Bangkok Post 16/12/08

Boxing for real against monumental challenges

This will be my last ``Shadow Boxing'' column. All of a sudden we have a Democrat government and, regardless of whether or not I am tasked with a ministerial post, I am no longer a shadow.

In my four years in politics, there have been many outstanding events off the top of my head, this would include the no-confidence debate in my first term on the CTX scandal; it includes the internal debate we had prior to the decision to boycott the 2006 general elections and it would have to include the shocks that followed the Shin Corp share sale by Thaksin.

There were many significant milestones, but yesterday's parliamentary vote to select our 27th prime minister would have to rank pretty high in terms of sheer drama.

Being first in the alphabet, I was one of the earlier names to be called to cast my preference. Indeed, as usual, I was the first of the eventual 235 votes cast for Abhisit Vejjajiva. The tension was so high that some colleagues actually felt obliged to write out the name of their candidate of choice in big capital letters so that when the moment came, nerves would not cause any embarrassing stumbles.

A key dramatic moment was when the so-called Newin group entered, in single file, to take the places reserved for them by our Secretary-General on the Democrat side of the House. It was strange for us and must have been even stranger for them. I was sitting amongst ex-Chart Thai MPs, which I last did in 2005 when we were in the Opposition together and, adding to the surreal atmosphere, the Thaksinites were attacking Chai Chidchob, the House speaker and parliament president, which again was a new experience.

And then it was all over, and with a tinge of regret, I realised that my time as Bangkok Post columnist was also ending, hopefully for a few years!

I dare to write that public opinion broadly wants to see the Democrats have a go at solving current political and economic problems and I am pleased that the majority of the MPs in the House agreed.

There was never a point, however, when we were able to fully discount Thaksin and his version of democracy the use of significant sums of money to lure away votes from our camp. MPs across all parties report upwards of 30 million baht being offered for votes for Thaksin's camp. A mere decision to feign illness and abstention from voting for our camp was worth five million baht. This must be how he derives his majority and subsequent justification of his claim to power.

Questions have been asked of the legitimacy of a minority party forming the government.

First of all, we have a parliamentary system whereby the prime minister is not elected directly but is chosen by MPs. In order for Mr Abhisit to become prime minister he must, therefore, be supported by a majority of MPs.

Secondly, in any parliamentary system, it is perfectly normal for the second-largest party to have a chance at forming a government if the largest party were to fail to govern.

One could hardly deny that there has been failure of governance on the part of the previous ruling party, not withstanding the fact that they have also been disbanded as a result of election fraud on the part of their executive members.

Finally, it is worth noting that in terms of popular support, we were a very close second to the People Power party a mere 100,000 votes differential nationwide.

Incredibly, we hear of a plan on the part of the Thaksinites to attempt to dissolve Parliament in the event that Mr Abhisit is elected PM. Even if technically possible up until the moment Mr Abhisit is sworn in, in terms of etiquette this would be unprecedented.

In any case, it would be interesting to see how the Constitution Court rules today on the status of Mr Chaovarat, as to whether as a non-MP he is entitled to be the acting PM.

Assuming everything works out, the task ahead is a monumental one.

When the Democrat government came into power after the financial crisis of 1997, there was national unity behind very extreme economic challenges. As tough as the challenge was 11 years ago, the problem was at least pretty much contained within our borders.

The world economic environment was benign and that meant that once we were able to sort out our own problems, we could get on with our business with the rest of the world. It also meant that we could trade our way out of trouble, helped along by price competitiveness as a result of the weakened currency. Our only problem, so to speak, was the quality of our balance sheet the equity shortfall and the lack of access to credit.

This time around the problems are more complex, not least because there is social and political division. Stangely enough, economic consensus is not an issue: regular readers of this column will recall that there have been as many agreements as disagreements on economic policies since our Shadow Cabinet was formed a year ago. This was true across a broad spectrum of policies, including agreement on measures to reduce the public financial burden through the provision of free bus travel and free utilities for low-income households. We agreed on the need for public infrastructure investments and we were the original proposer of the use of a supplementary budget to stimulate the economy.

This is cause for hope, but economic policies count for little if there remains no confidence in our politics.

I was in the UK for a few days last week. The trip had to be cut short because news was received that we were on our way towards forming a government.

Whilst I was there, I had the occasion to listen to the economic keynote speech given by David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader and leader of the Opposition. Incidentally, Mr Cameron was two years' junior to Mr Abhisit at Eton. He tried to posit a different standpoint economically from the mainstream line of thought that all financial resources should be directed towards short-term economic stimulus. Specifically, he said that confidence cannot be bought.

There is at least some merit in this. With relevance to our situation, I would say that we cannot achieve economic recovery without an easing of political tensions. You will therefore see parallel efforts to reach out to all political and social spectrums as well as economic proposals both aimed at solving short-term hardships and rejuvenating our long-term competitiveness.