Under the Royal Patronage of
His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej
Sixth Cycle Celebration of His Majesty
The King of Thailand
and
AIT's 40th Anniversary
Through the formation of
An International Academy in Engineering Development and
Scientific and Management Technology (IAEDSMT)
And the
Civil and Environmental Engineering Conference (C&EEC)
New Frontiers & Challenges
November 8-12, 1999

LESSONS LEARNED IN MANAGING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT: HOW TO ESCAPE THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION SYNDROME
Anand Panyarachun

Abstract

The U.N./Stockholm/1972 Conference on the Environment was the catalyst for the growth over the following decade of a World Environmental Movement. This included the establishment of national environmental protection agencies in most developing countries, as well as the founding of various International Assistance Agencies to help and guide the developing countries in forming and managing their environmental protection programs, and to establish appropriate protection programs that required global or regional control. The decade of the 1970s was one of great expectations, with a high level of hope that the new system would actually work.

These expectations have not been realized. Indeed, degradation has markedly increased to the point that our precious resources may not be with us after another half century. It is now very obvious that the World Environmental Movement has failed and that a drastically new approach must be established. This paper reviews the causes for this past failure and recommends a new approach based on integrating environmental protection into economics. Development planning, whereby development planners will be required to provide equal attention to both the environment and economics.

The Challenge

There are many who mark the 1972 U.N. Stockholm Conference as the start of the World Environmental Movement, a distinct global effort to preserve natural environmental resources. The movement gave impetus to the establishment of national environmental protection agencies by countries throughout the World, including Thailand's own National Environment Board in 1975. This was a momentous time and a movement of great expectations, when many thought that these new environmental protection agencies, with guidance from the United Nations Environment Program, would generate the momentum for effective environmental protection systems in their countries.

What transpired in the following decades was frustrating disillusionment. The famed U.N. Brundtland report issued 15 years later in 1987 noted clearly

(i) that the World Environmental Movement had been a gross failure,

(ii) that this failure was especially evident in the developing countries where the bulk of the World's population and natural resources can be found, with the total environmental degradation during the 15 years from 1972 to 1987 actually exceeded the total historical degradation in these countries prior to 1972,

(iii) that this degradation could be attributed to the combination of accelerating population, urbanization, industrialization, and encroachment into national resource areas, the accelerating demand of the industrialized countries for timber and other natural resources, the availability of new technologies making it easier to extract and sell these resources, and a political system which fostered such extraction and sales, and most importantly,

(iii) that unless major changes were made in the approaches to environment protection, there would be little left to be preserved within the next half-century.

The report concluded there was a critical need to overhaul the institutional systems to support the World Environmental Movement, and that "more of the same" operations practiced since 1972 could not meet this need.

Unfortunately the Brundtland message was not heeded. In fact the U.N. Rio De Janeiro Conference of 1992, to mark the successes of the World Environmental Movement over the 20 years since 1972, appears to have ignored the Brundtland warnings. It provided a platform to preach only more of the same. The Conference created the perception of progress based on the participation of over 100 Heads of State, but it was woefully meaningless and even counterproductive in substance. Even as the conference proceeded in Brazil, rampant forest destruction continued and has continued unabated ever since. The Conference generated substantial discourse on how to protect forests to preserve biodiversity, and recommended protocols for action, but none of these International protocols have led to the fundamental changes in the World Environmental approach which the Brundtland report concluded were critically and urgently needed.

With the end of the 20th century and a new millennium upon us, it is timely that we recognize the reality of accelerating environmental degradation. It is also timely that we recognize and admit the fallacy of continuing the World Environmental approach of the past three decades. And it is most timely for us to assess our work honestly and seriously and to propose a new approach that is feasible and can effectively serve to correct the World's environmental problems over the next decades.

What we need now, at the global level, is an honest recognition of the critical need to reorient the World Environmental Movement, together with feasible recommendations how we can accomplish this. This is my main theme today, which I trust will be given due consideration by the World's decision-makers.

Categories for Environmental Action

We can consider the overall World Environmental Movement as consisting of three distinct yet inter-twined types of activities:

1. First are those actions to be done by the individual affluent industrialized countries within their own boundaries to reduce their already high levels of resource consumption and pollution.

2. Second are actions by individual developing countries, again within their own boundaries, to promote sustainable levels of resource use and to limit pollution. National governments take the lead in these activities, with assistance from the affluent industrialized countries, often channeled through International agencies.

3. Third are the actions on a broader macro-scale, whether global in scope, regional, or sub-regional. While actions must be taken by all, the bulk of the funding must come from the affluent industrialized countries, the only countries with sufficient finances to support these activities. The actions would be carried out through International assistance agencies, such as the multinational development banks, U.N. affiliates, bilateral and agencies, and other International organizations such as the World Trade Organization.

My esteemed colleague, Mr. Kasem Snidvongs, former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, is presenting a paper at this Conference which addresses the individual country, or micro-level, picture. My remarks are intended to complement his by focusing on the broader global or regional level. In particular, I am concerned with the reasons for our lack of success at the global level, and what actions we should implement now to help break through our impasse.

A Proposal for a New World Environmental Action Program

Integration of the Environment with Economics

It is encouraging that International literature and the media have begun to address the need for a new approach for the World Environmental Movement. In a 1998 paper published in the Environmentalist, Kasem Snidvongs and his colleagues note that the institutional structure established in 1972 for the World Environmental Movement has not only failed, but that it was doomed to fail from the start because it ignored the basic adage that "Money drives all systems." Instead the system then set up assumed that the financial decision makers, who are predominantly economists, would continue to function on their own, and that environmental protection would be achieved by guidance from environmentalists through the United Nations Environmental.

Program, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and other International agencies. The "Environmental Think Tank" was to be the United Nations Environmental Program, with assistance from other U.N. agencies such as the UNDP. It was to have basic responsibility for planning necessary environmental programs, and make recommendations for the World Bank, other Multilateral Development Banks, and development funding agencies to assure that economic programs gave due attention to environmental needs.

This did not happen. Instead, the economic oriented development banks and agencies continued to guide and finance development in more-or-less their usual way, with only some limited "add-on" attention to environmental issues. The primary interest of economists in nearly all governments, whether of affluent industrialized or developing countries, has been to realize short-term economic gains. In contrast, long-term sustainability requires environmental protection. With severe environmental degradation upon us, and with, as Brundtland noted, the likely destruction of most natural resources in the next half-century, we must think more in terms of long-term sustainability than short-term gains. The solution can only come through a thorough integration of the environmental with the economic. Economic development becomes economic-cum-environmental development, and economists become economic-cum-environmentalists.

The World Bank, as a leading "think tank" in development matters, is already incorporating the environment in many of its efforts. Yet a glance at many World Bank funded programs shows that economic considerations still predominate. It might be more than a mere cosmetic change if the World Bank were to change the name of its main institute from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Environmentally Sustainable Development. The change in name would assure that Bank programs would include the environment in more than an "add-on" manner.

In the same vein, the WTO should change its name to the WTEO, the "World Trade and Environment Organization," to reflect maintaining the environment as a priority concern in International trade and commerce. The March 5, 1999 article of the International Herald Tribune, "The NGO spector Stalks Trade Talks" describes the current attack by NGOs on the WTO for providing only "add-on" consideration to environmental issues in its economic operations. The article notes that the NGOs are not going to cease their demands; they are just beginning their efforts; and they intend to force the WTO to become a WTEO.

In a new system stressing the integration between environmental and economic issues, the mandate of the UNEP and other International environmental agencies would be to monitor and report on the adequacy of attention to the environment in the economic-cum-environment programs.

The change in approach cannot come simply with name changes. It must come in the attitudes and approaches of those who work at all levels of development planning. We can see the potential for this link in the integration of the environmental and economic in the current role of Dr. Bindu Lohani, Deputy Manager for one sector of ADB projects, a new post for him since January 1999. Previously Dr. Lohani was Manager of ADB's Environment Division (he essentially created it): his role as "Bank Environmental Chief" was to advise and guide ADB project managers on incorporating environmental matters into economic programs, but the response continued to be mostly "add-on". Under his new position, Dr. Lohani (who is basically environmental-cum-economic oriented) is in a position to require truly integrated environmental and economic planning in the new projects prepared by the group under his supervision. We hope this will lead to effective programs, both environmentally and economically, and that the future of such integration will be institutionalized rather than dependent on the capability of particular individuals.

Suggested Action Program

Once the basic institutional restructuring of the World Environmental Movement is implemented, the doors come open to numerous new possibilities for meaningful project action. The following is but a suggestion of selected potential projects.

Forestry and Related Biodiversity

The problem of forest degradation and the destruction of related habitats for biodiversity is certainly of the highest priority to the World. The failure to protect the World's forests and wildlife habitats is also the No. 1 indictment of the approach taken by the International Assistance Agencies. It is time we need to recognize that some types of forests and habitats do not need - indeed, should not include - people in their equation. Even the IUCN and the World Wildlife Fund, who are supposed to be the leading International NGOs in the fight to preserve biodiversity, have not helped reduce the destruction of critical habitats for biodiversity in their attempts to allow people to live in harmony with forests. It is time we recognized that the only solution for some of the critical biodiversity protection would be to identify these, key purchase and own them, and thus prevent encroachment of people into these special wildlife and biodiversity reserves. This is the approach taken by the Nature Conservancy, whose mission "is to preserve plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive" through purchases and other means of acquisition. This approach is not just for NGOs, but can be taken effectively by government, as illustrated by the U.S. Federal Government's purchase from private owners of a vast tract of massive redwood forest in northern California (Reference 4).

A logical and feasible approach (Reference 2) would be first to provide substantial funds for a careful quantified evaluation of forests in the World - those past, present, and likely to remain under the ongoing system of environmental management - to identify the minimum preservation needs on a global basis and identify selected areas which can meet these needs at the least cost. These sites could then be purchased (on favorable terms to the governments or private owners), put under International plenipotentiary treaty control (as used to be the mechanics of the former Mekong Committee), and provided competent management and monitory mechanics. For such action, the first step is to allocate, for example, $0.5 million to prepare the TOR for the required feasibility study, carry out the study to develop the recommended action program (this study might cost approximately $50 million), then implement the program (at a capital cost of possibly $2 trillion). These sums may seem large, but they are minimal when compared to the seriousness of the problem. Assuming the feasibility study makes a convincing case, it should not be difficult to persuade the Group of Seven to finance the plan. Remember, up to now, no such study or facts guide public policy, so no one as yet knows what to do and how to proceed. This is the type of action that the Global Environment Fund, established at Rio/92, should be undertaking.

Biodiversity at the Sub-Regional Level

Another promising approach (Reference 2), which can supplement and complement to the global approach noted above, could be put into immediate use for those very precious natural resource areas already known to be under heavy encroachment pressure, such as the coastal Sunderbunds region of India and Bangladesh - the last remaining major habitat of the Bengal Tiger - and the mountainous "Panda region" of China. Again, competent feasibility studies for each case must be done to obtain the facts and to prepare convincing cases for political and financial decision makers. The territories could be placed under conditions of a plenipotentiary biodiversity treaty, while of course assuring the sovereignty of each country. Another suggestion for immediate sub-regional action would be a study of endangered species in the Mekong basin sub-region, not under separate country programs but on a cost-effective sub-regional basis. Control over the resources would be shared by all the countries of the region, with the assistance of the International community.

Climate Change and the Loss of the Ozone Layer

Endless talk and little action again characterize the response to the problems of climate change and the loss of the ozone layer. Although many argue that the trends of climate change are not yet certain, few dare claim that the problem is not serious. It is that the International Protocol on Climate Change supports comprehensive studies that could lead to action: yet a lack of adequate action characterized by a lack of political will is what we have to show for the World effort to tackle this grave crisis. Again, climate change is too important an issue to leave to individual countries to solve. Most - whether they are advanced industrial or developing countries - are likely to take much meaningful corrective action because the costs of doing so are seemingly very high.

An International Climate Change R&D Program (which would probably cost $50 million) could take the IPCC studies as a starting point to conduct a massive R&D program to:

(1) determine the causes-and-effects of climate change, whether natural or man-made, and

(2) wherever it is found that man-made actions are the significant causes, delineate the needed action program, including costs, for such actions as massive reforestation to help counter the CO2 the atmosphere, drastic CFC replacement programs, and so forth.

It should be clear that no country seems willing to modify its on-going economic behavior to ameliorate climate change, so long as they can claim the facts remain insufficient to prove the actual effects of climate change, because the costs of such economic modification appears too large. Yet this fundamental issue, that the economic conditions predominate, seems not to be recognized in the current World Environmental Management on climate change, even at the recent Buenos Aires Conferences (Reference 4) dealing directly with this issue. The two leading "culprit" countries, the U.S. and China, typify the World's approach: the advanced industrialized countries are not willing to sacrifice their current advanced economic standing. A widespread International effort is needed, under International management, with sufficient financial support for development of green technologies and with stricter, more rapid phasing out of those technologies recognized as contributing to climate change.

Riparian Freshwater Shortage

Another critical environmental problem of global implication is the scarcity of riparian freshwater resources. With increasing population, burgeoning industrialization, and destruction of forest resources, the World's river water supplies in most of the World are becoming severely overtaxed (Reference 6). This problem is especially critical where rivers are shared by more than one country.

The U.S. and Mexico already faced the problem in sharing the scarce water of the Colorado River. With increasing U.S. demands for the water, including demands by the growing urban areas of Southern California, the freshwater flow to Mexico was greatly reduced, seriously affecting the production of tomatoes and other crops mainly sold to the U.S. A "solution" was the construction and operation of a large desalinization plant, to substitute for the lost fresh water. The tomatoes and other produce are now grown with extremely expensive, highly subsidized water.

Other International conflicts over riparian fresh water loom throughout the World, as up-stream countries build dams to meet their water needs, leaving down-stream countries with greatly reduced water flow. We find this occurring now with the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Nile, and our own great river of Southeast Asia, the Mekong. The problem extends to conflicts over groundwater flow, particularly in more arid regions such as the Middle East.

Again, there is need for a comprehensive International effort to evaluate the supply and demand for all the key riparian and groundwater sources. This should lead to a recommended cost-effective program, including an International conference that can lead to a "Law on the Use of World Freshwater Resources".

Legal Damages

One of the most effective mechanisms in the U.S. for compliance with environmental laws is the evaluation of damages and collection of penalties for damages at sufficient levels to assure compliance. Illegal pollution discharge, for example, is fined at $50,000 a day, a rate that assures quick remedial action. Yet, as my colleague Mr. Kasem Snidvongs notes in his paper at this conference, governments of developing countries have not been in a position to impose such penalties, in part because they lack a competent monitoring system (common in advanced industrial countries like the U.S.) that are required to obtain the hard data needed for enforcement. Yet such comprehensive monitoring and application of effective penalties is needed in Thailand and the rest of the developing World.

A novel idea was recently expressed in an editorial in the International Herald Tribune of 20-21 April, 1999 (Reference 7), concerning the environmental damage caused by an Ecuadorian company which is a subsidiary of a U.S. company. The editorial stated that the plaintiffs should be able to sue for damages in an American court, in response to NGO pressures. This is what Indians affected by the Bhopal disaster had wanted to do: sue Union Carbide in an American court for the drastic health and environmental damage caused by the Union Carbide factory. Bizarre as this approach may initially seem, it could become reality. Just as Spanish and British courts are now claiming jurisdiction over human rights abuses against Spanish citizens by General Pinochet in Chile, so too can we imagine a time when those intentionally acting to harm the environment can be held accountable in courts not just in the country where they have done the harm, but also in the country where they are legal registered, and even in other countries where their victims may reside.

Conclusion

In summary, the evidence seems ample that a major overhaul is needed in the World Environmental Management system that so far has such a dismal record in environmental protection. The timing could also be seen as appropriate, as we start the 21st century. There is a critical and urgent need to establish anew the World Environmental Management system that recognizes the need to link economics with environmental programs, and that can assure environmental issues are integrated in - not just added on to - all economic development programs. A much needed initial step to this effort cannot be "more of the same". U.N. planned and managed International conferences such as Rio/92 or Buenos Aries/98, which have done little to change the economic and environmental status quo.

Instead, we need a new Global Environmental Conference, within the U.N. context, planned and managed by representatives from the Group of Seven, or is it G-8, who need to provide most of the economic backing for major. International efforts, along with representatives from The Group of Seventy-Seven currently numbering well over a hundred plus China, who represent the bulk of the developing World and their crucial political support. These representatives should begin the effort to map out and implement the new global environmental program that is so desperately needed.

References:

1. International Herald Tribune, (1999). "Ecuador's Right to Sue",
issue of 20-21 April,

2. International Herald Tribune, (1999). "NGO Spector Stalks Trade
Talks", 5 March,

3. Ludwig, H., Potter, J., and Snidvongs, K., (1998). "Facing Up to
Environmental Reality in the 21st Century", Environmentalist (U.K.)
18, 131-134.

4. National Geographic Society (USA), (1999). "Biodiversity, the Fragile
Web", issue of February,

5. Resources for Future, (1999). "At Buenos Aires and Beyond",
pages 10-13, issue of Winger,

6. U.N. Brundtland Committee, (1987). "Our Common Future".

7. Water Environment Federation, (1999). "Population Growth Threatens to Spark World Water Crisis", Asia Water Environment, February.

Speech by H.E. Mr. Anand Panyarachun
Former Prime Minister of Thailand
Given at the Reception to Introduce the Book “Mahajanaka”
Authored by His Majesty the King
at The Oriental Hotel
June 3, 1996

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today is the beginning of a very important week in Thai history. A week, which begins commemorative events in celebration of His Majesty’s Golden Jubilee. In the past few weeks I have also been busy doing my own thing. A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to be invited to be a keynote speaker at an international conference for historians of Asia and the Pacific. And as a humble subject of His Majesty, I thought that the least I could do to join in the celebration of His Majesty’s Golden Jubilee was to undertake a certain personal mission and this I did in speaking up on His Majesty’s role in the making of Thai history. In the past few days I have also been interviewed by CNN and BBC and also written a column to be published towards the end of the week in an international paper.

I feel that there is a need to fill in the knowledge of the foreign communities, wherever they are, of the love, admiration, respect and reverence we in Thailand have for our King. It is perhaps something, which is not, or can never be, fully comprehended by foreigners, let alone those who might have lived in this country for the past 10 or 15 years. It is something that cannot be easily explained either. You only have to witness it. You only have to feel it and you only have to sense it. Because of the communication that the King has with His own people, irrespective of religion, well-being, profession, He has been able to establish a rapport with His subjects in a way no other monarch can.

So tonight, it is my special privilege to be asked to do another chore, one which I feel, I must admit, embarrassed, one for which I hardly feel qualified. I might have many ambitions in my lifetime, but being a literary critic is not one of them.

The King has reigned over the country for nearly 50 years. Six days from now, He will have reached a milestone. He had to learn a process. He had to do His best under whatever circumstances. The very idea that he had to try His best without expecting any reward or any benefit to Himself. That has been the hallmark of His life.

Nineteen years ago when He listened to a sermon by a high-ranking monk, the sermon was about a Jataka tale. It is a tale, one of many, which depicts the life or former life of Lord Buddha. When He heard that sermon, He was inspired to carry the message, the moral of that story to the people in general. Because in spite of our saying that we are Buddhists, very few of us have taken the time and trouble to read the Tripitaka or Jataka tales, partly because it is extremely difficult to comprehend. Even the modern versions in Thai also pose difficulties among readers, including myself. He felt that the story had morals from which we could learn and could draw lessons and, in effect, could apply in our own daily life.

Jataka are stories about the Lord Buddha, when he was incarnated as Bhotisatta, sometimes in human form, non-human form, or as an angel, or as a creature. Often when Buddha taught Dharma, he would use the Jataka, which is a story with a Dharrna message, as a teaching tool, as the listeners were not always of the same disposition. There are 2 types of Jataka. One is the Canon Jataka and the other is Non-Canonical Jataka. The Canon Jatake comprises 547 Jataka and is divided into 22 groups. The last and most important group contains 10 Jataka about Bhotisatta in the period immediately preceeding Lord Buddha’s attaining enlightenment. The said 10 Jataka are about the following: re-nunciation, endeavour, kindness, self-determination, wisdom, morality, forbearance, equanimity, truthfulness and charity. Originally, Jataka in the Tripitaka were composed solely as prayers. Around B.E. 1000 they were adapted into prose for easy understanding. Non-Canonical Jataka do not appear in the Tripitaka. They are 50 Jataka composed by a Buddhist monk from Chiangmai around the period B.E. 2000 - 2200 based on village folklore. From ancient times, Jataka tales have had an important role to play in the Buddhist society. Archeological evidence discovered through the years and certain Buddhist customs bear witness to this.

The Mehajanaka book in Thai and in English by His Majesty the King is a translation and retelling of the story of King Mahajanaka in the Holy Tripitaka Buddhist scripture. Among the Canon Jataka, the Mahajanaka Jataka has two interesting and different features. First, it is a story about Lord Buddha Incarnated as a merchant who has to practice perseverance in his endeavours. Secondly, it is a story about Suvarnnabhumi which His Majesty, I am almost certain, makes very clear is Thailand. The text that has been modified concerns the incident of the mango trees. The story had it that, at the entry of the park, there were standing two mango trees, one bearing fruit and the other barren. The King tasted the delicious mango fruit, then entered the park. When he returned, he saw that the mango tree with the task fruit had been vandalised and felled. As for the other tree, it was still proudly standing. At this juncture, the King left the city to seek supreme tranquility. The story demonstrated that good things of good quality will be the target of greed and will stand always in danger. His Majesty the King was of the opinion that King Mahajanaka’s desire to leave the city on a quest for supreme tranquility was not yet opportune, not timely, because Mithila’s, that is the name of the city, prosperity had not yet reached an appropriate level. The people still lacked wisdom as well as technical knowledge. They did not see the essence of what is beneficial, not even for their own good. Therefore, an institution of learning had to be set up. His Majesty has a view that King Mahajanaka would have been able to achieve the supreme tranquility more readily if he had completely fulfilled his worldly duties first. King MahaJanaka practised ultimate perseverance without the desire for reward, which resulted in his gaining the throne and bringing prosperity and wealth to the city of Mithila by the strength of his personal qualities.

His Majesty the King, I assume, saw in this tale a moral lesson for the problems facing Thailand. His literary skills are evident in the choice of appropriate, yet simple, words both in the Thai and English texts that makes the Mahajanaka tale relevant to the contemporary period. Some modifications, of course, were made in the text for the sake of easy understanding. His Majesty has also woven a new scenario where King Mahajanaka contributes to furthering the course of the people’s education before he sets off to seek the supreme tranquility. In addition to the text, His Majesty felt that there was the need to use art to assist in the teaching of Dharma. As the substance of the story had already been adapted to make it contemporary, His Majesty asked the artists to create illustrations representative of contemporary Thai art. His Majesty further deemed it appropriate to design the book along the lines of a Western fairy tale, but in the style of contemporary Thai art. Hence, accompanying the text are paintings by 8 prominent Thai artists whose preliminary, renditions and subsequent drafts were all presented for His Majesty’s approval. In fact, all the details of the production of the book, from the artwork, choice of type face, column separation, book size, binding and all other relevant details were effected at the express wish of His Majesty. There are also 4 maps drawn end illustrated by His Majesty to show the route taken by King Mahajanaka.

The Royal intention in telling or in re-telling the MahaJanaka tale is to make the teachings of Lord Buddha readily accessible to the people for constructive contemplation on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of his reign. To understand the moral tale, and fully recognise and appreciate the nuances of language, some people might have to persevere more than the others. His Majesty felt that for the reader to gain access to its Dharma, it was necessary to create a feeling of sacredness. In order to make a symbolic object to which people could refer to when discouraged; His Majesty deemed it appropriate for the Mahajanaka medallion to be commissioned to accompany the book. This is the first and perhaps the only time that such a medallion has been consecrated in a royal ceremony by His Majesty.

