Correcting a biased view of the Shinawatras

Many of Vint Chavala’s letters I find balanced and objective, but I take strong exception to the completely biased view of former premiers Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra offered by his latest missive.

Khun Vint, firstly, Yingluck was not elected in 2011 because her brother wanted her to be his “clone”. She was elected because a majority of the electorate voted for her rather than for her opponents.

Secondly, her brother Thaksin did not pit the rural poor against the urban middle classes. The rural poor have been pitted against the Thai elite for as long as democracy has been tried in Thailand. Until Thaksin, nobody cared about the rural poor, and they in turn hardly bothered to vote. He acknowledged the division in Thai society and for the first time attempted to improve the lot of the poor majority, even if some of his policies were misjudged.

Thirdly, it’s laughable that the Shinawatra haters now use “populist” as a term of abuse. What kind of world are they living in? Populist policies are what every politician has striven for since the birth of democracy. Unpopular policies or policies which favour a minority over a majority will never get you into government via an election, leaving you reliant instead on a military coup.

Fourthly, taxes in a democracy should be spent on improving the lives of the whole population, not on making a minority more comfortable and on buying ridiculous toys for millionaire military officers.

Lastly, of course the military chiefs were incensed by Thaksin’s approach. As part of the elite they were never interested in inclusive politics.

Last century the German philosopher Herbert Marcuse wrote, “Law and order are always and everywhere the law and order which protect the established hierarchy.” 

Sadly that statement holds true in this beautiful country.

Keith Barlow