial politicians and local godfathers’ power (which I supported and still do).

But then disillusionment set in, leaving me and many others disappointed. The censorship of the media reached an unprecedented level. Current-affairs programmes critical of Thaksin were cancelled; editors were fired or transferred; Thakin’s allies bought up many media companies’ shares; public intellectuals were silenced. The “war on drugs” left many innocent people and political opponents dead. The “war on poverty” made the farmers slightly better off. As for the Bt30 healthcare scheme – some hospitals thrived while others nearly went bankrupt. Curfews were periodically imposed on teenagers. Finally, Shin Corp made an exorbitant profit during Thaksin’s premiership. In effect, Thakin’s regime had become a hyper-capitalist police state. Most of the benefits went to Thaksin and his cronies.

What is disappointing is that Thaksin chose to forgo his chance of making a positive impact. If he had been satisfied with his wealth and committed to advancing the nation, he would have been the greatest prime minister in Thailand’s history.

Thus, in answering the question “Is the amendment necessary?” my answer is “no” if, and only if, Thaksin decides to retire and wash his hands completely of politics. With his wealth, he could easily afford and enjoy a comfortable retirement abroad. Despite being unable to return home, he would still get regular visits by his family and friends. Moreover, with his absence, his opponents will no longer have anything substantive to criticise. And Pheu Thai will run its own course. At this rate, it will most likely win the next general election. 

Should Thaksin take this path, in 20 years time history might see him as a leader who sacrificed for the country. On the other hand, if he wants to return home and thereby create more political division, then the amendment is necessary. Either way, the choice is his.

Edward Kitlertsirivatana

Bangkok