Let me conclude by recapitulating what I said earlier. - When His Majesty was inspired to write this book some 19 years ago, and it did take literally 19 years to complete it in all details. He would use a very old computer. He would type it Himself. He would use it to draw graphs, to do many things. He might write one sentence or one paragraph a day, but had laid very careful plans as to what type of book he wanted. He saw to it that every minute detail was adhered to and up to His full satisfaction. It took Him 19 years and He knew that He wanted the book to be published during His Golden Jubilee Year. It is a labour of love. It is a labour of perseverance.

Throughout His reign, He has long adhered to Lord Buddha’s teachings. I often joke to my personal friends, that if you live in Thailand and do not have a sense of humour, you will go insane. His Majesty must at all times retain His sense of objectivity, and above all, His perseverance. What, does it imply? To persevere is to enjoy what one is doing. To persevere is not to gain a personal benefit. To persevere is not to lose heart. To persevere is to know the objective. To persevere is to avoid greed and ignorance. To persevere is to accept the realities. I think without His perseverance, without strict adherence to Lord Buddha’s teachings, He would not have been able to accomplish the mission that he set out to achieve.

Bhumibol Adulyadaj: The Making of a Great King
by Mr. Anand Panyarachun
May 27, 1996

On 9 June 1996, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadaj will reach another milestone in His Reign - the Golden Jubilee of his accession to the throne.

The last fifty years have indeed been a remarkable reign for the Thai King, who succeeded to the throne in 1946 by accident. He was not born to be King; the untimely demise of his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, catapulted him to the position at the young age of 19.

To understand the present-day Thai monarchy, one needs to go back in history to the founding of the first central Thai State, Sukhothai, in the thirteenth century. The King, at the time, was entrusted with the task of ruling, not out of any divine right, but by the consent of his peers. He had an obligation to rule the country with “righteousness”, not for his personal glory, but “for the benefit and happiness” of the people in his trust. The royal code of conduct emphasized the major Buddhist precepts and the Tenfold Practice of Duties of Kingship, which to this day remain the cornerstone of the Thai Kingship: almsgiving, morality, liberality, rectitude, gentleness, self-restriction, non-anger, non-violence, forbearance, and non-obstruction.

For more than seven centuries, the concept of a patriarchal and responsive monarch has remained a Thai ideal. In his Oath of Accession to the Throne, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej pledged, as his ancestors had done, to “reign with righteousness for the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people. “The focus of his reign centers around three main themes: the well being of his subjects, the security and stability of his country, and the unity of his nation.

His Majesty’s dedication to the improvement of the quality of life of his people in renowned. He has traveled extensively to every part of the country, meeting his subjects from all walks of life. He has personally initiated nearly 2000 royally-sponsored projects for the economic and social well being of the people.

These activities do not formally fall within the domain of a constitutional monarch. The fact that His Majesty has persevered in these activities for the benefit of the Thai people has greatly endeared him to his subjects - so much so that the Thais, in general, unreservedly accord him the respect, confidence and trust that no other monarch in our history, nor for that matter the world, has ever enjoyed.

In a constitutional monarchy, The King does have certain powers and responsibilities. He may dissolve Parliament and appoint the Prime Minister and high-ranking officers and civil servants. All legislation approved by the National Assembly is presented to the King for signature. This is not just a formality. The King has discretionary power to withhold his assent. In private consultations with the Prime Minister, as Head of Government, the King’s views, be they be in the form of “encouragements” or “warnings”, provide an important input for the Prime Minister’s decision-making process. In exercising his constitutional power, the King must be ever conscious of his responsibility and objectivity. His Majesty has, as a general rule, kept to constitutional proprieties.

There have, however, been a number of “extraordinary” political situations which have demanded that the King resort to his “reserve power”, outside any constitutional provision, to defuse national crises.

One occasion was the student uprising in October 1973, when demands were made for a permanent constitution and an end to government by martial law. The arrest of student leaders by the military provoked a massive popular demonstration, which led to the tragic deaths of a number of student activists and innocent bystanders. The King, responding to the suffering of the people, intervened in a dramatic television appearance to reassure the people that action was being taken to resolve the crisis. The King then took the unprecedented step of appointing one of his Privy Councilors as the new Prime Minister. Normalcy was soon restored, much to the relief of the people.

The other occasion was His Majesty’s intervention in the May 1992 tragedy, a classic case of a government out of touch with the times and the sentiments of the masses. The attempt by demonstrators to topple the government had gained momentum outside parliamentary confines. The senseless shooting of demonstrators by the military precipitated an outbreak of mob mentality, resulting in a horrifying showdown.

The King, closely following the increasingly tragic developments and accurately assessing the country’s mood, summoned the two antagonistic instigators to the Palace in full view of national television. He quietly, but sternly, admonished them for their actions and counseled them to resolve the confrontation. The whole Kingdom, as well as international viewers of CNN and BBC around the world, witnessed with much amazement on their television screen how a national crisis had been resolved by His Majesty’s reserve power.

The bloodshed stopped immediately afterwards. The Prime Minister resigned from his post. Some two weeks later, a new civilian Prime Minister was nominated and appointed by Royal Command.

The interim Prime Minister was entrusted by Royal Command to restore peace and stability to the country and to hand power back to the people. A general election was held on 13 September 1992, and a newly-elected government was formed. The peaceful transfer of power was effected. Since then, another general election has been held in Thailand on 2 July 1995, reaffirming the country’s commitment to the constitutional transfer of power. The military has retreated to the background, refraining from interference in national politics, and succeeding in regaining its prestige as a professional armed force.

On those two occasions, the King demonstrated clearly the extent of his influence and moral power. His sense of justice, his over-riding concern for the well-being of the people, his wisdom and his pragmatic approach to life, have had a profound impact on the course of the country’s development. Without his guiding hand, Thailand would not be where it is today - a nation, which has consistently demonstrated its inner strength, political resilience, social harmony and economic dynamism.

To the Thai people, the present monarchy is not an abstract or irrelevant concept, but a responsive, caring and indispensable institution that is an integral part of their lives.

His Majesty's Role in the Making of Thai History
by Mr. Anand Panyarachun
at the 14th Conference of the International Association
of Historians of Asia
Chulalongkorn University Auditorium
May 20, 1996

In accepting the invitation to deliver the keynote address today at the 14th Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia, I feel duty-bound to warn you all that I am not a historian by training or by inclination. The address I am about to give cannot, by any standard, be viewed as a historical paper. It is not based on any research work or scholastic study of the period.

It is, however, based on the personal perception of an individual who spent twenty-three years in his country's foreign service, thirteen years in the private sector and served twice, albeit for short and limited duration's, as Prime Minister. Hence, I might be deemed somewhat qualified, in an unscholarly manner, to speak of our King, the longest reigning monarch in the world, and his fifty-year reign.

I am sure that all of you here are aware of this historic event in our country. The entire nation joins hands in the national celebrations of His Majesty's Golden Jubilee this year. The outpouring of joy, gratification and pride sees no parallel in the more than 700 year-history of our nation.

It has indeed been a remarkable reign of a Thai king who succeeded to the throne after the abdication of his uncle, King Prajadhipok, Rama VII, in 1935,and the untimely demise of his elder brother, King Ananda Mahidol, Rama VIII, in 1946.

It could well be said that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej became King Rama IX by accident. He was not born to be King. As such, he had little time to be groomed to be one. When he, a young man of 19 years of age, ascended to the throne in 1946, it was only fourteen years after absolute monarchy, which existed for nearly seven hundred years, had been brought to an end in a relatively peaceful way. The political process was then still fragile and turbulent. The military wing of the "democratic" movement was gaining dominance and losing sight of its initial democratic spirit and goals.

His Majesty began learning his constitutional craft in 1946 at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, where he changed his specialisation from science to law and political science. This academic study was merely a primer - at best a theoretical course.

To understand the present-day Thai monarchy, one needs to go back to the founding of the first central Thai State, Sukhothai, in the thirteenth century. The pioneers of independence chose to elevate the wisest and most capable among them to be King. The King, having been entrusted with the task, not out of any divine right, but by the consent of his peers, had an inherent obligation to rule the country "with righteousness", not for the glory of himself or his family, but "for the benefits and happiness" of the people in his trust. The king, being a Buddhist, was in effect a "dharma raja" - that is - a monarch upholding the rule of Buddhist righteousness, ruling in a style of kingship some have summarized as "patriarchal". The royal code of conduct emphasized the major Buddhist precepts and the Tenfold Practice or Duties of Kingship, which to this day remain the cornerstone of Thai kingship: almsgiving, morality, liberality, rectitude, gentleness, self-restriction, non-anger, non-violence, forbearance, and non-obstruction.

During the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng the Great, the ideal of a paternalistic ruler, sensitive to the needs of his people and aware of his duty to guide them, was already well established. This system was memorably reflected in a famous historical inscription found among the ruins of Sukothai. It describes life in the first capital and contains the following passage.

"(The King) has hung a bell in the opening of the gate over there; if any commoner in the land has a grievance….which he wants to make known to his Lord and Ruler, it is easy; he goes and strikes the bell which the King has hung there; King Ramkhamhaeng, ruler of the Kingdom, hears the call; he goes and questions the man, examines the case and decides it justly for him."

For more than seven centuries, this concept of a patriarchal and accessible monarch has remained a Thai ideal. The change of capital from Sukhothai to Ayutthaya brought about the Khmer concept of divine Kingship and the Ayutthaya Kings incorporated many of the divine features, with all-attendant Royal rituals and ceremonies, into the function of the Throne. The Sukhothai style of Kingship, nonetheless, has never entirely disappeared from the national consciousness and it was resurrected when the rulers of the Chakri Dynasty ushered in a new era in 1782.

Since 1782, when Bangkok was established as the capital, a succession of rulers of the Royal House of Chakri have contributed to the practice of deeply--rooted Buddhist beliefs and the benevolence of reigning as their fore-fathers. Both King Mongkut, Rama the Fourth, and King Chulalongkorn, Rama the Fifth, - great- grand-father and grandfather of our reigning King - travelled widely throughout the country. They strove to cultivate personal contacts and discourse with their subjects, however common or humble, and in the process and often incognito, learned of their thoughts and problems. The Chakri Kings, well-aware of the changes taking place within the kingdom and the outside world, brought about reforms and opened up the country to external influences and ideas, paving the way for Thailand to become a modern State under a constitutional monarchy.

"Continuity and change" is now an almost clich?'d theme of historical study. Yet the story of the Thai monarchy demonstrates very clearly the continued general validity of such an approach. Thailand is now a constitutional monarchy and a country aspiring to become a newly developed society, but the traditional principles of righteous Buddhist kingship and kingly virtues remain of paramount importance to the present monarchy. His Majesty has displayed, and continues to display a profound understanding of constitutional kingship as well as the traditional sources and symbols of Thai monarchical tradition.

In his Oath of Accession to the Throne, as his ancestors had done, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej pledged to "reign with righteousness for the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people" In his fifty-year reign, he has not deviated from that pledge. Indeed, he has earned the love, admiration, and trust of his people in a manner that cannot be fully comprehended by foreigners.

The significance of his reign relates to three main themes: the well being of his subjects, the security and stability of his nation, and national unity.

In the fifties and sixties, he travelled to every nook and corner of the country, meeting with the people, especially farmers and the poor in rural and remote areas as well as the hill tribes. Gathering information, personally assessing the farming and agricultural areas, experimenting his new concepts and applying appropriate technology at his palace ground in Bangkok, he began a series of Royally initiated projects.

His nearly two thousand projects to date deal with such areas as irrigation, water-resources management, forest and fishery conservation, soil-erosion and improvement, crop-substitution, reafforestation, land development, rural and community development, primary health care, eradication of leprosy, education, flood control, urban traffic and environmental protection. His wide-ranging interests, combined with his self-acquired technical knowledge and pragmatic approach based on local culture and wisdom, have enabled the poor, the under-privileged and the dis-enfranchised to lead a more hopeful and constructive life, thereby strengthening the social fabric of our society and fortifying our national cohesion and identity.

His work in all these development areas stems from his conviction that the well being of the people is tantamount to the well being of their sovereign. The two are inseparable and inter-related.

His concern for the security and stability of the Thai nation is reflected in the innumerable trips and lengthy visits he, the Queen and other members of the Royal family, have made to the sensitive areas of the country which were, at one time, confronted with communist insurgency movements or separatist, ethnic and religious-inspired bands of rebels and bandits. His frequent visits were a morale booster to the populace. His royal projects to uplift the living conditions of the people in those areas underline his own personal commitment and dedication to the people. He has proven by his deeds that he has an over-riding interest in his subjects.

After a State visit to a foreign country, His Majesty inspired the then government to embark on the first national economic and social development plan, laying the foundation for the country to move in a more systematic manner from an agrarian society to an agro-industrial one. He also built up close personal relations with other monarchs and Chiefs of State of major powers and neighbouring countries which, on many occasions, helped to avert potential conflicts and reduce tensions along the border. His personal diplomacy, exercised judiciously and unobtrusively, has contributed to the harmonisation of national interests and consolidation of ties of friendship and international cooperation.

I have so far dwelled on the varied activities that His Majesty initiated, developed and implemented. These activities do not normally fall within the domain of a constitutional monarch. The fact that he has persevered in these activities for the long-lasting benefit of the Thai people has very much endeared him to his subjects - so much so that the Thais, in general, willingly and unreservedly accord him the confidence and trust that no other monarch in our history, or for that matter, any other monarch in the world, has ever enjoyed. The King has, in the process; gained the "reserve powers" which he has put to good use, whenever circumstances require.

Now I shall deal with the King's constitutional role and how he has discreetly and deftly influenced the course of our political history. We must bear in mind that the young King, after his accession to the Throne in 1946, had to tread cautiously through the shoals of political and military bedrocks. Political intrigues and military machinations were the order of the day and His Majesty, while widely loved and respected, was still relatively a figurehead of a people who had yet to know their own sovereign.

As I stated previously, the King embarked early in his reign on a journey to know his subjects and, in the process, allowed his subjects to get close to and know him. At the same time, he used his time wisely to accumulate "constitutional" experience. He has been through 15 constitutions, 17 coups d'etat, and twenty-one Prime Ministers. He has an acute grasp of constitutional rule. He remains detached from politics, playing a non-partisan role in the country's political process and development.

As a constitutional monarch, however, he possesses "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn." Under normal circumstances, he exercises these rights through private audiences he grants to the Prime Minister of the day. What transpires during these meetings remain private and confidential, and even after statutory silent periods, parts of the consultations may not be made known.

In a constitutional monarchy, the King does have certain powers and responsibilities under constitutional provisions. In exercising this power, he must be ever-conscious of his responsibility and objectivity. All bills approved by the National Assembly are to be presented to the King for signature. This is not just a formality, as the King retains discretionary power to withhold his assent temporarily. In private consultations with the Prime Minister, the King's comments, be they "encouraging" or "warning", provide an important input for the Head of Government, if he wishes, to reevaluate the government's position and direction. His Majesty alone possesses continuous political experience and has always kept to constitutional proprieties. His remarks, whether made privately or publicly, have always been listened to with great attention and circumspection. His indirect influence on government's policies and measures cannot, therefore, be underestimated.

A constitutional monarch may dissolve Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, high-ranking officers and civil servants. There have, however, been a number of "extraordinary political situations" where the King has had to draw on his "reserve power" to defuse national crises.

It is public knowledge that there were two occasions when His Majesty used this reserve power. The first time was the student uprising in October 1973, when demands were made for a permanent constitution and an end to government by martial law. Arrests of student leaders provoked a massive popular demonstration, which unfortunately led to the killing of a number of student activists and innocent bystanders. The situation was threatening to erupt into a destructive national confrontation. The Government had lost control. The King, sensing the suffering of the people, intervened in a dramatic television appearance. His Majesty was able to reassure the people that the crisis had subsided and that the three key military figures had decided to leave the country.

The King then took the unprecedented step of appointing one of his Privy Councilors as the next Prime Minister of Thailand. Normalcy was soon restored, much to the relief of the people. A new era of democracy was brought into being, but the process remained fragile and tentative. It came to an abrupt end in October 1976.

The period between 1976-1991 saw the "ups and downs" of our national efforts to develop democratic institutions, oriented towards stability. Progress was made gradually and steadily until a bloodless coup took place in February1991. There was, thereafter, a period of national reconciliation and consensus building. Success eluded us and we as a nation succumbed to one more traumatic episode.

The May 1992 tragedy was a classic case of a government out of touch with the times and the sentiments of the mass. The attempt by demonstrators to topple the government gained momentum outside parliamentary confines. There again, senseless shooting precipitated the outbreak of mob mentality, resulting in a horrifying showdown.

The King, closely following the increasingly tragic developments and accurately assessing the country's mood, summoned the two antagonistic leaders to the Palace in full view of national television. He quietly, but sternly, admonished them for the dire consequences of their actions. The whole kingdom, and international viewers of CNN. And BBC around the world, witnessed on their TV screen how a national crisis had been resolved by His Majesty's reserve power. His sense of timing was of decisive importance. A premature intervention might not have produced the desired result and could have exacerbated the already explosive situation. Hence, it can be said that the timing of His Majesty's actions is determined by the gravity of the State of affairs of the country; in other words when he senses that total breakdown is impending or that the country is on the verge of a political vacuum.

The bloodshed stopped immediately thereafter. The Prime Minister voluntarily resigned from his post. Some two weeks later, a new civilian Prime Minister - a non-member of the House of Representatives - was nominated in the afternoon of June 10, 1992, by the President of the Parliament and appointed by Royal Command that evening.

It is a matter of historical footnote that during the morning Parliamentary session of the same day, Parliament had already approved an amendment to the constitution to the effect that the Prime Minister would have to be chosen from the elected members of the House of Representatives. Since the adopted amendment would not become law until it was published in the Royal Gazette the following morning, this technical loophole enabled the President of the Parliament to submit the name of a non-member as the new Prime Minister to the King for his approval.

The interim Prime Minister was entrusted by the Royal Command to restore peace and stability in the country and to give power back to the people - meaning to arrange and supervise a free and fair general election in the not too distant future. The mandate given was carried out swiftly and peacefully by removing military leaders who, according to the investigation of the Ministry of Defence panel, were politically and morally responsible for the May tragedy.

A general election was held on 13th September 1992. Despite some irregularities, the election was perceived on the whole to be free and fair. A new Prime Minister, an elected Member of Parliament was appointed and a cabinet was formed. Peaceful transfer of power was effected. Since September 1992, another general election was held in Thailand on July 2, 1995, reaffirming constitutional change of power. Throughout this period of four years, the Thai military retreated to the background and became true servants of State - not allowing themselves to be involved in any manner in the democratic political process. They have indeed gone back to the barracks and remained there, thus enhancing their prestige as professional armed forces.

To what extent our arrival at this juncture has been due to His Majesty's non-partisan guidance during his fifty-year reign needs to be fully assessed and analyzed by historians. As a layman, I have no doubt that his sense of justice, his overriding concern for the well-being and security of his people, his sense of history as well as his pragmatic and gradualist approach, have made a highly significant impact on the politics, economic and social development of Thailand. He has the skill and integrity to influence politics without being political.

Without His Majesty's guiding hand, we would not be where we are today - a nation which has consistently demonstrated its inner strength, political resilience, social harmony and economic dynamism - a trait which has enabled the Thais to survive many a threat and misfortune in their long history.

The course of modern Thai political history will run smoothly and peacefully if and when the Thai political system pursues the middle path and a balance is achieved between freedom and stability. His Majesty's adoption of the balanced approach during his fifty-year reign serves as an inspiration for the governance of Thailand.

To the Thai people, the monarchy is not an abstract concept, but a real, tangible, human and caring institution.

His Majesty the King personifies positive elements of our national characteristics and he is the very embodiment of the common character of the Thai people of all-ethnic groups, religion and culture. He is our inspiration toward a stronger, more secure and prosperous destiny. He has deservedly earned the respect and trust of his people to the point that his BARAMEE (in the Thai language) would overcome all adversities.

HE IS THE SOUL OF THE THAI NATION.

LONG LIVE HIS MAJESTY.

Searching for a Better Structure

Bangkok Post
August 1, 1996

Anand Panyarachun: ‘Accidental Prime Minister’ committed to treating more than the symptoms of Thailand’s political malaise

“If we want to have democratic rule we have to earn it. It is something that is not given to you by divine right…. It is something that we have to earn, and it is something that we have to fight for: fight for with our ideas, fight for with our own participation, fight for with our own responsibility to the public at large”.

There are those who have never forgiven Anand Panyarachun for agreeing to become Prime Minister in 1991. For these activists and intellectuals. Mr. Anand legitimised the “coup d’etat” in February of that year, by the military group that called itself the National Peace-keeping Council.

Then there are those who have never forgiven him for having stripped the coup leaders of their power, and at the same time treated with disdain the elected politicians who were willing to side with the coup leaders.

Huge numbers in Bangkok and the cities supported him in his efforts as “Prime Minister by accident”, as he described himself. Toward the end of his second term - appointed almost on the spur of the moment, to steer Thailand back to normality, after the bloody anti-military protests of May 1992 - Mr. Anand was under such heavy criticism that his supporters rallied around him. A special reception was organised for him at a Bangkok hotel and “I love Anand” car stickers appeared everywhere.

His critics accuse him of having been dictatorial and intellectually arrogant. Some are bored with the media attention given to him. Some admire him for his principles and independence. They accept his weaknesses - such as impatience with the more simple-minded questions of reporters, and intolerance of the tedious “nit-picking” of Thai political debate.

Among many Thais who believe that only charismatic individuals can save the country, Mr. Anand is the 1990s version of “the knight on a white-horse”. For them, he personally saved the country twice; from dictatorship in his first term as Prime Minister from March 1991 to April 1992, and then taking Thailand out of turmoil back to electoral democracy from June to September 1992.

“The white-horse knight” is not an image he encourages. His speeches and interviews, during those brief periods as Prime Minister, emphasised structure, rather than personalities. He did not talk much about the need for “good people” to come to power. He did talk about suitable laws to define the proper role of the military, about freedom of information and the press, and about the participation of the public in politics.

In April 1991, two months after the coup that first brought him to office, Mr. Anand spoke to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand. He urged the Thai public to “wake up to the fact that if we want to have democratic rule we have to earn it. It is something that is not given to you by divine right…. It is something that we have to earn, and it is something that we have to fight for: fight for with our ideas, fight for with our own participation, fight for with our own responsibility to the public at large.”

It was a stirring and surprising performance, a passionate argument for participation and against military dictatorship, by the man the military had put into office un-elected. As if to sum up the contradictions that has characterised his life, it was in English. Communication with the Thai masses, has never been his strong point, even if large sections of the urban population love him.

Many of those who look back favourably on his two terms as Prime Minister, do so out of admiration for his honesty, and for the way he resisted the military that put him in power. Few realise that what he and his colleagues were trying to do was more complex than that. They were trying to set up better structures, that would make Thailand more democratic and open, reduce the power of the military, and reduce opportunities for corruption among military and civilian officials and politicians.

It is surprising that Mr. Anand ever became Prime Minister. His early years were promising enough. He was born on August 9, 1932, the year of the revolution that turned Thailand into a constitutional monarchy. He went to three schools: Amnuay Silpa, Bangkok Christian College, and Dulwich College in London. Then came Trinity College, Cambridge University, an honours degree, and 23 years in the diplomatic service.

Within 12 years, he was Ambassador to the UN in New York and to Canada. In 1972 he became Ambassador to the United States in Washington as well as to the UN in New York. The two postings gave him nine un-interrupted years at Ambassador level in the United States. In 1976 he returned to Bangkok, to become permanent secretary at the Foreign Ministry.

And then his high-flying career stalled. Within months, he was removed from office, accused of communist sympathies, and made Ambassador-at-large. He was grounded. In 1977, he became Ambassador in Bonn, but by then the strain on his family had been immense, and diplomacy was no longer attractive. A year later, Mr. Anand left the Foreign Ministry, and joined Saha Union, at that time a business group mainly involved in textiles.

