To each according to his greed

7 July 1996

As the abbot of a wat commented to Chang Noi recently: everything these politicians do is about "eating".

Chatichai’s 1988-91 coalition was nicknamed the "buffet cabinet". The quip played off the phrase "eating the province", the old practice of officials remunerating themselves by corruption and squeeze. When Banharn nominated Chatichai veterans and some even hungrier faces as ministers, many predicted this new cabinet would be "fast food". We can now see that speed has been less impressive than scale; not a quick burger, but a full-blown banquet.

In the government’s opening weeks, one minister claimed that a whole forest of golden teak simply did not exist. It would be much simpler to cut it down if it "was not there". At that time, this ploy seemed breathtakingly brazen. Now it seems rather modest. Other ministers have been much more ambitious. One group allegedly first grabbed land; then boosted its value; then used this collateral to get highly leveraged loans; then spent these loans buying companies and fanning their stock prices upwards.

The banquet has been very varied. Large sums in back-tax happily avoided. Rumours of ministers selling promotions. Funny-looking fertiliser schemes. Expensive satellites. Not everyone is eating just to get fat themselves. There are many reasons to tuck in: to fund the party, to pay for elections, to bring prosperity to the constituency.

At the centre of all this is Banharn. What does he stand for? He became famous for the super-profits he made as a government contractor; and for the large lumps of the national budget he diverted to his home province of Suphanburi. Now he is the role model. Others are chasing the kind of super-profits which come with cosy monopolies. The telecommunications plan has been torn up for this reason. And many ministers want to turn their own province into "another Suphanburi". Newin Chidchob was recorded boasting that he demanded 20 percent of all project funds under his command should go to Buriram.

None of this is new. But the scale is growing. And the scope is spreading. Until 1992, the management of the national economy was kept relatively isolated from this political marketplace. The Finance Ministry and the Bank of Thailand treasured a degree of independence. Serious businessmen could put up with all the bad manners around the buffet table, as long as they felt the economy was in reasonably good hands.

This is no longer true. Both the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Thailand have been dragged into the dining room. Surakiart never had the stature or the support base to be independent. Indeed, Banharn probably chose him for exactly that reason. Bodi is perceived as only marginally different. In his first week, he talked of reducing the margin requirements to boost the stock market, and pushing growth beyond the "safe" level of eight percent. Such changes appeal to the speculators and banqueters. But they horrify those seeking a stable base for longer-term growth.

The Bank of Thailand has been gradually dragged into the net by Vijit Supinit’s role in the Ekamol affair, his questionable attitude to share dealings, and his complicity in the BBC affair. The managers of the national economy, it seems, no longer keep themselves aloof from the gourmandising. Indeed, sometimes they seem to be serving at the banquet table. In such circumstances, something like the BBC disaster becomes inevitable.

As Banharn grows weaker, the predators can smell their opportunity. Recently the generals shook him down for 5 billion baht for arms purchases. No doubt they also left him with the rest of their impressive hardware shopping list, and a promise to see him again soon.

This is all getting very expensive - for the rest of us. Bailing out BBC may cost 50 billion baht or more. That comes out at around 1000 baht from every man, woman and child in Thailand; or around 5000 baht per family. Given income and tax distribution, the cost to the average Nation-reader’s family could be around 25,000.

Recently Boon-ua Prasertsuwan announced that only half of all budget project money gets spent for the purpose ear-marked. The rest gets lost along the way: "the budget is like a popsicle that’s passed around. Everyone gets a lick at it". As house speaker, deputy leader of the Chat Thai party, and a Suphanburi MP, he should be considered an authority on these things. The half that gets lost averages out to roughly 50,000 baht for each Nation-reader’s family.

The philosophy of the day is: from each according to his vulnerability, to each according to his greed.

According to one rumour, the gourmands are preparing for a final feeding frenzy: pass the budget, sign the project contracts, and collect the loot. But there are signs too, that the jostling and bad manners around the banquet table are getting out of hand. Banharn has to reshuffle the seating plan every few weeks.

Many now predict that Banharn will not last much longer. The tough question is: what next? Are there better candidates in the current parliament? Will a new ministry, or even a new election, just mean the same banquet with different diners?

This doubt has put political reform back to the top of the agenda. Many are saying: we need to change the nature of the parliament, in order to safeguard the management of the economy, and to safeguard the concept of democracy. The debate over political reform has become a battle between the present government and the rest.

But political reform will take some time. In the short term, the coming crisis is an opportunity for the Democrats.

But to profit from this opportunity, the Democrats must stand for something different to Chat Thai’s reign of greed. In his first speech as leader of the opposition, Chuan warned the Chat Thai party about their eating habits ("not one satang"). In the recent no-confidence debate, the Democrats exposed the BBC scandal. But is this enough? Chuan’s 1992-5 premiership revealed that the Democrats have their own cadre of loggers, land-grabbers and stock-manipulators. Some of them have big posts in the party. If the Democrats are to offer a credible and attractive alternative to Chat Thai, they must clear all of this away.

Chang Noi asks: we know what Chat Thai stands for, but do we know what the Democrats stand for?