Our obsession with politics is too excessive for our own good

The political workings of a “democracy” like ours are symbolic and designed to make the people believe that they have an important role to play in the system. The majority of us, however, no longer believe that political administrators do things for the public. But we seem unable to take our eyes off the political drama, no matter how trivial it sometimes seems.

These days there is so much for the public to digest politically. Every day and everywhere we cannot avoid politics and political debates. National reconciliation; the return of the ousted former prime minister; the disillusionment of the red shirts; the proposed amendment of the Constitution; porn images uploaded during a parliamentary session; the empty “full attendance” chamber; the re-opening of the “Pandora 111” House; and so on. These issues occupy the front page of every newspaper, and top the list on air.

We are so preoccupied with politics that we have forgotten that there exists another equally, if not more, important matter – namely, national development. Do we have much inkling of which direction our nation is heading economically, infrastructurally, educationally and socially?

The world is changing rapidly and precipitously in terms of development, and with it the modes of production, educational and professional requirements, and the social hierarchy. In the April 21 issue of The Economist, there is an article entitled, “Manufacturing: The Third Industrial Revolution.” It describes a “revolution” that will affect not just how things are made, but where they are made. It predicts that low wages will not be likely to dominate the considerations of enterprise executives and planners as the most significant factor in choosing a centre of production. Instead, swift delivery systems and response to customers will be. That new mentality is something that governments will find difficult to grasp, and the politics of jobs will become one huge heap of confusion.

Closer to home, have we done much in terms of policies and implementation plans in preparation for the Asean Economic Community (AEC) that will become effective in 2015?  What do we envision our position to be in this community? What to do about wage issues? What will be the best educational preparation to ensure our national competitiveness? Where will we end up in the regional and global supply chain?

If we do not start to see the big picture, we will not be able to come up with answers to these questions.  We will not be able to see the big picture if we do not open our eyes. 

The worst thing we can do to ourselves is to continue with an easy come-easy go, que sera sera, mai pen rai attitude. Not everything can simply grow organically.

A lot of studies have been done in Thailand on the AEC, and several organisations have started to focus their activities and policies with AEC integration as the underpinning guideline. But these efforts never quite capture the national attention, or move up to the top of our national agenda. The result is isolated pieces of work that do not combine to make the collective sum greater than the sum of its parts.

It is agreed among Asean leaders that the AEC is no longer a choice, but an imperative. Sandwiched between two economic giants of Asia – China and India – Asean has to integrate economically, or risk being torn apart by the gravitational forces of the two great powers, thrown into oblivion as they expand.

Roughly, the Asean countries can be divided into three groups according to economic development: First: Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. Second: Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Third: Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia. Brunei is a separate case on its own because of its massive wealth from oil. A well-seasoned Singaporean diplomat and policy-maker admitted that with the AEC, even his own country still has some way to go, albeit perhaps less further to travel than the other members. Malaysia has laid down a clear vision and path toward 2015 in terms of its policies and implementation agenda. Malaysia knows where it wants to be, and the kind of nation it aspires to be by then.

Thailand lags several steps behind in that regard. There seems to be an inherent arrogance in our attitude that even if we fall asleep along the way, we shall eventually catch up and surpass the others who have started the journey well ahead of us. That complacent mentality may have been acceptable, and may even have worked, in the past, but in this swiftly changing global landscape of technology and economic paradigms, it is detrimental. The benefits of integration will not be distributed equally. If the crumbs are something we can live with, then we – the losers – can sing gleefully “Let it be.”

The one overriding condition necessary for the country’s structural economic reform is political consensus. How to achieve this should, and must, be the only thing on the national obsession list. The general public must also be educated about why there is a genuine need for the AEC, not simply be told that it is needed. Ideally, Thailand needs a broad-based political consensus on national economic policies regardless of which government is in power.

Political consensus does not grow like mushrooms; it requires authentic political leadership. This is when a leader works to resolve problems, rather than simply milk them for political advantage.

Political consensus may be a “Himalayan task”, but as Sir Edmund Hillary humbly proved, even the highest mountain can be conquered.