Mr. Anand was a victim of the extreme polarisation of the 1970s. In 1975, the year the Vietnam War ended, and two years after the overthrow of the Sarit- Thanom military dictatorship, the elected government of M.R. Kukrit Pramoj decided that U.S. bases should leave Thailand. As Ambassador in Washington, Mr. Anand’s job was to negotiate the withdrawal. The military and the ultra-conservative civilians they installed after the bloody “coup d’etat” of October 6, 1976 did not forgive Mr. Anand.

His career since then shows just how absurd the communism accusation was. For the past 18 years, except for his two “accidents” in 1991 and 1992, he has been a businessman. His premiership in 1991 and 1992 included an increased emphasis on privatisation and the outlawing of state enterprise unions.

Mr. Anand’s list of past and present positions includes numerous directorships and Chairmanships of Saha Union companies (including Chairman of Saha-Union Public Co. Ltd. Itself since 1991), President of the Federation of Thai Industries, director of many Thai and international companies, including IBM (Thailand) and Sime Darby Berhad of Malaysia, President of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and member of the Board of Governors of the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand. Since April 1994 he has been Chairman of Post Publishing Public co. Ltd., publisher of the Bangkok Post.

He is also Chairman of the Thailand Development Research Institute, Thailand Environment Institute, and Thailand Business Council for Sustainable Development, as well as Ambassador for Thailand for UNICEF (the UN children’s fund). Among the public figures he admires are former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and international media tycoon, Rupert Murdoch.

He summed up his ideological position, in an interview during his second term in 1992, beginning with a joke.

“Who was it who said: “Who was the first socialist in the world?”… The answer is Christopher Columbus. Why? Because he didn’t know where he was going. When he got there he didn’t know where he was, but he didn’t care, because he didn’t have to pay for it!”

Mr. Anand described himself as an “enlightened liberal”, not an enlightened authoritarian. There is a vast difference in that.” That meant distancing himself from leaders like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

“I think it’s all wrong in a way, when you listen to all these foreigners comparing the May events in Thailand to the Tiananmen Square incident in China; or when people try to compare my previous (first) administration with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s style of management, because here we have unlimited freedom of the mass media - that was only interrupted during that fateful week (of the May 1992 uprising).”

Democracy inevitably means a risk of instability. The former Prime Minister of Singapore placed development and stability before democratic freedoms, Mr. Anand said. “I do not go that far, but at the same time I would say that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is partially right, and perhaps in terms of Singapore society, who am I to say that is not right for the Singaporeans?”

Thailand’s size and diversity make it quite different from Singapore. “I mean, you can discipline two million citizens, but you cannot really discipline 56-57 million people.”

This was June 1992, one month after the May uprising. He described what he thought had gone wrong with Thai democracy and what he thought needed to be done. The fault, he said, lay with the political structure, and this was the ultimate cause of the May bloodshed.

“In the past 60 years we merely dealt with the symptoms of the malady, and we either did not have the courage, or didn’t have the vision, to try to undertake some structural adjustments. That doesn’t mean that within the next four months I’ll be able to do many things with regard to structural adjustment, but at least I hope that by the time I leave, I will have begun a process of structural adjustment.”

He spoke especially about the military, and the laws or administrative measures needed to redefine its role. “The objective is to try to lower the army’s profile, or lower their role. It is not aimed at destroying the institution, or defaming the institution. On the other hand, I’d rather look at the positive side of the structural adjustment, in the sense that it will enhance the army’s professionalism, enhance the effectiveness of their management, and make them into a more efficient fighting force, in defence of the constitution and in defence of our territorial integrity.

“I think in the past 60 years - this is not really the fault of the army, I think it’s the fault of the entire system in Thailand - that somehow in-advertently we have either given or we have acquiesced in the acquisition of this very high-profile role of the army. We need time to think, to ponder seriously whether certain roles they have been given, or they have acquired on their own, are really the roles that should belong to them.”

Tackling the military, only became his responsibility in his second term. In his first term, the military kept the task of re-drafting the constitution out of his hands completely. He still introduced innovations, to restructure Thai politics, setting up PoIIWatch, the independent election monitoring commission, and introducing legislation requiring more open and systematic screening of large public projects.

His form of liberalism made Mr. Anand a champion of regional free trade, beginning when he was President of the ASEAN Chambers of Commerce and Industry in 1982-83. A decade later as Prime Minister he signed the ASEAN free-trade Agreements at a Singapore summit.

Many assumed that the coup group chose Mr. Anand as Prime Minister because one of its leaders, Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon, had been military attache in Washington when Mr. Anand was Ambassador. Mr. Anand played down the suggestion.

In any case, his government was soon at odds with the coup group. The first big quarrel was about the three-million-line contract that the Telephone Organisation of Thailand had signed with TelecomAsia, a member of the Charoen Pokphand group. Against the wishes of the army officers on the TOT’s board of directors, the Anand government split the contract, leaving TelecomAsia with the two million new lines in Bangkok.

Then came public protests in late 1991 about the coup group’s attempt to draft a new constitution, in a way that would improve its chances of retaining power after the March 1992 election. Mr. Anand openly criticised the draft.

Almost half a decade later, it could be argued that the impact of the Anand government has been short-lived. Peace and democracy were restored, and foreign confidence in Thailand was only temporarily damaged. The corruption and petty bickering among politicians seems as bad as ever.

Yet some issues – such as ASEAN free trade, and some aspects of transparency in political decisions – are now taken for granted. The combination of public protests and the Anand government’s actions, have probably strengthened Press freedoms, considerably.

It is probably still too soon to judge whether the other legal and structural changes that Mr. Anand and his colleagues introduced, during their brief terms, are having an impact. He has always emphasised the length of time needed for changes to become ingrained. The last long gap between attempted or successful “coups d’etat” was five years and five months from September 1985 to February 1991. That gap is right now being surpassed.

Anand Panyarachun’s Biography

Name: Anand Panyarachun

Born: August 9, 1932, Bangkok

Education:

• Amnuay Silpa School, 1943-45
• Bangkok Christian College, 1945-48
• Dulwich College, London, 1948-52
• Trinity College, Cambridge, 1952-55

Career:

1955: Joined Foreign Ministry

1964: Posted to Thai Mission to UN, New York

1967: Ambassador, Acting Permanent Representative to UN and Ambassador to Canada

1972: Ambassador to U.S. and UN

1976: Permanent Secretary, Foreign Ministry

1977: Ambassador-at-Large

1977: Ambassador to West Germany

1979: Joined Saha Union as Chairman or Director of several Companies

1991: Chairman, Saha-Union Public Co. Ltd.

1991: Prime Minister (March-April 1992, June-October 1992)

Others:

1980-80: Vice President, Association of Thai Industries

1982-84: President, ASEAN Chambers of Commerce and Industries

1986-90: Chairman, ASEAN Section of ASEAN-US Business Council

1990-91: Chairman, Federation of Thai Industries

1991-95: Member, Business Advisory Council, International Finance Corp.

1993-94: Chairman, Business Council for Sustainable Development (Geneva)

1982: Chairman, Star Block Group Pcl

1982: Director, Sime Darby Berhad, Malaysia

1984: Director, Siam Commercial Bank Pcl

1988-: Member, Advisory Council of SASIN Graduate School of Business Administration

1989-: President, Old England Students Association

1989-: Chairman, Eastern Star Real Estate Pcl

1990-: Member, Board of Trustees, Asian Institute of Technology

1992-: Chairman, Thailand Development Research Institute

1993-: Chairman, Thailand Environment Institute

1993-: Chairman, Thailand Business Council for Sustainable Development

1994-: Chairman, The Post Publishing Public Co. Ltd.

1995-: Chairman, Kenan Institute Asia

1996-: Distinguished International ISIS Fellow, Malaysia

1996-: UNICEF Ambassador of Thailand

The Man of the Hour
Can Anand’s Constitution Reform Thailand?
Asiaweek, October 10, 1997

The Nations Thailand

“It’s a Good Starting Point”

The charter chief on the reforms – and himself

In the popular imagination, Anand Panyarachun’s persona is that of a retired, reluctant sheriff called up by the decent folk of some Wild West town to get rid of the bad guys terrorizing them. The reputation as saviour was forged during Anand’s two short but highly effective stints as caretaker prime minister. The first was in February 1991, when a military junta asked him to head the government. The second was after the May 1992 crackdown on democracy demonstrators. During both periods. Anand performed like no other Thai premier – with competence, honesty and the public interest in mind. Small wonder many Thais want the suave former diplomat and businessman back as PM, especially during this time of political and economic uncertainty.

Anand, now 65, would decline in the unlikely event such an offer was made, but he did agree to serve as chairman of the Constitution drafting committee, over-seeing 99 indirectly elected people from various walks of life -- politics, business, academia. The upshot is a new charter that goes some way toward cleaning up Thai politics and improving civil rights and liberties.

As an aristocrat and self professed Anglophile (he graduated from Cambridge in law), Anand can come across as elitist and autocratic in style. In substance, however, he is very much a man of the people. On the eve of the parliamentary vote over the new Constitution, Anand discussed the changes, their implications for the country – and himself – with Correspondent Julian Gearing, Excerpts from their 90-minute talk:

The current Constitution was actually drafted and amended when you were in office. Did you not have any concerns about it at the time?

Every now and then there are complaints, that when I was Prime Minister, why did I not use the opportunity to reform the political system? The fact is that when I was first asked (by the coup leaders) to be Prime Minister, I was a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, the military knew that all my life I had been against dictatorship, corruption and extreme rightist policies. On the other hand, I saw that the coup did receive fairly strong support from the public, because the public was fed up with the government and with the corruption. I knew that if I were to accept (the job), I would disappoint a number of my more liberal friends, those people who viewed me as a sort of standard bearer for democratic ideas. But, I said to myself, if I were to go in, try to sort out the confusion and chaos, it would have some redeeming value. I did not like certain provisions in that interim Constitution, but after I talked to the coup leaders, I said to myself, you are damned if you do, you are damned if you don’t (laughs) – so I went in. So I had nothing to do with the Constitution. As a result, during Anand I and Anand II, I was not able to take any political initiatives.

There is criticism that the new charter is too much of a compromise?

Compromise is the basis of democracy. Whatever course we decide to take. It is always subject to criticism. I am aware of that, I am used to it. It doesn’t bother me. There might be one or two sections where there are problems, but it doesn’t mean that the whole process is bad. It can be amended some time in the future, after the next election, after the new Constitution has come into force and has been tested in practical terms.

What will this charter do to tackle vote buying and corrupt practices?

The monitoring process is going to be more thorough. The organisations to be set up will have the power and responsibility of bringing wrongdoers to justice. It doesn’t mean that just because we have a good Constitution, democracy is going to have a rosy path in this country. People have to participate in the follow-up. People have to be alert to see that only all good men are put in these monitoring bodies (laughs).

What about the bad men, the godfathers, the corrupt? Will this new Constitution get rid of them?

You cannot get rid of them overnight. You have to go through a series of elections. There is a school of thought that people with unsavoury characters, if they live under rules which allow them to show their unsavoury side, they will do it. But if you put them in a different environment, under different rules which make it much more difficult to show their unsavoury side, then they may conform. I will not say they will reform, but they may conform.

A number of politicians have been quite outspoken in their opposition to the draft. Why do you think someone like Interior Minister Sanoh Thienthong expressed sentiments against it?

Perhaps he is worried this new Constitution may spell the end of his career. In the debate over this Constitution, many of the MPs have shown their real characters.

Deputy PM Thaksin Shinawatra suggests only rich people, people who can support themselves, ought to be ministers?

I don’t agree with that. This is a very simplistic assessment. Rich men do not cheat. Or educated people do not cheat.

Will Thailand continue to be ruled by the elite, people with money?

I don’t think so. Look at Democrat Party leader Chuan Leekpai. He comes from a rural area, he comes from a very humble family, his mother is still living in the market sector of Trang in the south. Look at Britain, at the number of Etonians, the people with money. But then they had John Major. Times change.

We are sitting in Bangkok, but the provinces rely very much on the old system of patronage politics?

It is not a system, it is a culture, and you cannot change that culture overnight. Democracy is not only based on the Constitution. It is based on traditions, conventions, generations of practice which form into a culture, a democratic culture. We don’t have that yet. And it will be a long time before we do. We have to uplift education, we have to enable the people to earn a decent livelihood, because what is the use of talking about democracy or the Constitution if they have no jobs? It is no use saying because we don’t have this and we don’t have that, then dismantle the whole process.

If we look at the bigger picture, how does Thailand’s democracy compare with others in Asia?

As far as democracy is concerned, we are much better off than many other nations in terms of freedom of assembly, of expression, of civil rights and liberties. On the other hand, we in Thailand have had a so-called democratic period of only 65 years, with 40 years of interruption from military coups and what not, so it is a fledgling democracy. People are not accustomed to the principles of democracy, to the philosophy. Many think that if you are able to exercise your vote once every three to four years, that is democracy. It is not only about participating in elections. It is about involvement in the decision-making process and in the governance of the country. We tend to look to the form rather than to the substance and essence.

A few critics have questioned whether Thailand should be borrowing political systems from the West?

They all wear suits to Parliament. To me, it is a very flimsy charge. After all democracy was born in the West. So if we didn’t go to the source, where could we go? The philosophy itself is something that is not indigenous. And if you don’t learn from the mistakes of other countries, the way they reform their political system and the way they try to reform their perennial problems, who could we go to? There is nothing to be ashamed of, there is nothing wrong with this approach.

Will you return to politics?

I was never really in politics. I was brought into it, practically dragged into it. I enjoyed the work that I did as Prime Minister. I think I did some good for the country, but I never liked the life. Politics is the art of the possible. In the process you have to engage in manoeuvering and shenanigans. My family wouldn’t want me to take it up again. It is not my cup of tea. It is not my line. I like simplicity. I like my privacy.

Often the Thai people seek a white knight to save them in times of crisis?

That is right. That is the problem with the Thai; people. They are always looking for a knight in shining armour. People have given up hope. There has not been any cheery news for Thailand for quite some time – economically or politically. The new charter is something to which the public is looking forward. Of course you always have to be wary that you do not raise their expectations too much. It is not a panacea to all our ills, but it is a good starting point. Because in a way, it is the first fundamental reform of our political system. It is a watershed.

A Politician by Accident

Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun
From Thailand Executive Profile

On March 2, Cambridge-educated diplomat-turned-businessman, Khun Anand Panyarachun, was sworn in as the country’s 18^th Prime Minister since the introduction of the constitutional monarchy in 1932. Eight days earlier, on February 23, Thailand’s first elected Prime Minister, Chatichai Choonhavan, had been overthrown by the Army in a blood-less coup. The interim National Peacekeeping Council cited several reasons for staging the coup, ranging from alleged Government corruption to choking traffic conditions in Bangkok. Midway through his term in office, 59-year old Prime Minister Anand talks to Simon Thurlow about his sudden emergence into the spotlight, and outlines what still has to be done before general elections are held next year.

“I just have to face the fact that I’m not an elected representative. If I should hurt some people’s feelings and disappoint some people, then all I can really do is just apologise, but I did not appoint myself, that’s one thing. Secondly, when they decided to offer me the position, I took account of the fact that I was not involved in any manner, or way with the extra-legal means of the transfer of power.

“It’s not for me to pass a value judgement on the actions that they took-perhaps they had good reasons, but I think that when certain doors had been opened, they showed a certain degree of sincerity in their actions. They had demonstrated an acceptable degree of genuine intention, to put Thailand back on the right course.”

The Prime Minister jokes that when he finally acceded to the requests of the Army’s National Peacekeeping Council to take the job, it was the result of a mental lapse.

“It is something for which my wife will never forgive me,” he says, laughing heartily.

“I am not a politician by profession, I’m not a politician by aspiration. I am a politician by accident. I happen to be a man who is holding a political position that’s all.

“I’ve spent 23 years in the Foreign Service and 13 years in the private sector and though in the past I had the opportunity of being recruited into the Cabinet, I always turned it down.

“I have gone on record that I’m not going to stand for election, and I do not believe that public life is something that comes naturally. Well to some people it comes naturally, but not to me.”

Why, then, did he agree to become Prime Minister?

“I had to deal with the situation after the seizure of power and if they (NPKC) decided to offer the job to a civilian, then I rather thought that was a step forward, a very positive step. All I hoped for was, at least, to be able to contribute to this early restoration of the democratic regime in Thailand.

“It is my personal belief, my conviction, that there was a need to put the country back on the course of stable and balanced rule. That would be part-and-parcel of the early restoration of the democratic regime.

“It provides me with ample opportunities to do things as a concerned citizen of our country, to do things that I believe to be right, to do things that I believe to be in the long-term interests of the country.

“Obviously, because of the absence of an elected House of Representatives ….If I could galvanise people, provide them with certain direction, policies, within a short period of time, be it nine or 12 months, at least give the opportunities that most people would want, but would not be able to make come true.”

One of the main reasons cited by the military for the coup was the alleged corruption of the Chatichai government. Prime Minister Anand explains his role in improving the Government’s image.

“It’s very important that I introduce new elements into the government of our country. I want, by the time I leave my job, by the time our government is no longer there, Thai people to look back and say that at least for a short period we had a clean, honest government. This is not something, which is unique. Too many times in the past, people have been disillusioned, I suppose people in any democracy become disillusioned with politicians. You often get the case, in America, in all sorts of places, but that’s a part of life.

“We know that we can at least get the majority of the people who vote to accept our government and our policies, our directions. I want, at least, to be a part of constructing the system, which in future governments of Thailand will seem clean, transparent, to be accountable for what they do.”

After only a few months in his new job, Prime Minister Anand was faced with the potentially explosive situation of having to resolve a multi-billion baht scheme initiated by his predecessors, to privatise and expand Thailand’s telephone system.

After protracted negotiations, a deal was struck, that broke what would have been a monopoly, and which went against the wishes of a large army faction. The resolution of the contract was hailed as a personal triumph for Prime Minister Anand, firstly for being able to get things done, and secondly for being able to chart an independent government courses. However, when pressed, he refuses to acknowledge any personal credit.

“I think it’s the best deal out of a bad situation. I had certain constraints, the fact that the agreement was about to be signed before I come over. There was a definite moral agreement, a moral commitment on the part of the government. I believe in the continuity of governments, and I believe in the continuity of commitments given by the previous government. Those commitments should never be allowed to lapse.

“If I had started from scratch, if I had a clean slate, perhaps this is not the way that I would choose to privatise the telephone organisation. Or perhaps it is not the most effective way of inviting the private sector’s participation in the telephone services. Be that as it may, the concept had already been agreed on by the previous government, and the contract was about to be signed, so I thought that I should at least do my best to get the best agreement out of the concept. I thought it was a deal that was acceptable both to the government and to the people who were getting the concession.”

Prime Minister Anand is acutely aware that his days in office are numbered. He jokes about it often, but that does not diminish his strong belief in the continuity of government, and the obligation to honour previous commitments, and especially on a personal level.

“I have never regretted it (taking the job). In all my life, once I made a decision, I stood by those decisions. I don’t do anything half-heartedly. I have said that for me this is an interim time. I am an interim Prime Minister of an interim government, but I am anything but interim in what I do. I hope that my decisions of the past months, things that have happened, procedures established, the systems, I hope that they will last and not be reversed by the future government.”

The Prime Minister’s handling of the telephone contract, illustrated these beliefs, as do his current attempts to rationalise the shambles that has allowed as many as five over-lapping schemes to be tabled, to help ease Bangkok’s chaotic traffic situation.

“Any agreements that have been signed by the Thai Government would have to be honoured by the future government, that is a cardinal rule. Agreements that have not yet been signed will, of course, be subject to review. Of the agreements that have already been signed, the way we handle things is not to try to sabotage, to try to make it fail, but we had to look more deeply into the question of physical planning and of the engineering involved.

“We started with a handicap, in the sense that we did not have a master plan for a mass transit system. We merely responded to the projects, the proposals put up by the private sector. Under normal circumstances, the best approach would have been to have our own master plan and then to decide on the concept to be followed. Then, the private sector could respond to the final concept that was chosen. That is not the case, so, in those areas (transport) the Thai Government always had the bad habit of reacting to specific proposals and projects. As a result, when it came down to questions and negotiations, the Government was often in a dis-advantaged position, because it had no way of controlling the procedure of the project itself.”

Prime Minister Anand has appointed a special committee to try and unravel the mess, which includes a multi-billion-dollar scheme of Hopewell’s Hong Kong magnate, Gordon Wu, to build a mass-transit railway, but it will not be easy.

“The people who got involved in the deliberation process were from one agency, with a vested interest. We believe that gives rise to corruption charges. It gave rise to some decisions that were made inadvertently, and decisions that were not thoroughly discussed and assessed. So I appointed a committee which includes all of the representatives of the agencies concerned – the finance, the engineering, and the authorities with their different projects. I hope that they can help iron out “the wrinkles” that are bound to happen when four or five government agencies run separately and uncoordinatedly and in isolation. So, “the name of the game” now is coordination, so that the physical parts of all the projects are not in conflict with each other, and that it would be physically feasible for all the projects to get off the ground.”

In the past few years, Thailand has suffered from extremely bad press over its environmental record, be it the deterioration of its beaches or the devastation of its natural forests. Prime Minister Anand observes:

“I think that this government has perhaps done most in the environmental field, to continue to generate public interest in the negative aspects of environmental matters. We have taken quite a number of concrete measures to alleviate suffering, our programme reducing the lead percentage in gasoline has been very successful and of course there is more to come. We’re determined to bring in a higher degree of private sector involvement in this national effort to protect the environment in which we live.

“We have de-controlled, de-regulated industries, commerce, and we expect that this de-controlling, this de-regulation and also our tax reform package (a value- added tax is to be introduced) would enable industry in Thailand to spend more money on waste treatment plants, not polluting canals and rivers. We will also do our best to see to it that the natural environment of the country, the forests, the rivers, would be least impaired by the actions of the Government.

“We want modernisation of the country, particularly Bangkok, to spread out. I have a dream, a dream of my own, that instead of having all roads leading to Bangkok, I wish that we could have all roads leading out of Bangkok to the provinces. That by the time we leave, we will have set aside two or three plots of land in Bangkok as parks.”

Prime Minister Anand accepts that there are problems with the exploitation of the country’s forests.

“There will always be problems: one, if the law is not strong enough there is nothing one can do, and secondly, if the law is strong enough, then the people who are trying to enforce the law are not honest. Perhaps 80 years ago, 80 per cent of the land area was covered in forest. Now it’s down to about 35 per cent, if not 20 per cent. That is a natural phenomenon. It has happed in every country, it’s happening now in Brazil. It’s something that we do not like to see happen but it has happened in every country.”

Anand adds: “I think that the population of Thailand in my younger days was 23 million people. That was only 30 to 40 years ago and now we have a population of 56 million. As a result, we have 30 million more people, particularly in the agricultural sector. They need land, each family needs land. Where do they get it from? We get it from the public forests”.

Thailand’s economy over the past few years has expanded to such a rate that it has earned the tag of “fastest-growing country in the world”. Inevitably, however, there has been a slow-down in line with the world-wide trend and the after-math of the Gulf War. Prime Minister Anand is not overly concerned.

“If you regard eight to nine per cent growth this year, it is not a slump, it is a drop from twelve or thirteen per cent growth. Everything is relative. In a way, I think it was partly designed by the Government, because I don’t think that any country of our size and our level of development could sustain 12 per cent average growth every year, as four or five years in the past. I think it’s very important that we slow down the growth intentionally, and we view it as a pause. By the time we think we could go ahead with “full steam” again, at least supporting facilities, be they infrastructure, be they technical personnel, be they anything, these factors will be ready.

“For example, the real-estate sector has been growing at the rate of 60 and 70 per cent in the past three to four years and you cannot go on at that rate because it is a kind of “runaway train”. You have to just slow it down so that it will not get “off the track”. The money supply in the past has been slightly too large, so I think we had to take control of the situation. Financially, we’re much better off than we were four of five years ago, or eight, or nine when there was a sort of slump, a recession in Thailand.

