Big Money Poisons New Era of Reform and Destroys Thailand by Phairath Khampha 22 April 2002 Ministers, consultants climb on gravy train Politics, and in turn, the Thai nation is being destroyed by business interests, academics said. Sangsit Piriyarangsan, deputy chairman of the Economic and Social Advisory Council, said money politics--where business interests control what is done and said--had even affected the way independent agencies worked. He was speaking on April 20, 2002 in a panel discussion on Money Politics in the Age of Reform, held by a committee organising activities to mark the 10th anniversary of Thailand's brutal May 1992 military crackdown. Mr Sangsit said questions had been raised about the integrity of the Constitutional Court and Election Commission. Money politics had not only interfered in independent agencies, however, but also weakened the bureaucracy and this was leading to a destruction of the Thai nation. Outstanding state officials had resigned in protest at unfair transfers and nepotism. Few now dared express an opinion. Money politics took a different form under the Thaksin Shinawatra government. Mr Thaksin himself was a businessman, and other cabinet members had followed his lead. Cabinet members had set up consultant firms to study state construction projects and to choose firms owned by their colleagues or those offering high personal rewards. Construction companies had themselves set up consultant advisers, which would recommend those firms for projects. It was the same rackets as before, but in worse form. "In today's politics, acquisition of interest through money politics must be done at arm's length. Consultants serve this purpose. Thousands of millions of baht are paid annually to these consultants," Mr Sangsit said. Many institutions had been weakened. Bribery was rampant. The government had interfered with the media. The public could no longer rely on officials or independent agencies. Political parties had dissolved themselves to merge with bigger ones, leaving only a minority opposition. Politicians had taken more control of the macro-economy and mega-projects, inflating costs to the taxpayer, while the politicians and their cronies enriched themselves. During the World Cup in May, gambling dens would flourish, because politicians were involved in football gambling. Illegal small-scale casinos would mushroom. Mr Sangsit said money politics accommodated such illegal businesses. Money from gambling outlets would go to political canvassers and police to bribe them from investigating all manner of illegal activities perpetrated by Thailand's economic and political elite. Ubonrat Siriyuwasak, chairwoman of a committee campaigning for media reform, and a mass communication academic from Chulalongkorn University, said the media was more independent than it was before the May 1992 crackdown. This had not stopped the government from trying to interfere, however. Politicians and businessmen had exerted political influence to protect their interests in radio and television frequency allocations. Kanin Boonsuwan, a former charter writer, said the government had undermined independent agencies. Mr Thaksin's hidden assets case damaged the Constitutional Court. Surichai Wangkaew, chairman of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, said mergers of political parties were a clear example of how money politics could harm democracy. Mergers were not intended to solve problems or support political reform, but to advance the interests of the parties concerned. Only people in the farm sector were still advocates of political reform, judging from their staunch opposition to projects such as the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline and Hin Krut and Bo Nok power plants. Few people in the public sector no longer took part.