HONG KONG "We need a Thaksin" has become a common sentiment in Southeast Asian countries, notably Indonesia and the Philippines, which have weak governments and an uninspiring choice of leaders in upcoming elections. In just three years in office Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand has established himself as the most prominent leader in the region. No one doubts that he will be returned to power in elections a year from now.

Thaksin sees himself as a successor to Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Suharto of Indonesia and Mahathir bin Mohamad of Malaysia, renowned for their authoritarian tendencies as well as their long periods in office. This makes a large minority of Thais nervous that Thai democracy, which evolved painfully in the 20 years after the 1973 revolt against military strongmen, will be in sustained retreat against the forces of populist authoritarianism, a common enough phenomenon in the region and often accompanied by a large measure of cronyism and bypassing of judicial processes.

But is there really an apt comparison between Thaksin and these others? And is there such a position as "leader" of the region - other perhaps than in the eyes of non-Asian media?

Thaksin owes his pre-eminence to four factors: the passing from the scene of the long-established regional figures; Thailand's new economic boom, which has been attributed to "Thaksinomics" and is seen as regional exemplar; his astute use of constitutional changes and the power of patronage to assure the dominance of his coalition in Parliament, and his own policy activism and self-promotion.

The strength of the economy owes something to government spending and lending by state banks that were at once populist and pro-business. Thaksin has been able to take the credit, however, for the recovery made possible by three years of austerity under his Democrat predecessor, following the Asian financial crisis, plus the stimulation of low global interest rates.

The Thai economy has long been the most open and broad-based in southeast Asia, so a strong recovery was always likely. The danger now is that Thaksin will be carried away by his own ambitions. Not content with 6.5 percent growth in 2003, he is looking for 8 percent in 2004 and 10 percent in 2005, a goal which if achieved would almost certainly be followed by another bust.

His eyes are on the 2005 election, in which he hopes that his Thai Rak Thai party can gain an absolute majority and no longer have to rely on a coalition. Critics fear that if he and his allies get 400 of the 500 seats, Parliament will be powerless to curb his authoritarian instincts. Their fears are justified. A can-do philosophy of "the end justifies the means" was evident in Thaksin's campaign against drugs, in which 2,500 suspected drug dealers were killed extrajudicially. In the short run, methods that bypass corrupt institutions and slow-moving procedures are popular.

The long-established pluralism of Thai politics, however, makes it unlikely that Thaksin can replicate the Malaysian or Singaporean systems of one-party dominance. His party is based on his personality, while the main opposition Democrat Party has an institutional base - and strength in liberal Bangkok, where a governorship election this year will test the depth of support for Thaksin's party.

State powers of patronage are also much less in Thailand than elsewhere in the region and the diversity of business interests has its counterpart in politics. The press has been partly brought to heel by Thaksin's use of commercial pressures, but the Thai news media is seldom cowed for long. Even when the generals ruled, the Thai press was freer than its counterparts in "democratic" Malaysia and Singapore.

Crucially too, it is the king - who has delivered homilies to Thaksin - who is the focus of national identity, rather than the political leader. Even military men have mostly had brief careers as leaders in the roughhouse of Thai politics.

Thailand's geography and economic strength have always given it a key role in southeast Asia. Thaksin has built on that through promoting good relations with both China and the United States, recently by sending troops to Iraq. Despite his nationalist rhetoric he has pushed for the freer trade among the members of Asean, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, from which Thailand particularly benefits. He has promoted regional financial cooperation and made overtures to South Asia.

Thailand has usually thrived, however, on high-quality, low-key diplomacy, not grandstanding. The Vietnamese reckon they are the equal of Thailand and resent Thai assumptions of regional leadership. Indonesians know their nation is by far the most populated and extensive in Southeast Asia.

Thaksin is riding high, but like many a businessman with a long string of successful gambles, overconfidence may be his biggest danger. For good or ill, there are finite limits to his power at home and his influence abroad.

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune
 

Air marshals - a modern day necessity?

6 January 2004

The USA is demanding that all foreign airlines flying into the USA or over USA airspace carry air marshals on each flight.

Singapore Airlines looks like leading in compliance. Certain British based carriers are strongly against this requirement.

A spokesman for Thomas Cook Airlines, formerly known as JMC, has criticised the UK government for "rushing in" requirements "without proper consultation".

"Our view is that the skipper of an aircraft must be in overall command," he said. "We have a general concern about guns in aircraft cabins."

British Airways is known to be sceptical and the BALPA (British Airline Pilots Association) is meeting the government's transport secretary.

One thought keeps coming to mind. If there had been air marshals on the flights on September 11, 2001, then the World Trade Center tragedy would probably not have happened. The hijackers were armed with box cutters. 

Safe air travel requires multi level security; it requires good intelligence about possible security threats; intelligence that is shared among all relevant authorities; it requires secure airside facilities at airports including secure id checks and background checks on staff who service the airplanes. It requires baggage screening. It requires passenger and hand baggage screening. It requires secure cockpits. It probably now requires greater on board security.