“Now the foreign exchange reserve is up to about US$17 billion. If you look back eight or nine years ago, we only had about US$2 billion. This US$17 billion covers about five-and-a half months of imports and the baht is quite stable. I think confidence in Thailand is to continue judging by the in-flow of capital from abroad. Of course, the position has changed slightly, there is now less in-flow from equity and more in-flow from short-term loans. I am sure that picture will be corrected quite soon.”

Will Thailand becomes a financial centre in Southeast Asia?

“That’s what we hope for,” says Prime Minister Anand with a chuckle, “that’s what we hope for, I think it’s going to come about in spite of the Thai Government. If you look at the map, Thailand, although not geographically so, is right in the middle of the Asean area, and with the opening up of the economies of Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam in particular, and also Burma, I can visualise it in 10 years time. Thailand will just be the hub of activities on a regional scale. Our banks are fairly active now in these areas. I can see a much larger market in the future, so I think that the economies are complementary and, of course, being more advanced in terms of banking, in terms of trade, in terms of industry, all of these Indo-China states will be naturally drawn into our orbit. I don’t say that within a big power sort of attitude, but I think it is inevitable. Of course, on top of that, we’ve developed very good relations with our neighbours, politically and economically. The security factor is no longer a factor in the present scheme of things. Previously it would hinder any kind of movement in that direction, but now it’s irrelevant.”

This year’s break-through in talks, hosted by Thailand, on a resolution of the fighting in Cambodia has enhanced Thailand’s position as a regional force and power broker.

“The problem has been with us for over a decade, there was a stalemate, there was a deadlock, each side thought, rightly or wrongly, that time was on their side. We just pointed out that time was on nobody’s side and that, if the stalemate were allowed to be prolonged, there was the likelihood that the Cambodian problem would no longer figure on the international agenda, including that of Thailand. With the trend around the world towards negotiation, compromise and pragmatic solutions to problems, the Cambodians themselves had to make up their minds. Whether to go with the rest of the world, whether they could afford to “dilly-dally” and argue on procedural points, or argue on such tiny points which, in fact, had no real practical meaning.

“I give a lot of credit to the four factions, I think also that the major interested parties involved, like Thailand, contributed to the process, to the negotiating process,”

So what, then, is the future regional role for Thailand?

“My God, this cabinet has only six months to go, we’ll do our best in that time,” says Prime Minister Anand, laughing strongly.

“We’re only a small country, so we’re not that ambitious, at least this Government is not that ambitious. We have to work within the time limits, but perhaps the future Government can take a greater role. I think that whatever we do, we have to recognize our limitation, our own constraints. We’re not a major power – we are a sizeable power within the region, but that’s it. Period.”

Midway through his term, the Prime Minister reflects on his time at the helm of the country.

“I enjoy the work I’m doing, I enjoy the job but I do not enjoy the position of being Prime Minister. In a way I am a rather private man, I cherish my own private time, I cherish my own private life. In the political arena you have to stand in front of the public every day, every hour. All of your words, all of your deeds are scrutinised and assessed. Sometimes there’s a lot of character assassination. It’s not that I am not in a position to answer all of these accusations, all of these slanders and 'what-not', but it’s not my 'cup of tea.'”

So what does Khun Anand look forward to when he retires?

“A holiday, a part-time job and not having to give interviews,” he says, grinning broadly, “signifying, most politely, that the interview was over.”

PRIME EXAMPLE

Anand Panyarachun
By Judi Buehrer, Thailand Tatler
December 1994

“I consider it my luck that whatever I was or whatever I was doing, I was often involved in some momentous event pertaining to the interests of Thailand. You can call it fate”

Among the companies and enterprises chaired by Anand are the Saha Union Group, Star Block Group, Eastern Star Real Estate Co. and the Post Publishing Public Co. Ltd. He also sits on the boards of directors of IBM Thailand, Samitivej Public Co., Siam Commercial Bank, Sime Darby Berhad of Malaysia, IBM Asia Pacific, the International Advisory Board of General Electric Company, American International Group Icl, and International Finance Corporation Business Advisory Council. He is honorary chairman of Chiva-Som International Health Resorts. And that’s not all. He also chairs the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation, the Thailand Environment Institute and the Cambridge Thai Foundation. He is a member of the Advisory Council of SASIN Graduate Institute of Business Administration of Chulalongkorn University, the Board of Trustees of the Asian Institute of Technology, and Chulalongkorn University Council. Anand is also chairman of the Business Council for Sustainable Development based in Geneva.

For a man who zealously guards his privacy, Anand Panyarachun is a conspicuously public figure. In fact, Anand seems to be everywhere these days addressing business, education and environmental seminars and conferences in Thailand and abroad. Newspaper and magazine stories quote his witty messages, next to photographs of his familiar, smiling visage – often sharing the spotlight with such notables as Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai and Miss Thailand.

You would think that Anand is on a mission. And he is. You could say he’s Thailand’s self-appointed, roving ambassador. The 62-year-old former Prime Minister-States-man-businessman spends about half of his time these days crusading. At an age when most men plan their retirement, Anand divides his time and energy between chairing the multi-billion-baht Saha Union Group, stumping the speaking circuit to promote Thailand abroad, and to fight for educational and environmental reforms on the home-front.

“I think it’s important that the Thailand story is told to the outside world in an accurate, comprehensive and objective manner,” Anand says, “I hope that my talks will contribute in some measure to the better understanding of Thailand, and to the advancement of the Thai position in international diplomacy and trade.” Anand is selective about his speaking engagements. He declines about 60 percent of invitations he receives, premising his acceptance “upon my interest in promoting Thailand’s political and economic interests.”

A prominent figure nearly half of his life-time, Anand has been described as a polished diplomat, skillful technocrat, astute chief executive – even a knight in shining armour. Admired for his numerous business, political and personal achievements, he is perhaps most warmly regarded by Thais and expatriates for nurturing the Kingdom through the healing, re-building process after two national crises; the February 1991 coup d’etat and the May 1992 uprising.

After the first incident, Anand headed the interim government as Prime Minister until April 21, 1992, when he left Government House and returned to his ninth-floor office in the Saha Union building at Sukhumvit 58. National stability was short-lived, however, and he was appointed Prime Minister again after the bloody May 1992 student uprising, that resulted in 50 deaths. The tragic incident triggered a period of national despair, and Anand faced the weighty task of reassuring his fellow citizens while encouraging them to get the country back on its feet. His faith in Thai people led him to counsel them to “reach inside our own souls to rediscover and tap this inner strength of ours.”

Looking back, Anand says thoughtfully, “Everyone was deeply disturbed and distressed. I think every society, every nation, goes through some kind of a crisis, now and then. In our case it was a crisis of such magnitude – a crisis of the mind – there was a need to resolve it in a rather peaceful, just and objective way. In the shortest possible time, too, although it’s not the type of thing you can lay to rest easily.”

These days, Anand maintains his pragmatic approach, moral values and earnest demeanour. His spacious, meticulously ordered office, projects a purely business-like ambiance, except for a stunning collection of blue and white porcelain vases, and numerous photographs of Anand with His Majesty the King and Heads of State from around the world. Walking briskly across the room to a semi-formal sitting area, Anand reclines in a silk-upholstered chair and glances at the seven-page bio-data in his hand. He relinquishes it to the reporter, saying almost apologetically, “I don’t really like handing out this sort of material about myself.”

It seems an odd remark from a man who has attained national and international esteem, and chaired a host of notable enterprises.

In spite of his public and business stature, Anand is uncomfortable talking about himself. Responding to comments about his accomplishments, he says, “I just do a day’s work. If it turns out to be good, it might be labelled as an accomplishment. Well, thank you, but that’s it.”

Though he answers personal questions tersely, he reveals much when asked whom he most admires. “Normally I go for people with integrity, people who are decent human beings. My role model would be my father.”

Anand talks almost reverently about his father, Phya Prichanusart, who played a key role in defining Thailand’s education system. King Rama VI sent him to England to study the British public school system. Later, as education permanent secretary, Phya Prichanusart helped set up many schools, including Vajiravudh College, of which he became headmaster.

Anand describes his father as “a decent man, and a very good father. He generated warmth within our family circle. He never tried to make our decisions for us, although we would talk, discuss matters. He was a teacher - he spent all his life teaching. He loved to read - something I inherited from him. He listened to people, which is very important in a man. You have to be able to listen to other people, to be interested in their ideas and point of view. He left the Civil Service in his early 40s, at a very young age, and started another career. He co-founded the Bangkok Chronicle, now known as the Bangkok Post. Together with a blind American teacher, Miss Caulfield, he set up the first school for the blind in Thailand. Although he was a devout Buddhist, he became, I think, the first non-Christian to chair the YMCA in Thailand. He was a well-travelled man who loved music, especially Chinese and Western opera, and Thai classical dance. He was a man of varied interests, a kind-hearted person, a man of principle.”

Anand contemplates his answers carefully, before delivering them in precise English, with a cultured Cambridge accent. It is hard to imagine this poised, confident man grappling with the English language.

“I left Thailand at a relatively old age - the age of 16 - and it was a real struggle to learn proper English,” he says, recalling his first experience abroad at Dulwich College, London, in 1948. “The first year was very hard, being away from home, and not being able to catch up with my peers at school because of my inadequacy with the language.” He persevered and went on to the University of Cambridge’s Trinity College, where he graduated with a law degree and honours.

When Anand returned to Bangkok in 1955, he joined the Foreign Service, where he advanced quickly. He was appointed secretary to the minister of foreign affairs in 1959, and in 1964, first secretary to Thailand’s mission to the United Nations. In 1967, while continuing his UN position, he was named ambassador to Canada. He served as Thailand’s ambassador to the United States and permanent representative of Thailand to the United Nations from 1972 to 1975, as permanent secretary for foreign affairs in 1976 and as ambassador to Germany from 1977 to 1978.

As an envoy, Anand helped forge several significant agreements, including the first ASEAN-European Community Cooperation Agreement, the normalisation of relations with China, Laos and Vietnam and first ASEAN summit meeting in Indonesia. Concerning his participation in such historic negotiations, Anand says, “I consider it my luck that wherever I was, or whatever I was doing, I was often involved in some momentous event pertaining to the interests of Thailand. You can call it fate.”

Anand resigned from the Foreign Ministry and joined the Saha Union Group in 1979 as vice-chairman. His first appointment as Prime Minister in 1991, triggered his abrupt resignation from all his business positions, a step he repeated after the May 1993 uprising. He flashes the familiar boyish grin and

States, “I felt obliged to go back to my business activities, for the simple reason that when I left Saha Union - twice - I was, not able to give them any advance notice.”

Anand says he is in the process of phasing out of the business world. His agenda remains full, and includes a diverse itinerary. For example, over the past year he addressed conferences held by the Pacific Area Travel Association in Hawaii, the School of African and Oriental Studies in London, Merrill Lynch in New York, Thammasat University’s Economic Association in Khao Yai, and the University of Khon Kaen and the Federation of Thai Industries in Songkhla.

Anand prefers to focus his talks in Thailand on environmental protection and educational reforms. In addition to advocating environmental preservation, he co-founded The Environmental Institute, because he felt it was time that business and industry began to address the environmental damages they had spawned. Anand’s government made the environment a high priority and enacted “a rather comprehensive law” on environmental protection and management. He embarked on a national programme to build more waste treatment plants, and implemented tax incentives to encourage people to use lead-free gasoline.

In the past eight years, he believes Thailand “has done a good job in getting down to the basics.” Much more needs to be done, “it is important that a partnership be established between the government, the public sector, the people and the business world. Business and industry are slowly but steadily accepting responsibility for environmental preservation and protection.” The Institute is aiming its workshops and seminars at both top executives and young business leaders. “I’m rather encouraged by their interest and attitude,” he says.

Following a path his father pioneered, Anand has initiated a “one-man campaign” to get the country moving on education. He supports up-grading the quality of teachers, and beefing up programmes to train Thailand’s future business leaders, scientists and technicians. He hopes Thai people will contribute to the task. “It would be more than a donation, rather it would be a wise investment,” he says.

“My vision is to make Thailand into a regional education centre. We can position ourselves to do so. Education has been proven to be a vehicle for equitable distribution of income. Unless we start now, we will be more..” Anand paused to find the right word…”retarded,” he adds with a spontaneous, youthful grin. More seriously, he concludes, “A beginning must be made.”

Last year, Anand added Bangkok’s traffic congestion to his priority list. By launching Traffic Crisis 94, he created a forum, including the public and private sector, to propose measures to solve Bangkok’s traffic woes.

“His Majesty the King did a lot of good things to focus attention on the issue and galvanize public interest in solving the traffic crisis. Our exercise was, in fact, a response to His Majesty’s initiative. Far too often we just left it to the King to do magic things. I think he’s over-worked,” Anand says.

Though Anand devotes considerable time to business and public speaking, he and his wife MR Sodsri, two married daughters and their families, see each other often and travel together frequently. “I love travelling in Thailand – especially to the north and northeast. One of these days, I hope to stop travelling abroad and concentrate on Thailand. There are so many places I have not yet seen.”

Anand also enjoys watching TV sports programmes and reading Winston Churchill’s books, good English prose, speeches by World Leaders and political and economic publications. A music lover, he says, “I have only one regret. I would love to have learned to play a musical instrument, but I am a good listener.” His favourite composers are Rachmaninov, Chopin, Brahms and Puccini.

Anand continues to play squash when he has time, but has given up tennis. “It’s changed a lot, with all the top spins and what not.” He played on Cambridge tennis and squash teams, but then, as now “Work always took precedence.”

After a nearly two-hour interview, one feels as though there is much more to learn about Anand. At first serious, reserved and intellectual, he has gradually relaxed, allowing his warmth and humour to emerge. He’s come a long way since the anxious, homesick student arrived in London. One has a sense that he will go further, prompting the question: Is he considering returning to politics?

“No,” he responds quickly, emphatically. “I’m a private person, I cherish my privacy. It’s not my “cup of tea” to subject myself to constant public scrutiny.” In view of his rise to power twice, another question persists: Could he be coaxed to return to the political arena?

The youthful Anand grin fills his face. “I could do it for a short time a year or two as I did in the past, but not for the rest of my life. I’m not that dedicated to politics, and my wife does not like it! I still follow politics, and I try to do a few things. Not everyone has to jump into the political arena to have an effect.”

A fitting remark, but an under-statement from a man who continues to stimulate thought and action at many levels.

PAVING THE WAY

by David Peters
Manager Magazine, June 1993
The public display of support
Holds the seeds of a political movement
that should be watched closely

In mid-March, ostensibly responding to a criminal charge against Anand Panyarachun, for malfeasance in office, Sumet Jumsai na Ayudhya organized a small circle of friends to offer “moral support” to the embattled former Prime Minister.

As Friends of Anand (FOA) swiftly expanded its base, from 20 or 30 people to about 20,000, (mostly white-collar workers and bureaucrats. The local and international media painted the movement as a spontaneous eruption of popular support for a national hero: a selfless, honest man who, despite his distaste for political life, twice sacrificed himself, by taking on the mantle of leadership, to protect his country’s fragile democracy, in times of crisis.

How wonderfully noble

A close look at FOA’s founding members and their political connections, however, suggests that the organization may have been anything but spontaneous. It may represent no less than an attempt by the social and business elite - with the express cooperation of Mr. Anand – to hijack the country’s political system (see Appendix 1 - Anand’s Liberal Corporatism).

Often, with hindsight, it’s possible to think that there was more organization for something like this, than there really was,” argues MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University and FOA spokes-person. “We had no intention whatsoever, to organize anything big.”

If that was, indeed, their intention, then they failed miserably. Someone who knew about the group, clearly lacked discretion, because Dr. Sumet’s office was soon flooded with phone calls and faxes from people expressing their support for Mr. Anand. “In the first week, we had three or four thousand people; in two or three weeks, we had ten thousand.” MR Sukhumbhand reveals.

“At that point, we felt that we couldn’t just let it go on without any organization. A group of people met together with Sumet Jumsai as the coordinator, and advisers to FOA were chosen.”

According to FOA office manager, Siriporn Sukosi, the group’s membership stood at 19,075 as of 29 April. With these numbers, the obvious counter-argument to MR Sukhumbhand is that nothing this big happens without organization – and money. Which, since few people are willing to shell out large sums of cash with no chance of return, begs the question of “why”?

FOA insists that it simply collect the names of people who contact it, and thus has no money. The group does, however, have an office on Ploenchit Road across from Le Meridien President Hotel, a telephone, a fax machine and a staff: Ms Siriporn, another full-time woman and two students.

“Many big businesses and other persons contact us and ask us how much they can contribute, but we tell them to hold off, because we don’t know what to do with the money,” MR Sukhumbhand explains. “We’re not set up legally. As expenses come up, they are paid by members of the group, but no money actually passes to us; we are not a fund-raising group.”

“We have private funding.” confirms Ms. Siriporn. “We don’t request donations from members but, when we have expenses, we receive gift cheques.” Asked who pays the rent, she laughs, and answers that she really does not know.

Among the founding FOA members, there is no shortage of money. A list of supporters released to newspapers in mid-March, includes HH Princess Suthisiri Sobha, HH Princess Vimolchatra, HSH Lt. Gen Prince (MC) Chidchanok Krisdakorn, ML Manich Jumsai, Phairat Benjarit, MR Kasemsamosorn Kasemsri, ML Tor Krisdakorn, Witthaya Vejjajiva, MR Sukhumbhand, Duangmanee Visetkul, MR Sarisdiguna Kittiyakara, Mechai Viravaidya, MR Butri Viravaidya, Likit Hongladarom and MR Narisara Chakrabhongse.

These paragons of the Thai elite, comprise one important prong of FOA’s backing. The other comes from a more unlikely source: the Palang Dharma Party. On 25 March, about a week after the aforementioned 15 names appeared in the local dailies, former PDP leader Chamlong Srimuang led a group of 20 party members, including several MPS, on a courtesy call to Mr. Anand’s office at Saha-Union Corporation. Maj Gen Chamlong remarked at the time that FOA would not have to work alone.

In analyzing the significance of this visit, it is important to remember that, just a few months earlier, Maj Gen Chamlong openly wooed Mr. Anand to become PDP leader. Given the Democrats’ resurgence in Bangkok in the last election, many observers at the time reasoned that Mr. Anand was about the only person who could guide the PDP back to supremacy in the capital.

Social critic Sulak Sivaraksa comments that “Chamlong cares very much for Anand, and Anand may end up as head of the PDP. This would help to redeem Chamlong’s image. His party’s reputation for being anti-monarchist and anti-Buddhist would be cleaned up, if it had someone of Anand’s stature as leader.”

Contrary to the popular image created by the media, therefore, FOA can easily be seen as a significant political movement. A group of 20,000 people, led and backed by an elite group of wealthy and influential figures, endorsed by a major political party – all in support of an enormously popular former Statesman whom the same political party desperately wants as its leader.

In this context, it is noteworthy that Athong Jumsai na Ayudhya, the older brother of FOA coordinator Dr. Sumet, is a PDP MP from Bangkok’s Constituency 5. Mr. Anand, for his part, has his own connections with the PDP: for example, he is the chairman of the honourary board of governors of a new health spa being built on land owned by current PDP leader Boonchu Rojanasatien in Hua Hin.

Of course, FOA officially denies that it is involved in politics. MR Sukhumbhand argues, “I think that different members (of FOA) probably have different intentions in joining. We had an agreement from the beginning that there should be no political activities associated with the group. However, if members want to be more politicized then, as individuals, they can do that.”

The next morning, newspapers reported MR Sukhumbhand’s announcement of his willingness to run for the PDP in the 11 July by-election. He later changed his mind, and decided not to run.

The by-election will fill the seat in Bangkok’s Constituency. I vacated by hotel tycoon Akorn Hoontrakun, who resigned in late April, to avert a possible share- manipulation scandal. Although the party denies it, Mr. Akorn is thought by some to be one of the PDP’s biggest fund-raisers.

After the May crack-down, Mr. Akorn and his associates at Business Management Services Company (BMS) created a brief media stir, by announcing their intention to give financial support to ‘quality’ candidates, those with strong ethics and reputations for honesty. Mr. Akorn ran for his seat on such a platform, which fit well with the PDP’s reputation - a reputation that Mr. Anand also enjoys.

If it is ultimately discovered that Mr. Akorn broke the law to raise funds for the PDP, he - and the party itself - will be shown to be no different than the ‘old-style’ politicians that he criticized so harshly for their bad characters.

Although Mr. Anand’s reputation would not be affected by such a scandal, the Opposition has begun to raise its own questions about the former premier’s connections that – if the media and the people could look beyond their rosy views of him – would similarly show him to be not much different, from any other successful business-person or politician in this country.

Mr. Anand, in an exclusive interview with Manager, claims. “I refused (the PDP’s) offer, like I would refuse any offer to become the head of any political party. I’m not interested in politics or, I should say instead, I’m not interested in being a player. There may be people who would like to see me become one for their own reasons, but I cannot help that.”

All along, in response to an almost daily stream of media questions on this subject, Mr. Anand has denied that he is interested in returning to lead the country. “I have no taste for public life.” He explains. “I think that, for a person to perform effectively, he should enjoy the position he holds.

“Harry Truman said, ‘If you can’t “stand the heat”, get out of the kitchen.’ Personally, I think I can “stand the heat”, but the point is that, even if I could “stand the heat”, why should I place myself in the kitchen?”

If this is his deep-seeded feeling, then why did he accept the position offered to him by the National Peacekeeping Council (NPKC)? “It must have been a lapse of sanity”. he quips.

“My liberal views are quite well known in this country …However, when he (Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon, who had been an assistant military attache in Washington when Mr. Anand was the ambassador) came to me and pleaded that he wanted a civilian Cabinet, I believed in his sincerity.

“I was concerned that, for ten years, there hadn’t been an upheaval like the one that had just happened. There had been two coup attempts, but they had failed. I deeply regretted that the military had seized power, irrespective of the corruption charges against the Chatichai government. I did not play a part in the planning of the action, and I did not approve.

“Nonetheless, I thought that, if there’s anything that I could do to bring Thailand back to a State of normalcy and stability, and to get the economy going again, I should do it….they (the NPKC) knew that I was an independent thinker, that I was not a stooge or a “front”.

“In all my dealings with them, they were always fair to me. I tried to explain to them and rationalize to them some of my programmes. In return, we had a relationship of mutual trust and mutual understanding…They understood that my decisions were not for personal gain or personal interest.”

Whatever scruples might have stood in the way of Mr. Anand taking the premiership the first time, they were not evident after the bloodshed last May. “The second decision was easier than the first one,” he admits. “The first time that I accepted, the offer came from the military, after a coup d’etat. I knew that this could be seen as betraying my principles that I might look like I was seeking the job.

“There was also a question of legitimacy: a person of my standing and reputation, by accepting the premiership, could be seen as conferring legitimacy to that illegal act. Nonetheless, it was a decision that I made consciously and conscientiously, weighing both the positive and negative factors.

“The second time, it was a technically-correct procedure. The term was also much shorter, and the agenda had been drawn up for me.”

He was offered the premiership twice, and he accepted on both occasions. It has been said that, the first time, both Ukrit Mongkolnavin and Arsa Sarasin refused similar offers. If Mr. Anand felt strongly about staying out of public life, he probably could have said “no”.

However, when ‘called on by his country,’ he has never missed an opportunity to take a larger role. Even if his stated aversion is sincere, it has clearly not been strong enough for him to resist the roles, that some people offer him ‘for their own reasons’.

There is no evidence that he would resist a future call by a group representing the people – as FOA purports to do. In response to the out-pouring of support on his behalf over the past three months, Mr. Anand has consistently portrayed himself as a surprised and overwhelmed private citizen, who takes no part in the organization of events in his honour, but who is nonetheless a willing participant, because of the gratitude he feels toward his well-wishers.

“I am personally gratified by the show of support given to me,” he explains. “I think that these are well-meaning people who have trust and faith in my integrity, and who perhaps feel that I was given a raw deal.”

