PM’s next move: From military trap into political quagmire

For years economic gurus have told us the country is stuck in a “middle-income trap”. Every government for the past decade or so has said it will get us out of this trap – in vain.

This startling term first came to our attention via the enlightening speeches of economists, who warned that we couldn’t afford to be caught in the “middle-income trap” forever.

However, we aren’t quite sure what’s so bad about being cast as a middle-income country. It sounds better, at least, than being caught in the “low-income trap”. If we can’t find a path that leads to the “high-income trap”, then being middling shouldn’t be all that bad.

No, insist the experts: Anything known as a trap is bad. It indicates there is no way out, and any place in which you are confined for a prolonged period is not desirable – even if it’s somewhere in the middle.

The “middle-income trap”, we have been informed, “is a situation in which a country’s growth slows after having reached the middle-income levels – and what’s worse, once a country is placed in that position, it finds itself in a transition to high-income levels unattainable”.

Those seeking a deeper knowledge of the issue have been told that middle-income countries are squeezed between their low-wage, poor-country competitors that dominate the mature industries, and the rich-country innovators that dominate industries of rapid technological change. In other words, we have progressed on from a country with abundant cheap, unskilled labour but now have insufficient human capital, innovation and managerial resources to climb to the top of the ladder.

Nobody knows when we will be boosted out of the “middle-income trap” – or how and whether the much-hyped Thailand 4.0 Project will do the trick. Again, if relatively few Thai citizens really understand the meaning of the “trap”, perhaps even fewer appreciate the significance of Thailand 4.0 – or where the ordinary man in the street fits into that high-sounding scheme.

But somehow, the phrase has caught on. And it’s not just economists who seek to impress the general public by frequently mentioning the “middle-income trap”. Bureaucrats also lace their official reports with the term, perhaps to impress their bosses, who in turn convince the politicians that it doesn’t matter whether they know what the phrase means as long as they repeat it often enough to reflect their “grave concern” about this trap.

Now, however, a new “trap” is looming, this time right in the middle of the political minefield. 

Soon after news aired that a group of retired generals were seeking to launch a political party to accommodate the top brass, it was suggested that Premier Prayut Chan-o-cha should set up a party so that he could run in the upcoming election, secure a nomination to become next prime minister and thus ensure a “graceful and democratic” extension to his rule.

Not long after that – in fact it was only a matter of hours – the PM shot down all the speculation, saying that his earlier statements might have been misunderstood and that he had made no decision on what he would do after the new constitution came into force. I will cross that bridge when I come to it, was the message.

Some of his supporters chose this crucial juncture to caution Prayut against taking advice from a category known in political circles as “people with good wishes but malicious intentions”.

“Mr Prime Minister, beware,” came the warning. “It’s a trap.” 

Thai political history is stacked high with stories of generals who have tried – and failed – to masquerade as democracy-loving politicians.

This, of course, is no ordinary trap. 

It has multifaceted bait, a well laid-out plot and unquestionably dirty ploys, all wrapped in a snare that would plunge any political novice into a quagmire.

The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.