A Shinawatra history lesson
Re: "Correcting a biased view of the Shinawatras", November 29.
Keith Barlow wrote, “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.”
That claim is incorrect. As soon as news emerged that Pheu Thai had nominated Yingluck as its choice for prime minister, Thaksin gave an interview to international media in which he said of Yingluck: “This is my clone!”
Remember, Yingluck was unknown in political circles until only seven weeks before the 2011 election.
Barlow was also unfaithful to the facts when he wrote, “[Thaksin] 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.”
If Thaksin did improve the lot of the poor rural majority while in power, why did household debt among this segment double to more than 80 per cent during his time as PM? Policy to ease the plight of the poor would have lessened or even eradicated their debts rather than allowing them to balloon.
I agree wholeheartedly that populist policies can be useful if utilised in moderation and carefully. However, Thaksin took populism too far.
Pheu Thai once boasted the motto “Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts”. Thaksin’s rice price-pledging scheme alone – the party platform that catapulted his little sister Yingluck into top office in 2011 – has cost Thailand more than Bt500 billion, and a large chunk of that was lost as a result of corruption in government.
Vint Chavala