From the middle of March until the end of April, an astonishing array of events were held to honour Mr. Anand, and he managed to fit each and every one of them into his busy schedule. Every day, newspapers carried pictures of obscure business groups bringing him flowers; a group of Royal Polo Club members organized a “Run for Anand’; a relatively mysterious group called Red Flowers for Anand began posting notices around the city.

Over Songkran, a water-pouring ceremony was held for Mr. Anand at Chatuchak Park; he was the guest of honour at fund-raising dinners; the Australian ambassador hosted a party for him, that was attended by the ambassadors from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and New Zealand.

Although he repeatedly denied any involvement in organizing this carnival side-show in his honour, he also never disguised his appreciation. His condonation of the various activities, and his willingness to bask in the media spotlight in the process, was clear indication that he encouraged FOA’s cause.

The ‘spontaneous’ display of support for Mr. Anand came to a head on the date of his first court appearance, 21 April. He was mobbed outside the court-house by supporters, whom he greeted with triumphant waves, looking more like a campaigning politician, than an arraigned defendant in a criminal case.

One of the most controversial, events that Mr. Anand attended over the past few months, was the Australian ambassador’s dinner. There are few countries in the world where foreign dignitaries could rally behind a former Prime Minister, indicted in criminal court for malfeasance, without any serious diplomatic repercussions.

Sources at the American embassy report that MR Sukhumbhand was instrumental in organizing the dinner, that he even accompanied the Australian ambassador, when he went to distribute invitations. He denies this allegation, but acknowledges that the dinner “undoubtedly sends a diplomatic message of some sort, although exactly what message is, for you to figure out.”

In response to charges that the foreign ambassadors were interfering in domestic affairs or the Thai judicial process, he argues, “The thing that you have to remember, is that the government is not the plaintiff in this case. The public prosecutor is actually working on Anand’s defense…Anand is not an opponent of this government, so where is the interference?”

MR Sukhumbhand evidently forgets, as, perhaps, did Mr. Anand, that interfering with the government and interfering with the judicial process are two different things --- assuming, of course, that the executive allows the judiciary its independence.

Western governments undoubtedly supported the two Anand governments. Mr. Anand seemed like the right man at the right time to liberalize the economy, in ways that helped foreign companies’ local concerns. This support has somehow created an image of Mr. Anand as a champion of democracy, even though his two terms -- and, indeed, his whole career in government service -- were anything but democratic.

To serve a dictator, or not to serve a dictator: that is the question that has confronted many gifted Thais in the 61 years since the advent of constitutional monarchy in Thailand. Mr. Anand, like many of his educational and social background, chose the former.

Mr. Anand received his university degree from Cambridge in 1955, after which he immediately joined the Foreign Ministry. In 1959, he became secretary to Thanat Khoman, who served as the Foreign Minister from 1959-1973.

“He came to the Ministry soon after Cambridge.” Dr. Thanat recalls. “He was recommended by Pote Sarasin (Prime Minister immediately after Sarit Thanarat’s coup). When he recommended Anand, I accepted. I found him to be a very candid and straight-forward man…He learned fast and, in a short time, he became a good diplomat.”

Pote Sarasin, of course, is the father of Pow and Arsa Sarasin, who were both members of Mr. Anand’s Cabinets, and also of Pandit Bunyapana, permanent secretary of the Finance Ministry. Mr. Anand’s mother, Khunying Preuk Panyarachun, was the aunt of Thanphuying Siri Sarasin, Mr. Pote’s wife; and Mr. Anand’s father, Phraya Prichanusart, looked after the Sarasin boys when he was the superintendent of Thai students in England after the Second World War. Thus the Sarasin family, which has sometimes been tagged ‘Thailand’s Kennedys’, is very closely tied to the Panyarachun family.

Under Dr. Thanat, Mr. Anand got on the “fast track” at the Foreign Ministry, vigorously implementing the foreign policy of two of Thailand’s most notorious dictators: Field Marshal Sarit and Thanom Kittikachorn. Dr. Sulak comments that, “if there’s one thing that Anand does not seem to know, it is that it is wrong to serve dictators.”

In 1972, after holding various diplomatic posts in North America for eight years, he landed the plum job: ambassador to the U.S. He was only 40 years old. In 1975, he was called back home to become permanent secretary of the Foreign Ministry under the Kukrit government. Then dictatorship caught up with him.

The morning after the bloody coup of 6 October 1976, Mr. Anand was asked to calm down the foreign representatives in Bangkok and explain the reasons for the previous day’s events. Shortly thereafter, he was dismissed from the Ministry, charged with harbouring communist sympathies and releasing State secrets. He chose to fight.

“The way he was treated, was absolutely disgusting.” remarks Dr. Thanat. “The charge against him was a kind of treason charge. It was ludicrous to think that he would do something like that.… I asked Thanin (Kraivichien, Prime Minister after the coup) to be fair with him.”

Mr. Anand was ultimately cleared of the charges against him and re-instated, but the course of his career had been shattered irreparably, and the post that he was ultimately offered -- the ambassadorship to West Germany -- was a definite step down from what he had enjoyed before. In 1978, he resigned from the Ministry and went to the private sector.

“I’m not a person who would look back with bitterness. I always try to look forward and outward,” Mr. Anand claims. “The events (in 1976) were traumatic, and I was saddened. Nonetheless, however unfair, however unjustifiable, however … evil -- I was looking for a softer word -- these events were, they don’t bother me now. They don’t govern nor have an influence on my present thinking. I know what I was, I know what I am; I have a clear conscience.”

Perhaps Mr. Anand would not be so generous, if he had not been able to walk out of the Ministry and straight into the executive offices of Saha-Union as vice chairman. The chairman at the time was Amnuay Viravan, who sympathized with Mr. Anand, as he himself had been driven to resign from his post as permanent secretary of the Finance Ministry by the 1976 coup and its ensuing communist “witch hunts”. Unlike Mr. Anand, Dr. Amnuay quit, before anyone had a chance to accuse him of anything.

Then, on 23 February 1991, another coup brought Mr. Anand full circle. Once again, he chose to serve the dictators and, once again, his public image was improved by this association. In the absence of an elected Parliament to debate issues, the two Anand governments managed to push through reams of legislation, most of which had actually been “on the drawing board” since the Prem or Chatchai administrations. For this, he is generally considered to have been a particularly effective Prime Minister.

Asked to assess his own performance, he replies, I don’t bother. What’s done is done. What we could not do, it’s too bad, but when the term is up, the party’s over. It’s time to leave the affairs of State to those responsible.”

Mr. Anand’s troubles in 1976 and his straight-talking style, quite easily lead to the mistaken notion that he represents the common people. Nothing could be further from the truth -- it is important to remember to what extent he is a product of his background.

Mr. Anand comes from a very elite segment of society. Born to a rich Chinese family, he was given the best education available, in the best schools in England, and was then ushered into a prestigious job with a recommendation from the Prime Minister. He spent 12 years circulating in the hallowed diplomatic corridors of Washington and New York. Regardless of the strife he endured, he had a comfortable job waiting for him in the private sector, at the end of his ordeal.

The kind of privileges that he has enjoyed -- and the sheltered existence that this generally entails -- encourages contempt for the people, rather than empathy. He and his peers tend to have a theoretical understanding of democracy through their Western educations, but a poor idea of what it means on a practical level.

Dr. Sulak, a contemporary of Mr. Anand, comments, “Most of my generation have a low opinion of the people. Anand worked under Sarit so long that democracy for him only means the forms -- having elections, having a House of Representatives -- and not the substance. If he needs to get elected, he can do it.

“The bottom line is that he thinks that the country needs someone like him, to talk to foreign companies, or the Japanese. He thinks that his Cabinet was the best in the world, with the brightest minds available in the country, so how could it have done anything stupid?”

Because of this mind-set, elitist aristocratic Chinese have tended to rally behind Thai dictators. Since the power of the people is suspect, the only alternative is to rely on the power that comes from the barrel of a gun. Thai generals have usually recognized their own weaknesses in actually administering the country, and have brought in the elite to do their patriotic duty.

Despite all of Mr. Anand’s liberal posturings, his apprenticeship with Dr. Thanat under Sarit and Thanom involved the suppression, rather than the expression, of democracy. He also clearly maintains a high regard for the NPKC, describing it with words such as ‘sincerity’, ‘trust’ and ‘understanding’.

As for Thai democracy, on the other hand, he comments, “We are politically immature, partly because of habit: Thais like to listen to rumours -- perhaps we are more gullible than other people”.

Members of his social class have often used such generalizations, to justify a form of ‘guided democracy’ -- with the elite in the driver’s seat -- which is not actually democracy at all. If Mr. Anand’s life and works can be taken as a body of evidence, he undoubtedly supports a form of benevolent dictatorship, run by people like him, which nonetheless retain the outward trappings of democracy.

Ideology notwithstanding, would it be so bad to have Mr. Anand back as Prime Minister? After all, he is thought to have a sterling character, and his two governments are considered to have been particularly transparent -- so much so, in fact, that people scoff at Opposition accusations that not everything was as above-board as it seemed.

“The Opposition leaders who are making these charges are children whose own records are certainly not beyond question,” snaps MR Sukhumbhand, “Even their records out of office are not beyond question. The Opposition leaders who are more decent and grown up -- such as Dr. Arthit Urairat and Gen Chatichai -- refuse to get involved.”

Mr. Anand himself is somewhat more circumspect (see Appendix 2 - In His Own Defense). “Those who dislike me, I don’t know if they’re engaged in some sort of character assassination. I have always been willing to discuss what I did as Prime Minister but, when charges are not based on fact, there is only so much I can do.”

For some reason, people find it inconceivable that Mr. Anand could ever allow himself to be swayed by personal connections, or to cut deals “under the table”. When someone has moved in the circles that he has, however, it is understood that he or she will have acquired influence. It is not necessary for him or her to go around proclaiming the fact -- everybody knows. Perhaps the opposite question would thus be more helpful: given Mr. Anand’s connections, how could he have entirely avoided using them?

Remember who Mr. Anand is: he is related by blood or by marriage to some of the richest and most influential Chinese families in Thailand. His wife was born MR Sodsee Chakrabandh; her aunt was HSH Princess Javalit Obhas Rabibadhana, the wife of HSH Prince Amara Samarnlaksana Kittiyakara who, in turn, is the uncle of Her Majesty the Queen. Of the 15 founding members of FOA listed above, ten carry some sort of royal title.

Moreover, during his 13 years in the private sector, Mr. Anand held an impressive string of corporate posts: director of five Saha-Union subsidiaries, IBM (Thailand), Sime Darby Berhad (Malaysia) and Siam Commercial Bank; and chairman of seven other Saha-Union subsidiaries, Sports Ace Company, Star Block Company, Thai PTA, Eastern Star Real Estate Company and, just before the coup, Saha-Union itself.

In the line of work, he has made contacts with people like Suthep Bulakul, with whom he sits on the board of Star Block Company, and who has shown his loyalty by becoming a member of FOA. In fact, it is difficult to think of many people in this country who are better connected than Mr. Anand.

That he was once mis-treated by a Thai dictator, is no reason to paint him as an outsider in Thai society. It is true that he is considered to be some-what of a loner in his personal life but, in business and in government, he has always worked with people -- and worked well.

When Mr. Anand got his first job at Saha-Union, he had no track record of business management expertise; all he had, was a personal connection with the chairman. When he was offered the premiership for the first time, again it was because he had a personal relationship with Gen Suchinda.

He has undoubtedly made deals with, and decisions in favour of, people with whom he has strong connections, whether through business or family: he simply has relationships with too many people, for him to get much done in this country, without working with some of them.

In this sense, Mr. Anand is not essentially different from the scores of other business leaders and politicians who, for some reason, have so much dirtier reputations. Given who his friends, are and what corporate positions he holds, there is no doubt that he has a great many vested interests to protect and, even if he expresses it in a subtle manner, everyone who deals with him knows exactly what those interest are, at the outset.

Contrary to his media-enhanced image, Mr. Anand is not a self-sacrificing, ambition-less individual, and he is certainly not a champion of democracy. Whether he wanted to be a player or not, he is one, with financial and political backing from the PDP and the upper class, and the support of a 20,000-strong ‘grass-roots’ organization.

The movement’s aim is un-ambiguous: to orchestrate a public demand for Mr. Anand’s return to the political arena; to a certain extent, this has already happened. Judging from his past, this will mean more of the same style of government served up by his two previous administrations -- not the achievements, but the process.

For a blueprint of Mr. Anand’s tactics, think of how he pushed legislation through an appointed legislature, or how he decisively crushed public-sector unions. These kinds of actions achieve immediate results, but they have very little to do with democracy.

Appendix of Paving the Way

1. ANAND’S LIBERAL CORPORATISM : Thailand’s Political Future?

by Mark Wrangel

The one thing that I decidedly like about Anand Panyarachun is that he reputedly hates the game of golf. Given his background, his profession and the social circles in which he travels, this definitely shows a significant degree of personal independence and immunity to peer group pressure – key unconventional leadership characteristics.

The rest of the man’s views and actions as a Foreign Ministry bureaucrat, a business leader and political figure – before, during and after his two ‘accidental’ terms as Prime Minister – and the reputation and political following that he enjoys, are not so much matters of like or dislike, but subjects for analysis.

The surprisingly rapid growth of the Friends of Anand (FOA) political support group to a size – by Thai standards – verging on a mass movement begs for an explanation.

He naturally disavows political ambition – of political party leadership, at any rate – and turned down an offer to head Chamlong Srimuang’s Palang Dhamma Party (PDP). If anything, that endeared him all the more to his followers; it is all part of the image – or image-building process, if conspiratorially inclined. An Anand does not seek political office, he is asked, implored even, to make the sacrifice to serve.

(This is actually quite Chinese. Check Romance of the Three kingdoms to see how often aspiring Chinese emperors had to be asked, begged and cajoled before finally accepting the position. Suchinda Kraprayoon tried the same ploy, but rather less convincingly. Since Mr. Anand was educated at Cambridge, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar may be another interesting reference for such shenanigans.)

In many analysts’ judgement, therefore, an Anand III government looms as a distinct possibility in Thailand’s future. A large and growing number of well-connected and influential individuals, and of apparently well-funded groups, ‘like’ Mr. Anand, and are disaffected with ‘politics as usual’ and ‘ordinary (corrupt) politicians’. The movement ‘s support base includes a substantial portion of PDP voters but, characteristically, cuts across political party lines.

Were national elections to be held in the near future, the Anand movement (with PDP complications), would certainly have a chance to emerge with the largest number of seats in Parliament. Maj Gen Chamlong must have understood when he offered Mr. Anand the PDP helm that, with its current leadership personnel and continuing links to unorthodox, fundamentalist religious influence, the party probably reached the limits of its political potential in last September’s polls.

In the event of a successful Anand movement/PDP electoral performance, Mr. Anand could hardly remain on the sidelines, despite his stated lack of political ambition (if did not prevent him from becoming PM twice under rather more dubious circumstances).

Even if he did, however, the train has let the station: the political movement that he helped to create – or, at any rate, to catalyze – exists, and will become an increasingly important element of the Thai polity in years to come. A first test of its strength will come with the 11 July Bangkok by-election to fill the seat vacated by ‘angelic’ suspected stock manipulator Akorn Hoontrakul.

What type of political movement has been inspires by Mr. Anand’s political views and actions, with or without his instigation? Borrowing a term from a recent study of the “new political economy of Thailand” by Thammasat University political scientist Anek Laothamtas (Business Associations and the New Political Economy of Thailand, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1992), and drawing on the policies he pursued as Prime Minister, Mr. Anand’s political philosophy could be described as a form of liberal corporatism’.

In his study, Dr Anek uses the term in value-neutral fashion to characterize developments in Thai society that contrast with both the earlier Thai (military) bureaucratic polity and pluralist models of government-interest group interaction in a liberal constitutional democracy.

Pluralism, he writes, is marked by a minimal role of a government “in the formation of societal groups, or in structuring the relations between itself and the groups, or among the groups themselves. Groups work more as independent policy advocate than as the policy instruments of the government.”

Corporatism, on the other hand, “conceives of the government as a largely autonomous actor with issues and ideas of its own … [It] may structure its formal relations with society as well as the intra-societal relations …Interest groups are organized hierarchically and then linked to the government group competition is thus expected to be limited since major conflicts will be solved by higher [authority]. Finally, groups … work not only as policy advocates; they are often in charge of….public duties…”

Dr Anek largely neglects to mention that corporatism, historically, has been associated mostly with authoritarian regimes; in fact, it was a hallmark of 1920s-1940s Italian and German fascism. Liberal corporatism, for its part, is essentially fascism with a more human face.

Mr. Anand presumably object to having his political views described as corporatist. He has referred to himself as “a bit of a free-thinker” who “wishes for [a] democratic Thai society.” A man’s political attitudes and actions, however, are often a more reliable indicator of his true philosophy than his words, and the track record of Mr. Anand’s two governments certainly hints at corporatism.

Although he insists that he has “not discerned to this day why [he] accepted the offer of Prime Ministership two years and a half ago, “Mr. Anand clearly savored the opportunity of “getting things done” with virtually complete impunity from and disregard for political constituency or specific interest-group demands.

What was in the best interest of Thai people and society was sovereignly discerned and resolutely implemented by the Prime Minister and his hand-picked Cabinet of technocrats. The Anand administration’s overriding attitude, the Bangkok Post commented accurately in March 1992, “seems to be that any policy reformed deemed to be beneficial for the aggregate system should be implemented even if it might be unpopular among some quarters of the populace.”

Mr. Anand may have picked up this attitude, typical of arrogant social engineers, through his association with IBM, a company famous for such mannerisms in its corporate culture. It is decidedly not the sentiment of a democrat entrusted with the restoration of the constitutional democracy. Lacking political legitimacy and even the semblance of a popular mandate, Mr. Anand – even at the expense of being criticized for a lack of concrete achievements by his government other than restoring democracy – might have done better to defer major controversial policy measures, rather than pushing them through with undue haste.

As it turned out, however, what a committed democrat should have seen as his main political task – laying the groundwork for a return to stable constitutional democracy – was the one thing definitively not achieved by Mr. Anand’s first government. For him to say, as he did in a late April 1993 interview, that “the strength and the weaknesses of the interim constitution did not concern my government,” (emphasis added) is a truly extraordinary excuse and evasion of responsibility for what followed.

Equally extraordinary is his characterization of last year’s May tragedy – in a 1 July 1992 speech to the Foreign Correspondents Club – as resulting from a “failure of management [emphasis added], which allowed a specific political challenge to an individual government to be transformed into a crisis of legitimacy, affecting all institutions.” If only we have more efficient political management.

In addition to their style of governance and attitude toward the governed (sheep), the two Anand governments implemented a variety of substantive policy measures along corporatistlines of restructuring society (“We tried to improve the structure, improve the social fabric,” explains Mr. Anand).

The most ambitious and relevant such undertaking was the restructuring of state enterprises, combined with the process of increasing degrees of privatization. Some well and some less well-considered privatization programs had, of course, already been underway during the Chatichai administration. Two additional key elements under Mr. Anand, in term of liberal corporatist realignment, were the dissolution of state enterprise unions, with the desired side effect of a general weakening of all trade union organizations, and the weeding out of military appointees on enterprise boards and their replacement by technocrats and private sector corporate managers.

The effect of the first measure, naturally, is to undermine any independent political and economic clout that the trade unions might develop, and transform them from potential political and economic antagonists into docile advisory organizations and instrumentalities in the implementation of social policies dictated from above – just what corporatism describes.

The weeding out of military appointees from enterprise boards was surely justified in part by their lack of professional competence and as a counter-measure to graft and corruption. Politically, it was also eminently popular with the May 1992 anti-Suchinda, and anti-military protestors.

But to see it only in such terms – i.e, as officially presented – is short-sighted and misses more fundamental points: the attendant political weakening of the military institution (“getting the military out of business and politics so they can concentrate on their basic professional function”) not only weakens the military, but also the political say of the lower classes in urban and rural areas.

Cynics, or people without a proper and somewhat longer-term sense of Thai historical development, may dispute this and claim that the army’s claim to represent the interest of ‘the people’ was always merely a pretext for blatant interference in the affairs of state. Indeed, for parts of the officer corps, it frequently was just that.

Nonetheless, both the instrumental historical role of the armed forces in ushering in Thailand’s modern political era and broadened popular franchise and the economic patron-client relationships that developed between military officers and the rural poor in upcountry military districts were of great significance. Furthermore, it would be foolish to say that no military men ever took their acclaimed social and political-representational role seriously.

Depriving the military of its commercial role and board seats will of necessity break up traditional patron-client relationships, without any immediate replacement in sight.

It will now be the corporatist alliance between government bureaucrats/technocrats and private-sector business that dominates policy directions, notoriously unconcerned with in-depth rural economic development.

Asked why his governments’ legislation seemed to be almost exclusively concerned with and flavoring the business community, Mr. Anand responded that he “could not possibly solve [in seventeen months] what the past eight to ten governments over period of six decades failed to solve.” “That may be true, but it was not the question.”

Corporatist social restructuring also requires tighter government control over the judiciary: an independent judiciary is anathema. It is thus poetic justice that Mr. Anand is now in trouble with the law – at least over one of his attempts at social engineering.

Finally, with regard to Mr. Anand’s ‘legislative’ record, some attention should be given to the Criminal Code amendments calling for tough new penalties on defamation that were rushed through three readings by the rubber-stamp NLA in one sitting. So much for the former premier’s highly touted ‘transparency’ and his respect for freedom of expression.

In style and substance, the two Anand administrations exercised governance and left a legislative legacy quite contrary to basic requirements of liberal constitutional and pluralist democracy. It is a mystery why, considering his governments’ record, to Mr. Anand should now be seen as a defender of democracy.

It is nonetheless coherent that, on the basis of this same record, he has become the symbol and potential standard bearer for the urban middle- and upper-class elite’s political aspirations. Whether it be Business Management Services Company (BMS) members, well-to-do PDP supporters or other joiners of the FOA movement, what unites them at this point in time is shared political and business interests that they perceive would be best served by Anand-style liberal corporatism.

2. IN HIS OWN DEFENSE

In an exclusive interview with Manager, former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun addresses two much –publicized charges of wrongdoing brought against him by Opposition politicians: that his government broke up the Charoen Pokphand (CP) Group’s three-million-line telephone monopoly and awarded one million lines to Loxley because he had a vendetta against the former and connections with the latter, and that he sold off two state-owned oil refineries to Thai Oil at a bargain price.

“It was our government’s policy not to encourage monopolies”, Mr.Anand contends. “We didn’t tackle other infrastructure projects because, when we came into our jobs, the contracts were already signed; we couldn’t touch them. But the contract with CP had not yet been signed.

“The insinuations about my problems with CP involve a PVC [polyvinyl chloride, a downstream petrochemical product] joint venture with a Belgian firm called Solvay. Solvay initially contacted us [Saha-Union Corporation, in 1988], and I went to Brussels and had a day-long meeting with Baron [Daniel] Janssen. We concluded the talks by shaking hands and agreeing that Solvay and Saha-Union would be joint-venture partners.

“I returned and, a few day later, a Solvay director was supposed to fly in and announce the joint-venture agreement with me. I remember that I came back on a Sunday night, the Director arrived on a Tuesday, and we were supposed to make the announcement on Wednesday. However, the director came to me on the Tuesday and informed me that there had been new developments, that a politician here had convinced Solvay that it should join with a new group.

“I professed my disappointment, because I thought that there was a gentlemen’s agreement when we shook hands in Brussels, but it is not Saha-Union’s style to chase after a joint venture when we’re not wanted. I did, however, express my disappointment and my bewilderment in a letter to Baron Janssen.

“The official excuse that he gave for backing out of the joint venture was that we were already working on a PTA [purified teraphalic acid] project with an English company, ICI. He said that the NPC2 [National Petrochemical complex II] project were supposed to be spread among Thai companies, and that we were thus not a suitable partner because we already had one. At the time, however, there were at least two other groups – that were working on more than one project, so we don’t believe that our involvement with ICI would have been a problem.