But let's do this properly. Let's consult with the airlines and the pilots. Let's find another name for air marshals, this sounds too much like John Wayne with a six gun riding up and down the aisles. Let's use lower impact bullets that should not pierce the airplane fuselage; lets ensure that "onboard safety officers" receive consistent international training. Lets ensure that crews are fully briefed on the security measures for their flight so that they can co-operate as a team.

Terrorists should not be stopped on the airplane. They should be stopped by painstaking intelligence on the ground and by sensitive and effective security measures.

The USA's aviation market is too big to be ignored. It seems inevitable that the airlines will meet the US demands for onboard security. But bullying the airlines to do this is not the solution. Engaging the airlines to co-operate will provide a far more effective long term solution.

Raise a finger to finger-printing

6 January 2004

Personally I find the US plans to finger print visitors offensive. The USA of course has a sovereign right to take whatever security measures it wishes to try to keep terrorists out of the country.                     

However, US intelligence is something of an oxymoron. No one can or should trust US security. It has become a bureaucratic budget-hungry monster. And it is beginning to infringe dramatically on individual and civil liberties.

When I was a kid playing cops and robbers we would catch the bad guy, finger print him using the ink pad in the play kit and attach the handcuffs.

Finger-printing is what you do to criminals charged with an offence. There is something disturbing about doing it to ordinary citizens whose only intent is to go to the US for business, vacation or to see family.

Some countries are hitting back. Brazil requires US visitors to be finger printed and photographed. This is only fair. I hope other countries take the same measures.

I know for a fact Michael Moore is Swiss
 

I wish I had written the following! Many years ago my old company decided to run its global sale operations from Switzerland. It was the beginning of the end. This is about a nation and a people that frankly do not want to take a decision about anything. It is a nation so concerned at not offending anyone while they continue to stock pile their anonymous fortunes that they have forgotten what it means to fight for something that you believe in.

Is Canada going the way of the Swiss. I hope not.

Leaders defend their beliefs. You may not agree with George W Bush; but at least he stuck to what he believed was right and did something about it.  

Euan Ferguson
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer

I used to wonder why Britain really went to war, back in 1939.

We were then, just as now, a nation not given to snap judgments nor strong beliefs. Best stay out of it, went the mantra. There's another side to every story and the truth, as ever, lies somewhere in between. Judge not lest ye be judged, and what would it be like if everyone did it, and I don't really understand the ins and outs but there's probably a very reasonable explanation, and who do you think you are with your fancy attitudes, and best leave well alone, and I don't think I'd like to try that thank you very much, tea's quite good enough for me; and then, astonishingly and rather wonderfully, the Third Reich was toppled by the kind of people who would drive to the seaside of a weekend to sit in the car in the rain with a hankie on their heads and read the Sunday Express and think it fun.

And almost 60 years later, on Friday, a man died chasing kids who had run through his hedge, because it was his pride and joy and had won awards, and it's hard to believe that the kind of country in which hedges can win awards can ever have won anything (except, obviously, hedge awards); and then, a couple of festive films and one news story later, you remember a couple of crucial factors, which are that a) we had John Mills, and b) the Swiss were, are, a thousand times worse.

The Swiss, cursed with all of Britain's deplorable sense of even-handed fairness but without even the redeeming historical quality of sudden stark yeoman violence when threatened, have just - just on Thursday - decided to pardon citizens who helped Jews to escape the Holocaust. Read that again: the Swiss, with their idiot hearty stews, pigtails, cowbells and greed, fined and jailed and shamed hundreds for having compromised the country's famous neutrality in order to save people's lives, and it's only now that they seem to think that might all have been another Bad Swiss Idea, like that town which fined you for having the wrong colour of chrysanth in your window-box, or just generalised execrable tweeness.

To hell with neutrality, I say. Let's say a fat No to even-handedness and step bravely into this new year with prejudice, passion and a handful of beliefs, no matter how ridiculous, and the strength to stand up for them.

I can still remember, on strike 14 years ago, the disgust I felt for the strike-breakers who refused to justify their actions. There was grudging respect for those who would come to the brazier with a curious mix of shame and dignity to explain why they had to go in because of the third child and the wife's illness; but I still feel volcanic contempt for those who wheedled and mimsied their way past with 'I don't believe in politics' and 'I just want to stay out of this' and the rest of their scabbing Swiss nonsense.

Postmodern relativistic judgments can, frankly, go hang. Some things are just unutterably good things - wolves, socialism, the works of Steely Dan, to name an obvious few; and some - golf, death, the insufferable smugness of Michael Moore and the like - are, and always will be, hell on a pikestaff, and it's time, finally, to learn one lesson from the Swiss, which is to be as different from them as we possibly could be.