“Solvay eventually joined with CP, and I respected its decision. Khun Dhanin [Jiarawanon] is a personal friend of mine, and this was purely a business matter. I certainly hold no personal vendetta toward CP. Furthermore, Saha-Union’s business and CP’s business do not compete. The innuendo that I took on CP over the telephone project is completely groundless.

“And as for the insinuations that the contract was given to a company related to me, I never allow relations – be the blood relations or personal relations – to interfere with my business judgement or my political judgement.

“The Cabinet had nothing to do with the bidding process. Everything took place in full view of the press and the public. When the bidding documents were opened, it was there for all to see. The decision was based on the percentage of return for the government. Loxley offered 43.1 percent, higher than other three – and much higher than CP.

“The other companies involved – and they were major companies: Shinnawatra,

B. Grimm – never made any complaints. Those who made these charges against me just didn’t bother to look at the documents. During my two terms, we put everything in writing, and there was no hanky-panky.

“If I had not been done fairly and squarely, you would think that the others would file complaints, or that they would have requested this government to review the decision, but no such request has been made. This bidding was carried out in completely open and transparent manner. “

As for Mr.Anand’s alleged connections with Loxley, the telecommunications company is a subsidiary of General Engineering (GEL), the chairperson of which is Khunying Chadchanee Chatikavanij who is the daughter of late Thai Farmers Bank president Bancha Lamsum. Krit Panyarachun, Mr. Anand’s nephew (through his older brother, Kusa), is married to another of Bancha’s daughters, Suphawan.

Bancha’s brother, Banyong Lamsum, and his son, current TFB president Banthoon Lamsum, are director and managing director, respectively, of Sukhumvit Vechakit Company, of which Mr. Anand is also a director, as is Chinda Suwanraks, the husband of one of Mr. Anand’s nieces.

Of course, these relationships do not necessarily mean that Mr. Anand is guilty of misuse of office. TFB is a major shareholder of many companies listed on the bourse, and it is certainly difficult to find two successful Sino-Thai families in Bangkok that have not married into each other at some point.

Nonetheless, the closeness of Mr. Anand’s relationship with the Lamsum family makes it possible to perceive an opportunity for misuse of office – and this is all that is usually necessary to demonstrate a conflict of interest. In such a situation, a truly transparent Prime Minister would acknowledge the possibility of conflict and disqualify himself from the decision-making process.

The sale of old refineries to Thai Oil, Mr. Anand argues, was a different case altogether. “It was neither I nor the government who arrived at the selling price,” he explains. “We retained four good consulting firms – including Goldman Sachs and Chase – which were chosen by the Finance Ministry, the Industry Ministry and one or two other government agencies…

“The median price had to be no less than the present value: the revenue that the government is entitled to receive from the lessee, accounting for fifteen-percent annual revenue growth over the remainder of the ten-year lease agreement, plus the actual value of the assets – Unit 1 and Unit 2 – at the end of the term.

“We took care that we would get a fair price. If someone were to put up a higher figure, I don’t know what basis he or she would use. If you buy a Mercedes Benz – no matter how good these car might be – its value will depreciate after twenty-five years.

“And there was no economic rent in this case. If the government had said that no more refineries could be built in Thailand, it would be a different story, but the government had a liberal policy: anybody could come in and set a up a refinery.

“We were simply following a policy of previous governments, dating back to the beginning of the Prem administration, of enabling Thai Oil – a Thai company – to become competitive. Back in 1980, the Prem government bought forty-nine percent of Thai Oil, using the Petroleum Authority of Thailand as the shareholder, and the Crown Property Bureau bought another two percent.

“It was known, even back then, in order to mobilize funds, Thai Oil would have to get into the Stock Exchange. The stock exchange said that, before Thai Oil could be considered for listing, it would have to fulfill two conditions. First, it had insufficient assets, because two of its refining units were used on a rental basis. Secondly, that rental contract only had about nine or ten years to go.

“My government decided that the contract should be extended for another fifteen or twenty years – I forget the exact term – to make the land rental more permanent. We also decided that the assets on the land should be sold to Thai Oil, so that it could qualify for listing. These refineries have been operating for twenty-five years and, with other companies – Esso, Shell, Caltex – putting in state-of the-art technology, Thai Oil would need to mobilize funds to pay for modernization.

“This privatization process was initiated by Prem, and that’s why there was no open bidding for refineries. The purpose was to enable Thai Oil – a Thai company fifty-one percent owned by government agencies – to secure listing and to mobilize funds for future programs. We were following an already-existing resolution of the Council of Ministers.”

It is interesting to note in all of this that Thai Oil’s managing director is Kasame Chatikavani. If the family name sounds familiar, it is because he is married to GEL chairperson Khunying Chadchanee. Again, family connections give rise to the allegations that dog Mr. Anand.

As with the CP-Loxley case, Mr. Anand’s explanation of the oil refinery sale is logical and credible. What is disturbing, however, is his implication that he should be free to make important state decisions involving close personal friends and quasi-blood relatives, simply because he has a good reputation.

Because he is Mr. Anand, Thai people are supposed to trust that he arrived at his ultimate decisions on the basis of purely objective reasons, without being affected by personal factors.

It is true that he is Mr. Anand, and Mr. Anand is extremely well-connected man (see Paving the Way, p16). He has extensive networks of contacts in government, from his 23 years in the Foreign Ministry; in business, from his 13 years at Saha-Union; and in society, from his family background and his public profile over the years.

If someone without his reputation claimed total immunity to subjective considerations, no one would believe him.

3. TALK IS CHEAP

Excerpts from an interview with Friends of Anand spokesperson MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra ( with some clarifications by FOA office manager Siriporn Sukosi ).

Manager : How many members does FOA have now?

MR Sukhumbhand : Thirty thousand.

[Ms. Siriporn : As of 29 April, nineteen thousand and seventy-five.]

Manager : And there’s some sort of office and office manager?

MR Sukhumbhand : Yes, Khun Siriporn. Idon’t remember her phone number. Just a second. You see, I’m spokesman, but I don’t even know the phone number of FOA. Khun Siriporn was seconded from a big company whose director is a supporter of FOA.

[Ms. Siriporn : I just came back from the US about six months ago, and I was in between jobs when a friend mentioned this one to me.]

MR Sukhumbhand : Manager : You have organized fundraising dinners. How is it possible that no money has come to you?

MR Sukhumbhand : That wasn’t us. The dinners were organized by some NGO.

Manager : Which NGO?

MR Sukhumbhand : I can’t remember. [He cannot remember the group’s phone number or which NGO organized the dinner? Perhaps FOA should have found a spokesperson with a better memory.]

Manager : So all of the groups supporting Mr. Anand formed and became high-profile at the same time by coincidence?

MR Sukhumbhand : People thought we were high-profile because we had a press conference but, in fact, we had to become high-profile to explain that we are not high-profile.

[Of course, the high profile had nothing to do with the fact that they sent an open letter, signed by several prominent and influential figures, to the daily newspapers, and then proceeded to collect almost 20,000 names in a month and a half to support their cause.]

Manager : I understand that you were involved in organizing the ambassadorial dinner …

MR Sukhumbhand : Me? No. That was the Australian Ambassador.

Manager : So you had no role in this?

MR Sukhumbhand : Absolutely not.

[Sources at the American embassy claim that he was instrumental in organizing the dinner.]

Recovery still four, five years away: ex-PM Anand

Published on Oct 13, 2001

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun predicted yesterday it would take four or five more years for Thailand to fully recover from the economic crisis, and advised the political leadership to "balance hope and vision with reality".

Giving a speech on "Thailand in Anand's Opinion" at a charity dinner organised by the alumni association of the National Defence College, the former prime minister expressed mixed feelings about the progress of the country's political reform and called on the nation to quickly pull itself together to cope with a gloomy economic outlook.

The government, in particular, must "do more homework, listen more and pay less attention to vested interests," he said.

Anand voiced concern about over-capacity in several Thai industries, the liquidity trap in the banking sector, and inadequate debt restructuring of financial institutions. "Our debt restructuring is not debt restructuring as such. It's more of debt rescheduling in most cases," he said.

The over-capacity will weaken Thailand's competitiveness "at a time when international competition has been heating up every minute."

Several industrial sectors such as steel and paper require restructuring to reduce excess capacity, Anand said, noting that while Japan has two major steel manufacturers, Thailand has about 30.

"Without rationalisation, the survival chances of some of our industries are slim," he said.

Reiterating that he was only expressing his opinion and did not have complete economic data, Anand predicted that with the global economic slowdown and fall-out from the terrorist attacks on the United States, it would take four or five more years for Thailand to recover from the current economic crisis.

To get Thailand out of the crisis, "it's not wrong [for political leaders] to have hope and vision", Anand said. "But reality must be always weighed against them, or any vision can easily turn into a daydream."

On political reform, Anand hailed three major phenomena which have taken place since the 1992 pro-democracy uprising - the drastically reduced role of the military in politics, democratic changes of government and ever-increasing public willingness to get involved in the political process.

"But while soldiers have left politics, have they left vested business interests? And while politicians surrendered to the 1997 Consti-tution, they haven't changed their thinking. The selection process for members of key constitutional independent bodies still provides loopholes for unscrupulous things to happen," he said.

Anand stressed the importance of a free media and deplored the fact that the military and the state are still controlling major media outlets.

Tulsathit Taptim

THE NATION

Opinion Editorial

“A Shared Future”
by Anand Panyarachun

I have always believed that the true test of character is one’s ability to handle and overcome adversity. In the aftermath of the tragic incidents of the past week, Thailand has the opportunity to prove to itself and the world, the strength of its national character and its commitment to pursuing justice, promoting national reconciliation, and building a socially inclusive society.

As a nation, we have been embroiled in the vortex of chaos and confusion. It is time for us to collectively take a deep breadth and regain our sense of balance and proportion. The traditional Thai values of tolerance, moderation and compassion, which are intrinsic elements of our national culture, need to be stressed and promoted.

The senseless finger pointing and “blame game”, a popular pastime now, should cease. Harbouring negative emotions, anger and hatred is destructive. We must rise above it and pursue the truth, and nothing less. Independent and credible investigations of the recent events along with due process must be the order of the day.

An accelerated course of action is needed to ensure national reconciliation and the fostering of sustainable peace. We need to engage in a process of dialogue, which recognizes and respects the differences, interests and values of all concerned parties. True acknowledgement and contrition by all sides will pave the way to forgiveness, which is the key to healing the hearts and minds of all Thais.

We must urgently close the deep and widening social divide through addressing structural poverty, social exclusion and inequality. Whatever view one may hold about the recent events, the grievances expressed by many of the demonstrators are valid. We need to have in place a comprehensive range of measures to tackle the following key challenges: (1) disparities in distribution; (2) deprivation of capabilities; and (3) inequalities in access and opportunities.

Unless we acknowledge and address these grievances, the deep wounds from this violent episode in our history will continue to fester, creating a widening chasm of estrangement, which will likely lead to further upheavals and violence.

Our country has witnessed, albeit at a great cost, the political awakening of the people at a critical juncture in Thailand’s development. In hindsight, we may see the empowerment of the rural and impoverished sectors of our electorate as a critical and necessary step for the development of Thailand’s democratic system. It is imperative that we recognize the legitimate concerns and voices of these social groups in our electoral and other decision-making processes.

As a nation, we have reached the “point of no return.” Change is inevitable. We all have a stake in the future of our nation and need to contribute meaningfully to the process. Let us transform this crisis into an opportunity to build a political consensus for a people’s agenda that will ensure a more inclusive and equitable society as well as a shared future for all Thais.

Bangkok Post Newspaper & The Nation Newspaper, May 25, 2010

PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN

Address by
H.E. Mr. Anand Panyarachun, former Prime Minister of Thailand
UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador
23 March 2005

7^th East Asia and Pacific Ministerial Consultation on Children
Siem Reap, Cambodia
23-25 March 2005

Madam (or Mr) Chairperson,
UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am greatly honoured to be with you here today in Siem Reap for the 7th East Asia and Pacific Ministerial Consultation on Children. I thank Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen, the Royal Government of Cambodia and UNICEF for the excellent work they have done in organizing and preparing for this most important event. Of course, this is not the first of these Ministerial Consultations I have addressed and participated in. I am thus well aware of the significance of this, the only gathering at this level devoted exclusively to advancing the rights of children in our region.

I will address today the fundamental importance of partnerships for children, a subject that relates to much of the work I have done over the years in both the public and private sectors, and as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, a position I have been honoured to hold for the last nine years.

Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

As we all know too well, the biggest natural calamity to hit our region in recent times was the Indian Ocean Tsunami. It had absolutely devastating effects on a number of countries, most notably Aceh and North Sumatra provinces in Indonesia, many parts of Sri Lanka and Maldives, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Tamil Nadu State in India, parts of southern Myanmar and western Malaysia and, in my own country, Phang-Nga, Phuket and some of the southern provinces of Thailand. It even struck countries as far away as the Seychelles, Somalia and Kenya.

Media attention focused on the scale of the disaster with large pictures of the effects of extremely large waves. It drew our attention to the particular vulnerability of children, whether in the scale of death among these fragile young people or in the potential dangers of their succumbing to deadly diseases, such as cholera, malaria or measles, all of which we thankfully avoided. It highlighted the unfortunate potential of criminal elements in our countries to take advantage of unaccompanied children to traffic them for in-country or inter-country adoption or for sexual exploitation, again largely avoided thanks to a timely alert. It underlined the trauma faced by affected children, especially since they were deprived of the normalcy of education with the destruction of so many schools and the deaths of their teachers. This is a disaster we can not, should never forget.

I subscribe to all these observations. However, I draw a number of other lessons from this unprecedented disaster.

Firstly, I salute the heroic efforts of the governments and people of the affected countries. They have truly led the response to the Tsunami from immediate relief to planning for longer term recovery. This includes the great contribution made by local non-governmental organizations, a matter to which I shall return later in may address. We should all be proud of our fellow Asians in their demonstration of incredible resilience. I salute too the very positive contributions made by our friends from around the world, from the various external armed forces that immediately placed their substantial assets and human resources at our disposal, from international NGOs that came to our assistance through material and technical aid.

I would make special mention of the United Nations, an institution that is essential to our lives in an international and interdependent world. I have recently served as Chair of a Group of Eminent Persons looking into how the UN could further improve in its relevance and effectiveness. The UN played its true role in working with governments to provide leadership and coordination in the relief effort, with our own UNICEF doing so especially in the areas of education, water and sanitation, and child protection. The UN still has much to contribute as we enter the phase of recovery and reconstruction.

Secondly, like you, I was overwhelmed by the incredible outpouring of public and official sympathy and support for the victims of the Tsunami. Governments around the world have pledged billions of dollars for both relief and recovery, including contributions from those not normally considered as donors, from China to Lao PDR.

Even more impressive though were the enormous gifts given selflessly by ordinary people. We know about the massive public fundraising in Europe, North America, Japan and Australasia, but it doesn’t end there. Millions of Thai and Indonesian citizens made their own private donations. Mongolians and Vietnamese for perhaps the first time came forward to make personal contributions to causes outside their own countries. Many of these donations came to UNICEF for the benefit of children. As of today, UNICEF’s ample resources to respond to the needs and rights of children in Tsunami affected areas come one-third from government sources but two-thirds from non-governmental sources, mostly public donations.

Thirdly, notwithstanding the devastating and heart-wrenching effects of the tsunami, I can’t forget the other very grave problems faced by our region and our world. I’m especially concerned that the latest disaster will cause us to forget these other concerns. I have spent much of my professional and private life trying, often very successfully, to get governments and people to take seriously the threat of HIV and AIDS. In the long term AIDS will kill far more people than any natural disaster, however big. We must not forget that. We must not neglect that.

Furthermore, within the countries themselves affected by the Tsunami, there are other areas where children suffer almost equal deprivation. In Indonesia, it is actually the easternmost provinces that are the most deprived day in and day out. In Thailand, we have made such enormous strides in national development that many, including myself, see us as a potential future donor country. Yet we still have many problems to resolve for vulnerable families in the north and east, as well as in the far south of our country. We must not forget that. We must not neglect that.

And then there are innumerable children and others ravaged by unnecessary and resolvable conflicts around the world, for example, in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Palestine and, yes, in our own region in Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand, and suffering the consequences of past conflicts in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, and here in Cambodia. We must not forget that. We must not neglect that.

And further, are we to forget and neglect our duty to meet the needs and rights of children, who die from malnutrition and preventable infections, or women who die in childbirth, or girls who are denied their right to education? Are we now to forget and neglect our commitments to the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals?

What then do we take forward from this experience that is of wider significance? I would argue that we can and must do more for children in both Tsunami affected areas and in other domains and places. Our challenge now is to continue to promote and facilitate international solidarity with the Tsunami victims and turn this into concrete support for the world’s other emergencies, and beyond that for the wider problems and opportunities we have identified in the Millennium agenda. This calls for new ways of doing business, for new kinds of partnership among governments, civil society and the corporate world, which has also played its part in financing Tsunami relief and recovery.

With UNICEF in Thailand, we have already shown how partnerships with the corporate sector and the general public can produce more resources for children. More than half of all of UNICEF’s country programme of cooperation in Thailand is funded from in-country donations. My dream is to make this generosity available to programmes for children in neighbouring countries and for Thailand to complete the transition from a net recipient to a net donor nation.

Madam (or Mr) Chairperson, Distinguished Delegates:

We are here today in a Ministerial Consultation. By definition, that means the primary partners are governments of East Asia and the Pacific. We have, however, rightly involved civil society, in the form of national and international non-governmental organizations, in these Ministerial Consultations over a number of years now. There is, of course, a basic principle at play here. Governments are accountable to the people. Civil society organizations are an expression of popular engagement in public life.

Civil society organizations have proven particularly important and effective in advancing the rights and well-being of children, and the NGOs present here are all dedicated to that very cause. Governments, of course, have the best interests of children at heart, and they are the primary duty bearers for the fulfillment of children’s rights. However, governments are also faced with hard decisions, as I am very well aware from my time as Head of Government in Thailand. Often it is easier to take the most pragmatic way out, to take decisions that make practical sense from a macro-economic or national security perspective, with unintended negative consequences for the poor or for children. Over-rapid privatization of social services is one example. Poorly planned slum clearance may be another. Yet a third would be the abrupt removal of agricultural or other subsidies. There are more.

Who is there to remind us of these unintended consequences, but the NGOs? It may be unpleasant to have groups constantly reminding those of us now, or in the past, in government, but we have to recognize that we don’t always get it right. If we truly believe in democratic principles, we should indeed embrace this difference of opinion, not necessarily always acting in ways that some civil society organizations would urge us, but at least listening openly and intently. These differences of opinion are indeed a strength in our East Asian and Pacific societies, and something it is well worth encouraging.

Civil society organizations are truly vital partners in all processes of development and humanitarian response. In the latter domain, we have seen how effective they have been in responding to the Asian Tsunami disaster. I also recognized their key value when, as Prime Minister of Thailand, along with then Minister Meechai Viravaidya, I launched the campaign to control the spread of HIV/AIDS in my own country. Government had to provide policy and leadership. It had a duty to set the context within which society as a whole could tackle what I saw as our gravest problem at the time, one that has now diminished in its present gravity but is still a serious danger. Government had to ensure that all of its agencies were taking the necessary measures to promote preventive action and provide care and support for those living with or affected by HIV/AIDS.

However, we would never have achieved the success we did without our partnership with local, national and international civil society organizations. It was largely they who enabled us to reach out to the populations most at risk – commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users – to provide them with the essential means to prevent HIV transmission both among themselves and to the general population. I know there are similar experiences here in Cambodia, one of the other rare countries of the world to act with success to reduce the spread of our world’s current greatest scourge, about which we can never afford to be complacent.

Governments can only gain in implementing their programmes by opening and strengthening partnerships with NGOs. We have to remember though that NGOs are not mere implementing agencies. They must also be engaged in the formulation of the policies and programmes they help to implement. They are generally closer to the people than are the politicians and bureaucrats – all the more reason to listen to them as we plan our programmes for development and poverty reduction. I hope that international organizations, such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and, yes, UNICEF also take this lesson to heart.

My last point on civil society partnership is one that is sometimes more contentious, but I shall raise it anyway. Civil society organizations are vital to hold governments to account. Governments derive their authority from the people, and that authority is truly considerable. On their behalf, governments take on responsibilities for the respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights, including those of children.

Among the countries represented here today, all have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, though not all its two optional protocols on the involvement of children in armed  conflict, and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. I would encourage you all seriously to consider extending your governments’ ratification to those two optional protocols. An important part of governments’ obligations under the CRC is to report periodically to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and we are privileged to have with us here the Chair of that Committee, Jaap Doek. Painful though that process may sometimes be, the rules of the game also allow civil society organizations to comment on these reports at the Committee’s presessionals. If the civil society organizations are not satisfied with the State Party report, they also have the right to present shadow reports, which the Committee is obliged to consider.

Again I would put it to you that NGOs and other civil society organizations are closer to the real lives and opinions of poor families and children than are politicians and bureaucrats. It’s actually not a weakness but a strength to have this degree of scrutiny on the actions and reporting of governments. If we look at the Constitutions of most of our countries, we shall see that this is also consistent with their basic tenets, and they are the basic law of our countries.

Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

At the World Economic Congress in Davos in 1999, Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, proposing a Global Compact, said: “The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. In today’s world we are all dependent on each other.” I should now like to turn from considerations regarding partnership with civil society to that with the private or corporate sector.

By the end of the last century our world had changed beyond all recognition, and it continues to change. Governments do still exercise ultimate authority, but they are no longer the principal players in the world economy, not even in the economies of most countries. In the Asian crisis of 1997 we saw this with great pain to our people, as livelihoods disappeared almost overnight through the effect of currency trading entirely out of the hands of those controlling the levers of State. Large multinational corporations and funds can make or break national economies. Smaller enterprises can provide essential employment for poor parents or be the principal exploiters of the labour of children, including their sexual exploitation. This is a fact, and it is one that we can not avoid. We have rather to deal with it in principled and practical ways. Again we need partnerships to do this.

Primarily we need public-private partnerships with the corporate world itself. There are many good examples of this. In the Tsunami disaster that many businesses contributed, or facilitated contributions, to the relief and recovery effort. I have already mentioned that two-thirds of UNICEF’s resources for this operation have come from private sources. In addition to the general public, this included private business, and among these were home-grown businesses in the affected countries themselves. Indonesia’s largest bank, for instance, made available its nationwide network of ATMs for donations to UNICEF. We see too one of the world’s most powerful businessmen, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, devoting hundreds of millions of dollars entirely to promote the health of children and women in the developing world. This is actually only the tip of the iceberg. There are huge untapped resources with the private sector that could be mobilized for the benefit of the poor in all of our countries. We just need imagination, new thinking and innovative mechanisms to tap into them, not as government revenue, but as resources to complement the action of governments.

And this makes sense to the corporate world itself. Firstly, by investing in the poor, especially in children, they are helping to reduce disease, ignorance and poverty. This can only broaden the base of those who are the market for their products and services. Secondly, by promoting social and human development, they look good in the public eye. This again is a great selling point in increasing one’s market share.

But this is not in itself enough. Yes, we do need increased private investment in human development, especially in the children who represent all our futures. This must not though remain in the domain of charity. We need to promote and facilitate it as solidarity, or as corporate social responsibility. Just as governments should be accountable to the people, so private companies must have a sense of accountability not just to their shareholders but also to the wider community in which they do business. In the case of multinationals that community is the world.

We have seen too some of the excesses of unregulated capitalism with forced labour, including that of children, who ought rather to be in school, with trafficking in human beings, including children, within countries and across borders. Yes, governments must regulate. Yes, governments must prosecute, convict and sanction. Yes, governments must rescue and rehabilitate the victims. But governments can achieve so much more by working with the private sector to inculcate the spirit of corporate responsibility across all of the private sector, as an essential ethic to belong to the club. I remember the amazing example of a former Executive Director of UNICEF, Jim Grant, who in the 1980s negotiated ceasefires between warring parties in internal conflicts in Latin America (zones of peace for children), so that children could be immunized. Much has been made of this example for conflict zones, but are there not lessons to be learned in working with the unorganized private sector?

Having just spoken of her predecessor, I am mindful too of the immense contribution that UNICEF’s current Executive Director, Carol Bellamy, has made for the cause of children during her ten years at the helm of what she rightly calls the world’s leading agency for children. She has moved the global influence of her organization on from the domain of health to encompass the essential agenda of all of the rights of children. We owe her an immense debt of gratitude, and I should like to note that on her last occasion in her current capacity to be among the Ministers responsible for children in East Asia and the Pacific. Thank you, Carol. We shall miss you in your present incarnation. We look forward to further contact personally and professionally in the future.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

If we are to achieve our goal of a World Fit for Children, if we are to achieve the ambitious goals we set for ourselves through the Millennium Declaration and Millennium Development Goals, governments must provide leadership. But they cannot do it alone. Partnership is an essential part of the human condition. Partnership is essential for all progress and development. Let us resolve to build and strengthen essential partnerships with civil society and the corporate sector, so that together we can achieve what none of us could achieve alone.

11^th Asian Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility

Grand Ballroom, Shangri-La Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand

25 October 2012

10:10 to 10:20 a.m.

STATEMENT BY

MR. ANAND PANYARACHUN

"The impact of global corporate social responsibility"

It is my pleasure to be here with you at the Asian Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility.

Let me start by congratulating the organizers for convening this year's Forum on the theme of social innovation, which involves not only goods and services but processes and technologies that reach out to all stakeholders.

Recent global events have underscored the relevance of this Forum.

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement has dramatically increased the importance of corporate social responsibility.

Today's consumers are demanding that companies consider their impact on society as much as their own business interests.

Commitment to corporate social responsibility has become a key element of good corporate citizenship, alongside sustainability and good governance. And in this context, the 1997 financial crisis and the 2007 global economic crisis provide useful lessons for all of us.

Times have certainly changed. I recall once when CSR programs were merely ad-hoc initiatives.

Now CSR is increasingly institutionalized within an organization, and even standardized across industries.

We are living now in world that knows no borders. As we become ever more connected, we can see that globalization is having a profound impact on corporate social responsibility.

• First, supply chains have globalized and are increasingly a measure of company competitiveness. In its turn, CSR is increasingly integrated into the global supply chain via "green standards" and monitoring health and safety among supply chain sub-contractors.

• Second, multilateral organizations and non-governmental organizations are globalizing CSR. For example, the UN Millennium Development Goals are referred to in the CSR strategies of many companies, including those at the local level. As you know, the MDGs are a set of time bound goals and targets to reduce global poverty and promote health, education, gender equality and environmental sustainability.

• Third, demanding customers from developed countries are driving CSR. European customers are particularly concerned about environmental sustainability. North American customers are particularly concerned about child labor and gender equality issues. Therefore, global and export-oriented companies are responding by adjusting their strategies and operating practices.

• Fourth, "going glocal" is the trend among companies doing business in middle-income and emerging economies that represent a growing customer base, including the population at the bottom-of-the-pyramid. Globally-mandated Headquarters CSR policies are increasingly adapting to local conditions. For example, some host governments are legally requiring CSR, or encouraging companies, to undertake CSR projects on education and health that may not be directly related to the companies' core business, but are of benefit to the local society.

• Fifth, the quest for global solutions to social issues, including respect and support of the human rights of children, is accelerating even as the solutions appear more "glocalized."

The resolution of social issues transcends borders and presents both threats and opportunities for instance in the rise of social media and the democratization and globalization of information and news, as was so evident during the Arab Spring.

Moving to the relevance of CSR at the national or local level, let me use my own country, Thailand, as an example.

Economically, we can proudly call ourselves a developed middle-income developing economy and we can arguably serve as a model for aspiring economies in the Greater Mekong Subregion and beyond.

As an export-oriented manufacturing hub, Thai companies are familiar with the operating requirements of globalization.

Thailand is a major tourist destination, a foreign investment hub, and a part of global manufacturing platforms and supply chains. So the country can modestly state that it has considerable experience with globalization.

With respect to CSR, Thailand is not immune to rising expectations and the need to be even more socially conscious and civic minded.

Our people as consumers are growing in sophistication. They are more conscious of safe and green products.

The new generation of employees expects their employers to address social and environmental issues to be responsible corporate citizens, to use renewable energy, and even to offer a life-style in terms of working hours and income to meet family needs and increasing consumption.

A primary concern that employees look into is not only how the organization conducts business with, but who the organization conducts business with.

Employees pay more attention to their company's codes of ethics and to offers of both living standards and quality life styles.

These issues affecting Thailand will also affect other less developed countries as their economies grow. How Thailand responds to the concerns of the people will also serve as a model for other countries grappling with these social issues.

Looking back, when Bangkok last hosted the Asian Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility in 2003, the theme of the Forum was "Business, Government and Civil Society Collaboration in Nation Building."

Looking at the present, we have indeed seen how multisectoral cooperation has led to higher growth and increased social responsibility in this country. And we see that CSR has been and will continue to be a key driver for engaging with all these actors.

This augurs well for the present Forum.

I wish you every success in your deliberations.

Thank you.

Keynote Speech
by H. E. Mr. Anand Panyarachun
UNICEF Ambassador for Thailand
at the Regional Consultation on
"Challenging the New Millennium:
The Rights of the Child and Issues of
Displacement in Southeast Asia"
Siam City Hotel
January 26, 2000

In my capacity as the UNICEF Ambassador for Thailand, I would like to extend our warmest welcome to the delegations from countries in our Southeast Asian Region, our friends from South Asia who share some of the same problems and concerns, and others from Asia. I am pleased to see the trend that we are increasingly thinking of us as one Asian group.

I would also like to extend our congratulations to the National Youth Bureau, the organizer of this regional consultation, for taking the initiative in bringing together all of us. I am aware that the National Youth Bureau, together with UNICEF is monitoring the status of Thai children and initiates follow-up action to take remedial measures.

It is important to have opportunities for concerned Government agencies, NGOs and particularly youth, our stakeholders, from the two Asian regions, as well as UN agencies to have dialogues on important issues such as the one we are focussing on today.

I recall in an earlier occasion, over two years ago, I had the opportunity to appear before some of you who are from the Mekong Sub-Region, addressing the gathering of concerned Government and NGOs representatives on the "Illegal Labour Movements: the Case of Trafficking in Women and Children".

It is encouraging to know that actions taken to tackle the problem of trafficked children, who are categorized as displaced children, are being reported here at this meeting and in a wider context of child rights and displacement in Southeast Asia. The persistence in combating the violations of the rights of displaced and trafficked children and sustenance of the interest and efforts in promoting Child Rights by all of you is highly commendable.

The expanded scope of deliberations of this meeting in the agenda - seems ambitious. I hope it will help us understand better the situation of refugee children, displaced and cross-border trafficked children and to come up with ways and cooperation in recommending solutions to the problems at all levels. In view of the apparent complexity and difficulties concerning the situation of such children in the Region, this is a very timely consultation.

For example, in September last year, UNICEF reported that as many as 500,000 people were displaced from their homes and facing severe nutritional and health risks in Timor. Among this number, some 75,000 were estimated to be under the age of five. Thailand, on the other hand, has been both the sending and receiving country as far as trafficking of children is concerned in this region.

Several reports have shown the rising number of children victims of trafficking for labour and sexual exploitation from our neighbouring countries, particularly in the Mekong Sub-region, and most notably from Myanmar, China, Laos, and Cambodia.

Also in Thailand, there are some 150,000 children from the hill tribes born in the country and categorized as children without nationality and often even birth registration. So are a number of sea gypsies along the Southern coast. This includes illegal foreign child workers who are working in deep sea fishing in Pattani province.

What can we do about such children is a question that needs to be answered, taking into account multiple dimensions such as human and child rights, humanitarian concerns, political issues, legal and constitutional provisions, economic and social implications etc. Efforts are being made by all of you to find long-term solutions to these problems. One country cannot do it alone as they are inter-related and emerging from the multiplicity of root causes. It calls for all of us to share among us the issues of concern and to seek ways to tackle them together. This calls for not only national, but bilateral and regional agreements, directions and concrete plans of action to advance the progress.

In these efforts, it is important to ensure compliance to the principles enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide the best protection to these children.

I would like to thank all of you who have come from various corners of our region with the great intention to arrive at constructive and positive solutions toward the improvement in the protection of refugee and displaced children. I would also like to thank the UN agencies, namely, UNHCR and UNICEF and the Southeast Asia Foundation for Institutional and Legal Development or SEAFILD for their continuing interest in this subject and support to this regional consultation. I wish you all great success in this very important deliberation.

Keynote Address
by Mr. Anand Panyarachun
Former Prime Minister of Thailand
and UNICEF Ambassador for Thailand
at the Fourth Ministerial Consultation
on Progress toward the Goals for Children
In the East Asia and Pacific Region
November 12, 1998

Ms. Bellamy, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is both a privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to deliver this keynote address to such an esteemed gathering of Ministers, key government officials and experts dedicated to finding solutions to the many problems now facing the children of our great region.

Before I begin, please allow me to give special thanks to Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai and UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy for their thought-provoking addresses. Their heart-felt commitment to the cause of children is inspiring and it should serve us well in the difficult work that lies ahead.

I must admit that when first asked to make this presentation, I was concerned about the prospect of addressing an audience with so much experience in the field of child development. After all, my long professional career has been mainly in the areas of diplomacy, politics and business. Even though I often championed the concern of children during my political career and term as Prime Minister, it was only relatively recently that I assumed my duties as UNICEF Ambassador for Thailand and began to fully immerse myself in the concerns of children.

Yet, after some reflection, I realized that my grasp of the dramatic social and economic changes that have shaped, and continue to shape this region has given me much to share with you about how these forces can be harnessed for the benefit of children. I also realized that there are literally hundreds of millions of excellent reasons - one for each of the 600 million children in the East Asia and the Pacific region - for me to speak to you today.

Let me start by noting that we can be justifiably proud of the achievements our region has made in the past decades. Until recently, our region was known around the world for its remarkable and mostly equitable economic growth and, as Ms. Bellamy has pointed out, for the extraordinary progress we have made for our children. I would like to share with you my own personal analysis of these achievements, the reasons for this great success, and what we can learn from them as we deal with the many difficult challenges ahead.

Over the past three decades, there have been many diverse, country specific strategies that have contributed to our region's overall prosperity. The main elements have been a balanced approach to good fiscal and economic policy and a strong emphasis on human resource development. These have included:

ท The building of a broad base of human capital by focusing on basic education and the provision of basic social services, such as access to health care;

ท The adoption of an outward-looking trade strategy, with domestic protection limited to a core group of strategically important industries;

ท The more equitable distribution of the benefits of economic growth, particularly through land reforms and broader access to credit facilities;

ท Selective intervention to promote both increased domestic saving and the transfer of these savings to internationally competitive domestic firms, and;

ท Developing a co-operative relationship between the public and private sectors.

While all of these elements have been key to the region's success, it is my opinion that the generous investment in basic primary education and in other basic services marks the most critical difference between the high level of development experienced in our region and that of the world's other developing regions.

For example, as long ago as 1960 governments in the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Singapore were making massive public expenditures for education. In East Asian countries, education was seen not as just a luxury for the privileged few, but as a right and necessity for all. The emphasis was put on universal, high quality primary education, while university education systems were largely self-financed. In countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea and Hong Kong, nearly 70 per cent of education budgets were devoted to primary education. Singapore spent 834 US dollars on every primary school student in 1985, compared to just 28 dollars per primary school student in India, and 21 dollars per student in Pakistan.

As a result, East Asian countries achieved almost universal literacy, and were better able to meet the demand for a skilled, educated workforce, and to handle the pressures of competition in an expanding and open global market. The cumulative benefits of such major and well targeted investments in human resource development become increasingly clear with the passage of time: over the last three decades, East Asia's real gross domestic product has grown consistently at a rate almost three times as fast as South Asia's.

So the very foundation of the phenomenal growth this region enjoyed in recent decades has been our strong commitment to human resource development, which, quite simply, was a wise investment that we made in ourselves.

Now, with the dark clouds of economic uncertainly hovering over our region, all that we have achieved is under threat. Day by day the situation seems to deteriorate in many countries, with more mass layoffs announced and ever grimmer projections for the years ahead. More and more families can no longer afford to pay for basic health care or afford to keep their children in school. Once thriving middle class families have seen the dreams they hold for their children suddenly evaporate. Laid-off factory workers can no longer afford to feed their children. Tens of thousands of labourers, the ones who built the gleaming skyscrapers of the "Asian Miracle," now have no choice but to sleep in our streets. In short, there are more poor than ever, more families and children in trouble, and more and more people who need help but cannot find it.

What has happened to our region, the region of the "Tiger" and "Tiger cub" economies, of ever-higher GDP growth rates and an ever-expanding middle class? How did we come to this end? What became of the "The Miracle"? Domestic institutional shot-comings, poor fiscal management and plain, unbridled greed were among the culprits. I will leave it to the economists, the bankers and others to conduct the post-mortem.

Instead, please allow me to discuss where we should go from here if we are to ever regain the promise the future once held. What are some of the things that need to be done?

First, I want to underline that we must not forget how our region became an economic powerhouse, how "The Miracle" came to be. As noted earlier, it was sustained, long-term investment in education that made us strong enough to compete in the global arena. No matter what the current economic outlook, no matter how tight the money supply, no matter what kind of economic restructuring and reform is required, without continued, adequate investment in the development of human resources we will never recover, never redeem the Miracle. People are the real wealth of our nations, and it is only through investment in people, starting with children, that we can ensure our future.

Second, we must continue to strive to ensure good governance and transparency at all levels. How power is exercised in the political, economic, social and administrative arenas, how governments inter-act with people in the public realm, how businesses conduct themselves, and how families treat their children, will be key.

Governments need to pursue and penalize corruption, develop more checks and balances, and make our institutions and their personnel more accountable for their actions. There needs to be more decentralization, and with it the devolving of decision-making and resource allocation. This goes hand-in-hand with the need to encourage a sense of responsibility on the part of local authorities and to foster more open management. Governments must also promote more public hearings, policies and inquiries so that the voices of the public are heard prior to the adoption, review or reform of laws, policies and programmes.

Good governance is also necessary within the private sector, where there must be more self-regulation through codes of conduct and peer pressure so that the sector itself can promote self-regulation and issue reprimands. As the current economic crisis has taught us, good governance and transparency is desperately needed at the global level, where unfettered financial flows can serve to make or break a nation's economy. We can no longer allow the interests of a privileged few to wreak havoc on the lives of millions. In this era of globalization, where the ripples and shock waves of economic disruption is felt far beyond one nation's or one region's borders, the international community must establish a set of rules to regulate those financial and speculative activities that have potential for economic destabilization. A fundamental re-examination of the way international payments are conducted should be made.

Third, we must address the issue of wage disparity and rising inequality between the city and the countryside, the huge, groaning gap between the "haves and the have-nots". This has become a growing and alarming problem in several of the region's countries over recent years. We cannot invite only the rich and privileged to the table and then expect that the left-over scraps will be enough for the middle class, those trying desperately to work their way into the middle class, and the poor and disenfranchised living on the margins of society. Equitable distribution of the benefits of growth is one of the hallmarks of a free and fair society. We must ensure adequate infrastructure development and public and private sector investment in less-developed areas, and remove constraints on access to credit for all our citizens. In addition, economic rescue packages should not be used to assist only the immaculately tailored, Mercedes-driving financiers who are now in need of a bailout, but rather the barefoot farmers who travel by water buffalo and the women and children of the rice paddies.

Fourth, we must also increase the use of social incentives for those working to forward social development. All too often investment incentives such as tax relief are given only to entrepreneurs and the rich to invest in industries that are deemed beneficial to the economy. Few incentives are available to those working for social development, such as NGOs. The situation needs to be redressed so that incentives, such as tax relief, are given to those working for and in the community, especially for children.

Fifth, we must seize the opportunities that the current situation presents us. If I may have the privilege of borrowing from a recent address of Prime Minister Chuan, the crisis has sparked what he called a "back-to-basics movement". Has reminded us that our tightly knit families and the community networks inherent in our agricultural sector from the bedrock of our society. Constitute an available reserve of "social capital", which has often been overlooked in our rush towards industrialization. The crisis has helped us to look again at our inner strengths and has enhanced the resilience of our society. This should make us better able to weather the social repercussions of the crisis.

Finally, let me say the road to economic recovery and stability will not be easy. It will be long and hard and painful. It will demand regional and international solidarity. We now live in an inter-dependent world, and no nation or region can afford to stand-alone or stand by when other nations or regions need assistance. If we are to rebuild "The Miracle", and in doing so guarantee our children their right to a world where there is opportunity to fully develop and contribute to society, we must all work together. I can think of no better way for us to do so than by striving to meet the World Summit Goals for Children. The achievement of the goals would provide both our children and our nations with the foundation they needed to cope with the challenges of the future. If we here today work together, we can ensure this. If we stand together, there is nothing that can stop us. We owe it our countries our citizens, and most of all, to our children. It is our solemn and sworn duty. We dare not fail.

Closing Statement
"Caring For Young Children:
Perspectives on Change for the Future"

by His Excellency Anand Panyarachun
Former Prime Minister and
UNICEF Ambassador for Thailand

at the International Conference on Young Children:
Priorities and Challenges in the 21st Century
Imperial Hotel, Bangkok
August 6-9, 1996

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this Conference which has addressed so many issues of vital importance to young children.

It is banality to say everything is changing. "It's a changing world…etc". Even the weather is changing.

Yet, as with the weather-as someone said, "Everybody talks about it - but nobody does anything about it"

So, often enough, it is with change. Yet learning to deal with change is increasingly what life is about. Learning to manage the forces, which shape our lives, in the midst of this change, is what development is about. Individual development and national development are intimately connected.

What constitutes the nature of the change in store for our children in the 21st century? We already have to deal with a world in which many powerful influences on day-to-day living - the choice of consumer products, the possibilities of work, the offerings of mass communication and entertainment - come from far away and are devised without our participation. The future is likely to enormously increase this sense of alienation and uncertainty.

Two courses are open to us in dealing with this. One is to decentralize power and authority to institutions, governmental and otherwise, closer to where people actually live.

The other already is taking place. An enormous increase in the need for information to help individuals understand and anticipate important changes in their personal and working lives. This phenomenon - so far at least - is threatening to open another gulf between the haves and the have-nots, dividing us into the information-rich and the information-poor.

The globalized economy lives on information. Compared to the information access of the average schoolchild today, in Thailand certainly, the actors in the globalized economy are already unimaginably "information-rich", and the gap is widening!

Such a gulf makes even more pivotal the challenge of decentralizing power and, consequently, of access to information. Taking part in decision making and taking responsibility for action are the most important learning experiences any of us can have. They give us the confidence to go on to other challenges. This is real development - and the best way we can care for the children of the 21st century is to foster and promote this development.

I don't need to tell you all the physical and psycho-social factors - which bear on that process of growth in the young child and which require a holistic approach to allow the child to become capable of handling complex emotions and interactions with others and with the world around them.

I stress the need for a holistic approach to solutions, especially in public policy. Lack of this approach in public policy has led to disparities in access to social services-formal and non - formal education, proper health care and adequate nutrition - as well as to forms of abuse and exploitation which make one wonder sometimes about man's claims to superiority over the animal kingdom.

The more common consequence of the failure of public policy, and therefore the more powerful in its aggregate effect, is the separation of children from parents. Often not having enough secure family environment, because economic pressures have compelled fathers and mothers to migrate to cities and towns to seek work.

Of course the economic and social marginalisation of many children thus thrown upon their own resources, to live by their wits at a frighteningly young age, their options and choices drastically narrowed, their futures foreclosed - even should they happen to escape outright abuse and gross exploitation by others - is tragically wasteful and dangerous.

For mainstream economics, these human costs are "externalities", regrettable but inevitable casualties of the drive for national competitiveness. This must be why economics is called "the dismal science".

To me such a perspective seems not only morally bankrupt but extremely shortsighted. Human costs mean social costs and these have a way of becoming enormously expensive. Just because we have not worked out how to count them does not make them less costly.

Indeed, the public policy challenge of the holistic approach to child development begins with this lack of measurement. Until we reckon the cost of all these wasted young lives, fore-shortened possibilities and unrealized potential, the political commitment will remain uncertain and the necessary financial investment highly unlikely to say the least.

Children deserve better! Indeed they have a legal right to something better. Thailand, like some 180-plus countries around the world including every one in this region, acknowledges that fact through accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I signed the articles of accession on behalf of Thailand in 1992.

The Convention is a binding international instrument setting the norms for children's survival, development, protection and participation.

Survival rights focus on needs basic to existence, including the provision of health care and nutrition. Development rights, are about children reaching their potential. These include the right to education, leisure, freedom of thought and culture.

Protection rights of course refer to protection against such things as abuse, neglect and exploitation.

Participation rights, include the child's right of access to information and to a role in decision-making appropriate to their competence in matters which concern them.

As I have already noted, access to information and playing an adequate role in decision making is arguably one of the most important (and effective) ways we learn. The key to development really.

Children should have as much preparation for participation as possible, through actual experience. As you all know, learning begins at birth. Young children can, and do, participate as much as they jolly well can. We parents try to draw the line and maybe we should be more ready to bring children in on appropriate levels of decision making in these early years.

In any case when participation is systematically denied and judgement is never exercised, one of two things happens - either the analytical thinking and capacity for making judgements tends to atrophy, or resentment begins to grow. Many problems of adolescence - and who knows what else in adulthood - have their origins in these tensions.

As with the individual, so with the nation. A people need experience of participation to fully exploit its potential to learn and to develop.

It is the job of public policy and national leadership to provide an environment and a stimulus for this development. Care and development of the child is a logical place to start.

The 21st century will demand new abilities of our citizens in this part of the world-the ability to learn throughout life, to analyse and make informed judgements, to reason and to anticipate, to work harmoniously in groups and to collaborate through sharing knowledge, to negotiate and to resolve conflict without recources to the fight-or-flight reaction.

These capacities, the experts tell us, represent where the world is heading. Our corporations are already struggling to develop such capacities, to start thinking of workers as assets rather than costs.

Is it too much to expect that the "dismal" economics which guide our public policy considerations could begin to learn the same lessons? Start to think about the young child, and the nurturing family and community environment that the child needs, as assets rather than "externalities".

Let us not make the same mistakes as were made by the industrialized world a century and a half ago…and reap the same bitter harvest of alienation and anti-social behaviour, of large scale unrest and discontent, of prisons full and neighborhoods aflame.

I believe the subject of this Conference to be crucial to avoiding a repetition of this history. I hope our national leadership around this region are paying attention because, to paraphrase an American saying, you can ignore some of the people some of the time but you can't ignore most of the people most of the time.

Children are people too and the message of this Conference is that not only are you never too old to learn but that public policy has to recognize that you are never too young either - and that it's none too soon to begin acting on the premise.

Human Rights and Business Ethics
by H.E. Mr. Anand Panyarachun
International Symposium
on Human Rights and Business Ethics
United Nations Conference Centre, Bangkok
October 24, 1998

Excellencies
Distinguished Guests and Participants
Ladies and Gentlemen

It is a privilege for me to be here with you today as we commemorate the fiftieth Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I would like to first commend the Thai Government for organizing this Symposium, and other related activities, to mark the Anniversary. Today's programme provides us with an opportunity to promote public awareness of the meaning of human rights and its relevance to our daily lives.

I have been asked to speak to you about the subject of "Human Rights and Business Ethics." But before I do that, allow me take this opportunity to share with you some of my thoughts on the general topic of human rights.

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted fifty years ago by the Member States of the United Nations, it represented a milestone in the long struggle for human rights. The Declaration was predicated on principles of non-discrimination, civil and political rights, and social and economic rights.

It was believed that these rights were to be enjoyed by all human beings of the global village - men, women and children, as well as by any group of society, disadvantaged or not. These rights were not seen to be "gifts" to be withdrawn, withheld or granted at anyone's whim or will.

Events in Asia today underscore the sad fact that violations of human rights continue to be tolerated in many countries of our region. The right to due process, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to freedom from torture and degrading treatment, and so forth, are still elusive concepts in some parts of Asia.

In the past months, I have noted with much concern the spate of incidents of ethnic hatred and perpetuation of xenophobic attitudes in our region, which undermine the cohesive fabric of our societies. I have also watched with dismay the systematic persecution of individuals who have political views differing from the ruling authority. Aside from these recent events, we also see the on-going practice of discrimination due to race, gender and religion.

We cannot and should not sit in silence and allow these violations of our basic rights to continue to take place. As citizens of a global and inter-dependent community, we all have a responsibility to encourage our governments to promote and protect human rights.

It is my hope that we will seize on the opportunity of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration to mobilize all strata of society in a reinvigorated and broad-based human rights movement.

On the part of the Thai Government, this movement has already begun. As Chairman of the National Commission for the Formulation of a Policy and Action Plan on Human Rights, I can tell you that we are determined to enhance further Thailand's commitment to the various international instruments in the field of human rights.

Let me return to the original subject of my address, namely "human rights and business ethics." I will share with you some of my views as a man who has served in the foreign service for 23 years, then worked in the business sector for nearly 20 years, and in the meantime, accidentally, became head of government twice in the early 1990s.

One general consensus in the international community nowadays is the greater influence of business over people's day-to-day lives and over global development, particularly by trans-national corporations.

Within the global economy, corporations own immense resources, capital and manpower. Many multi-national corporations are considered more financially powerful than some developing countries. The world's 500 largest industrial corporations control an astonishing 25 percent of the world's economic output. The top 300 trans-nationals, excluding financial institutions, own some 25 percent of the world's productive assets.

Such figures underscore the gigantic expansion of International business influence. Control over our economic activities leads inevitably to control over all aspects of our lives. Will we let today's "Darwinian Economics" devour our energies and erode our ethical sense? I personally do not think that our society can let only the fittest survive, without supporting the weak.

Restriction of the economic "survival of the fittest" within the limits of humanity and honour, is what we mean by "morality." Hence, the question of compatibility between morals and markets has unavoidably become a matter of public discourse.

What do we mean when we talk of "business ethics"? In the West, the movement of business ethics took off in the 1970s, a movement reinforced by many social and cultural trends. People began challenging the traditional view that money was everything - or that economic value took precedence over other values.

"Business Ethics" took the form of a marriage between economics and ethics. The goal was to promote corporate policies and practices that would contribute to the long-term, sustained and responsible success of enterprises, while at the same time, fairly balance the competing claims of key stakeholders. These include investors, employees, customers, communities, and the environment. Through this approach, the position of the more marginal members of our society, who have no access to power and less voice than other citizens, would be respected.

Enlightened companies know their enterprises cannot be sustainable if they are at odds with values, which are shared across the world, and if they grow out of impoverishment of others.

For some time now, companies have been called on to abide by certain environmental standards. Now their human rights standards are also being called into question.

Exhaustive discussions have sought to agree how far corporations should go to protect human rights. The subjects of labour standards; health and safety; employment; non-discrimination; freedom of expression, association and assembly; women's and children's rights; and transparency and accountability have all been raised.

Responding to the mounting pressure both from governments and the public, corporations are now much more concerned with the effects their activities having on people, communities and governments. This includes the economic and social impact in the host country in which they do business.

In 1992, the world adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, proclaiming that human beings were the centre of sustainable development and that they were entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

The business sector was then put in the spotlight as a leading actor to match the rhetoric with action. The major test for business was to devise strategies to maximize added value while minimizing resource and energy use, and pollution. The Geneva-based Business Council for Sustainable Development, which I had the privilege of serving as both a member and, subsequently, as Chairman, produced a report "Changing Course", which mapped out a new course for an ecologically balanced environment with proposed commitments for action.

Developing effective methods for international business to protect human rights may be a more difficult task. Several codes of conduct have been adopted to cover the broad issues and contexts within which businesses work. However, there is no consensus among businesses as to how much regulation, and how much self-discipline, would be acceptable or beneficial, without jeopardizing their primary function of growth with efficiency.

It is my view that a unified and standardized code of ethics for business practice should be established. In this regard, various existing standards should be unified such as:

1. Social Accountability 8000 (SA 8000);
2. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises;
3. The ILO Multinational Enterprises; Tripartite Declaration of Principle;
4. The Caux Round Table Principles for Business, and
5. The Amnesty International Human Rights Principles for Companies

While the unification of these standards will be an arduous and challenging task, it is a necessary one. Questions may be raised as to whether it is timely to be focussing on business ethics at this time of economic turmoil. But paradoxically, we cannot deny that our current economic crisis is partly a result of the weakness of ethical values in our society, which urgently need to be addressed.

In addressing the challenge of developing a standardized code of ethics for business practice, certain questions obviously need to be asked.

One: In terms of substance, should the code be general business
responsibilities, or merely human rights concerns?

Two: In terms of application, will the code be only applied to producer, companies, or also to other relevant sectors such as suppliers, and contractors? Will investors be included? These must all be reflected in the code's substance.

Three: In terms of enforcement, should the code be legally binding, or be effected on a voluntary basis?

And Four: In terms of monitoring and evaluation, how will the implementation be credibly monitored and evaluated?

I would, humbly, propose the following four guidelines for the development of such a unified code of ethics.

The first is that the code should be realistic and practical, but unwavering in principle. Without such an approach, the code is unlikely to be endorsed by the concerned parties.

The second is to ensure efficient administration of the Code. Relevant processes such as implementation, monitoring or evaluation, must not unnecessarily increase bureaucracy and regulations.

The third is that the Code should be verifiable and reviewed. The whole process, particularly monitoring and evaluation, must be verified with transparency, by a credible and independent mechanism, and must be periodically reviewed when necessary.

Lastly, the development of the Code must be participatory to create a sense of ownership and commitment of all stakeholders.

While the business sector can play a supporting role, the responsibility for the realization and protection of human rights falls on the Government. Government must act responsibly, as it has the duty to distribute fair shares and responsibilities through the rule of law.

However, no government can respond to all demands. A strong civil society is very much required, where citizens serve as monitors to review the actions of governments.

In this regard, I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for bringing together business and civil society as partners in human rights protection. The NGO sector in Thailand is one of the most vibrant in Asia. It has achieved much in promoting human rights, particularly in the areas of political reform and protection of the rights of vulnerable groups, such as children and women.

An emerging area of work for NGOs in Thailand is influencing the decisions of corporations on how they do business in Thailand. In the West, human rights groups, consumers, investors and labour unions, have through various pressure points been successful in promoting human rights in corporate codes of conduct. And companies have been responding to such pressures. Those companies that get bad press about human rights violations have seen consumers boycott their products. In the long run, the bottom line suffers. I would encourage our NGOs to mount similar campaigns in the interest of protecting human rights in Thailand.

Moral codes are not new. They have evolved as economic life has evolved - as hunting gave way to agriculture, then to industry, and to the present market economy. Perpetual growth is the driving force of the market economy, but its practitioners need not be scrupulous. Ethics are not the panacea for ills, but they supply the moral foundation for a better individual and global order.

Ethics and business are not adversaries. In the long run, they need each other. The market cannot be sustained by economic value alone. It requires a set of ethical standards to make the market not a place of exploitation, but of mutual gain. In the midst of change and pressure for more corporate responsibility, and the search for an appropriate and balanced role of business, it has been said that "the task is rather like rebuilding a ship while it's still at sea."

For those of you who may be ambivalent, you should recall the wisdom of our ancestors. When arriving at the gates of judgement the first question asked was "Did you deal honestly in business?"

Keynote Address
by Mr. Anand Panyarachun
on "Child Rights and good Governance:
Regional Cooperation against
Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation"
June 1, 1998

Second Asia-Pacific Intergovernmental Meeting
On Human Resources Development for Youth
June 1-5 1998, Bangkok

Organized by the United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

The theme of this meeting is "Elimination of sexual abuse and exploitation of children and youth." The continuing practice of child sexual abuse and exploitation, which has come to the fore in recent years as a global phenomenon, is a gross violation of the rights of the child.

Child rape, incest, child prostitution, child pornography and the trafficking in children for sexual purposes are increasingly found in all parts of the World. The damage to the child is both physical and psychological. It is both generational and inter-generational.

The situation is frequently cloaked in a veil of secrecy. There is regrettably a ready market for the child victims locally, transnationally and internationally. The customers range from local clients to sex tourists and paedophiles who cross boundaries in search of their prey. They are facilitated by intermediaries such as pimps, procurers and brothel owners with their seedy underworld. At times, it is the parents themselves who sell their children in to the sex trade.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that it has become increasingly globalized. The advent of technology may also facilitate it. For instance, with the push of a button, it is now possible to send out thousands of child pornography images Worldwide. There are paedophile networks which transmit their information to all parts of the globe instantaneously through computer technology.

Globalization also means that it has become easier for the traffic in children by means of abductions, tricks and enticements both within countries and across borders. The children are dealt with as commodities traded and exchanged as part of an increasingly borderless World. In this context, globalization implies that we are faced with transnational crimes.

These are compounded by diseases, which know no borders, especially HIV/AIDs. We know all too well that the HIV/AIDs epidemic is wreaking havoc among women and children, particularly those victimised by the sex trade. It is aggravated by new delusions, especially the practice of those customers, mainly male, who seek out children in the belief that children are less likely to be HIV-infected. Children also run a greater risk than adults of becoming infected with other sexually transmitted diseases. They are scarcely in a position to demand that adults use condoms as preventive measures, or to seek medical care when they fall ill.

Conversely, we should not forget that while globalization is pivotal in the march towards the next millennium, there remain key local issues to be addressed, often with International implications. There is an environment of poverty, which is a breeding ground for abuse and exploitation. Lack of access to education and the wherewithal of life renders children more susceptible to the sex market. This is a further hampered by criminality, corruption, family disintegration, migration, discrimination, negative tradition practices and a decline in values.

Despite such dilemmas, the World has become increasingly mobilised against child sexual abuse and exploitation. A key re-orientation of the mind-set is to accept that children have rights not to be abused and exploited. Children are not chattels or objects to be violated by others, but are persons, subjects of inherent, inalienable rights.

As I have mentioned, the primary International agreement which guarantees this standpoint is the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It has been ratified by nearly all countries of the World. It advocates non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child as key principles for our action for and with children. It calls for national, bilateral and multi-lateral measures against sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

The Convention was bolstered in 1996 by the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, held in Stockholm, which tackled primarily the issues of child prostitution, child pornography and the trafficking in children for sexual proposes. The Congress adopted a Declaration and Agenda for Action which call for the establishment of national plans of action, focal points and data bases on the phenomenon by the year 2000.

It calls upon all States, in cooperation with civil society, to take more effective measures, especially through education. It also calls for the criminalisation of all the offenders, whether foreign or local, while ensuring that the child victims are not penalised.

The implementation challenge facing the International and national communities appropriately leads to the challenge of good governance and its inter-face with child rights.

Good governance is concerned with how power is exercised in the political, economic, social and administrative fields. Although it is much related to how governments act and interact with people in the public realm, it also applies to the private realm of how businesses conduct themselves and how families treat their children.

The notion of good governance is concerned with a more open and participatory society whereby all those who interact with children should be more transparent, honest and accountable towards the children. It calls for more consultations and cooperation between governments, law enforcement authorities, the business sector and civil society, including NGOs' the mass media, and child and youth representatives.

These tenets greatly influenced the drafting of the new Thai Constitution, which was promulgated in 1997. I was most honoured to be a participant in the process leading to this constitution. An accidental midwife (or mid-husband) for a child-friendly Constitution!

Some of the orientations, which may help to promote child rights and good governance, include the following:

1. Improved Selection and Capacity-building of Law Enforcers:
This implies the need to screen candidates, train them well for their tasks as law enforcers in the pursuit of "quality" law enforcement and monitor their performance. Dissemination of child rights and related laws and policies to law enforcers and the public is essential to promote greater empathy towards the child. Education and training as a preventive strategy against child rights' infringements should be maximised, and these should include information concerning HIV / AIDS.

2. More support for Good Law Enforcers and Effective Law Enforcement:
This entails raising the income of law enforcers to a reasonable level so as to prevent them from corruption, coupled with recognition and rewards for good performance. It is complemented by measures to promote more effective law enforcement, such as an alliance between good police and community leaders and organizations.

3. More Penalisation of Corruption:
This is particularly important to the area of child sexual abuse and exploitation as it is often inter-mixed with dark forces, underworld influences and officials who use the law for their own ends, needing effective counter measures.

4. More People's Participation in Decision-making, Monitoring and Implementation:
This calls for more participation of civil society and its members as watchdogs against child sexual abuse and exploitation. For instance, "Neighbourhood Watch" programmes and community volunteers for child protection can help to safeguard against the phenomenon. In regard to laws, policies and programmes, it is necessary to promote more public hearings and inquiries so that the voices of the public are heard prior to their adoption, review or reform.

5. More Checks-and-Balances:
This calls into play the possibility of rendering formal institutions and personnel more open and accountable to the public by having members of the public serve as monitors. For instance, the local police boards should have members of the public serve on them as counterparts for the formal police personnel. Some countries are also experimenting with the idea of a children's Ombudsman or equivalent mechanism which acts as a monitor against child rights' violations and which reports to Parliament for further action.

6. More Social Incentives:
All too often investment incentives such as tax relief are given to enterpreneurs wishing to invest in industries that are deemed beneficial to the economy, even though this may create negative impact for children. Too few incentives are accorded to those working for social development, such as NGOs. This situation needs to be redressed so that more incentives, such as tax relief, are given to those working for the community, especially children.

7. More Self-Regulation:
While laws are important to help eliminate child sexual abuse and exploitation, the private sector should be invited more concretely to self-monitor against abuses by the sector. This can take the form of Codes of Conduct and peer pressure, so that the sector itself can promote responsive conduct through self-regulation, and reprimand those found to be in breach.

8. More Decentralisation with Responsibility:
This calls into play the need to decentralise to the localities in terms of decision-making and resource allocations. It goes hand-in-hand with the need to encourage a sense of responsibility on the part of the localities to promote child-related projects and to foster open management and accountability towards the public.

9. More Multi-disciplinary Terms:
As child sexual abuse and exploitation arise from a variety of factors and damage both the physical and mental health of children, there is a need to promote more multi-disciplinary terms to respond to the child's needs. There is still a shortage of social workers, counsellors, doctors and psychologists who are essential for addressing not only the physical but also the mental damage inflicted on the child victim.

10. More Child-friendly and Gender-sensitive Measures:
This entails the need for more laws, policies, programmes and practices which are responsive to the child and sensitive to his and her gender. In several settings, the current administrative and legal system re-traumatises the child, and this needs to be reformed.

These ten challenges are key challenges for the ESCAP region as we progress toward the future. Some of them, I am sure, are already in your minds as policy-makers and practitioners working for both child rights and good governance. This is exemplified by the current human resources development project of ESCAP to train social development and health workers on the issue of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

In addition, initiatives are underway by other United Nations agencies, such as UNICEF, the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Development Programme, UNAIDS, the United Nations Population Fund, the World Health Organization and other agencies, which are working in concert for child rights. They are part and parcel of the need for more regional cooperation and the quest for sustainable partnerships, old and new.

Such challenges are a direct test for all of us in the call for more concrete action on behalf of children. If well implemented, empowered by a collaborative spirit and reinforced by mutual cooperation, the Asia-Pacific region will be able to pride itself on being a humane leader for the new millennium.

Message from
Anand Panyarachun
Chairman of Transparency Thailand
First published in Transparency Thailand Newsletter
Year 3 Volume 1, June 2001

Corruption is a serious problem with detrimental effect on Thai society. Alarmingly, corruption has seeped and crept its way into all regions and all segments of Thai society. Corruption multiplies and exacerbates political, social and economic problems of the nation in the worst way.

Corruption invariably has a negative impact on the lives of everyone in society, irrespective of who they are, rich or poor, good or bad, honest or dishonest. Corruption implies injustice because in the corruption process, someone is unavoidably being taken advantage of. Good management in the public or private sector is inevitably distorted when corruption takes place. The nation as a whole loses on revenue collection. The taxpayers have to bear the cost of corruption in one way or another, either directly or indirectly. Worse yet, corruption brings forth a pervasive sense of uncertainty among members of a society where goodwill and mutual trust no longer exist. When regard and respect for law and regulations dwindle among the citizenry, divisiveness and conflicts in a society would inevitably ensue. As such, society is weakened. A troubled society will have little potentials for development. Its people will find happiness and quality of life wanting.

Even though corruption has plagued Thai society for many decades, we have yet to find a way to curb or control it. Perhaps we have not tackled it in a systematic fashion and in a holistic manner. Efforts to deal with corruption in the past may have been segmented, uncoordinated and preoccupied with fighting but not preventing corruption. Much needs to be done in terms of preventing corruption especially in terms of its root causes from Thai culture and the value structure.

Corruption is deeply intertwined with values that relate to ethical and moral standards upon which social actions are predicated. We witness today changes in social values due to fierce economic competitions in society and the concomitant increase in consumerism which depicts money as supreme. Like an invincible god, money has been recognized as the basis of power, prestige and fame, resulting in seeing riches as an end in itself. We have come to lose the ability to judge right from wrong, good from bad, and desirable behaviors from undesirable behaviors. If and when a society decides that corruption is "a way of life" and an inalienable component of its culture, that society is, without a shadow of doubt, doomed because degeneration and decay will surely set in.

To solve the problem of corruption in society, a multi-pronged effort needs to be initiated. Values and ethics not amenable to corruption must be dealt with. It is crucial to have social and other mechanisms that will render corruption a very difficult and risky business. Also, strong social sanctions against corruption are absolutely vital.

Transparency Thailand is committed to foster a new conscience among Thai people that will not tolerate or accept corrupt practices but will fight corruption with determination, patience, devotion and with the collaboration from different segments of Thai society.

Anand Panyarachun

Thailand is currently at an important crossroads. Major changes are occurring in the economic, social and political spheres that will have far reaching implications for the future of this country.

With the forces of change coming from both within and outside, what will constitute Thailand’s “new normal”?

My predictions are probably as good as yours. What is clear in hindsight is that globalization, consumerism, extravagance, dishonesty, and immoderation have led to management failures in both government and business.

It is therefore time to have a better understanding of our past behaviour and how it contributed to the present situation. We should be mindful of the Sufficiency Economy thinking formulated by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej in terms of its key principles of moderation, rationality, and immunity. A better grasp of these concepts can help us confront problems or crises and find solutions.

I would like to use this occasion to suggest to you what I believe to be the four essential elements of the new normal in the development of Thailand – the elements that will contribute to true and enduring change.

Element One

The first element in Thailand’s “new normal” rests on ensuring sustainable and widespread economic development. Here I emphasize “sustainable and widespread”.

In the past, we have focused too much on the overall rate of economic growth, but neglected the quality of that growth and the equitable distribution of income and opportunities.

The Asian financial crisis of 1997, and the more recent global financial crisis, both illustrate the dangers of unbridled economic growth. We have also been reminded that growth fuelled by populist measures that disregard fiscal discipline are unsustainable and leave problems in their wake. In Thailand, the first-car purchasing and rice-pledging schemes were both examples of short-term stimulus measures. Policies of this kind are pushed by governments the world over to secure quick popular support with inadequate regard for their negative economic repercussions.

Sustainable economic development must focus on strengthening the foundations of the economy. This entails raising underlying economic competitiveness, be it through improving public sector efficiency, state enterprise reforms, developing skilled and flexible labour, or upgrading education and research.

At the same time, sustainable development requires that the fruits of economic growth be spread widely and equitably to ensure social cohesion and continued economic and political legitimacy.

Many of the problems that we currently face, including the simmering political tensions and sporadic clashes suffered in the past decade, can be traced back to the injustice and inequality inherent in our society.

Economic disparity, in itself, retards economic growth, as has been shown in numerous studies. Unless firmly addressed, inequality and injustice in their various forms will eventually hold back a country’s development and breed political upheaval, even violence. We have witnessed this to some degree in Thailand already.

Element Two

The second element in Thailand’s new normal should be to promote an open and inclusive society.

Apart from the need for more equitable distribution of income, as I just mentioned, we must also ensure equality of rights, liberties, and opportunities for all segments of society.

Liberty and equal rights are not simply about the right to vote. The demands and views of everyone must be heard and respected – not just those of the victors in elections. Majoritarian rule does not give a mandate to the winning party to do as it pleases in a winner-takes-all fashion. As the American libertarian James Bovard once observed, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Every group, every religion, every region and every rung of society must be able to participate collectively in shaping the direction of Thailand’s development. This will instil a critical sense of ownership in our nation’s destiny that will compel each and every member of society to keep the state under constant scrutiny.

The demands and views of all groups, not just those in power or positions of authority, must be heard and respected. As a people, we tend to see things strictly in black and white – right or wrong. Often in life, there is no absolute right or wrong, just different perspectives and judgments.

The role of the media in serving as an unbiased and objective platform for voicing different views and perspectives in a balanced manner is also critical. Modern technology has opened up unprecedented space for public discourse. In the vast marketplace of ideas, not everything is of equal value. So long as our institutions enable people to understand how to assess ideas in this marketplace – selecting the rigorous and rejecting the shoddy, democracy is not only sustained, it thrives.

As Thailand approaches elections in the near future, it will be imperative for the winners to consider themselves representatives of the entire country, and not just of the people who voted them in. They have a duty to address the concerns of all interest groups and promote consensus in society. Striking that balance is an art. I hope all political parties have learned important lessons from our painful past, and will do their utmost to pursue this vital principle of governance.

Element Three

The third element of the new normal in Thailand is respect for the rule of law. This goes beyond simply the application of the law. It requires adherence to both the spirit of the law as well as its underlying moral principles.

The World Justice Project has attempted to make global comparisons of the rule of law. The figures for 2015 see the four top places occupied by the Nordic countries: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. With a score of 0.52 out of one, Thailand ranks 56th among 102 countries and 11th out of 15 in the region. Thailand trails the Philippines, Greece and Ghana, and this should remind us that we still have far to travel on our journey to attaining the rule of law.

Every individual and organization, private and public, and even the government itself, must be subject to the law.

The legislative and enforcement processes must be transparent and just. The judicial system must be neutral, independent, efficient, and have full integrity.

Importantly, the law must not be used as a means for attaining political goals. State actions must not be arbitrary and based on whims. Dissidents must not be prosecuted or deprived of their legal rights. The human rights of every citizen must be strictly upheld across the board.

Lawful governance does not imply using the law to govern people or enforce the state’s will. We must have rule of law rather than rule by law.

Here in Thailand, a semblance of calm and stability belies tensions beneath the surface. Society cannot flourish in the long run if order and stability are rooted in measures that inhibit public discourse. When order and stability are imposed rather than allowed to emerge naturally in accordance with the rules and norms of society, there can be no transparency.

When the rule of law is weak, corruption flourishes. Democracy becomes dysfunctional when politicians, civil servants, the private sector, the judiciary, the police, and the military use their power to enrich themselves and advance their own interests at the expense of civil society.

We read about the impunity of the rich and powerful in our newspapers every day. An independent and neutral judiciary is fundamental to the rule of law. If judges use one law for the powerful and another for the powerless, the entire political and judicial system is compromised, and the people’s trust in the government to see justice served is eroded.

The rule of law demands public responsibility and the transparency of state institutions and their personnel. A government that is not held accountable, not answerable to anyone, and whose actions are not subject to public scrutiny, is more likely to abuse its power and disregard the public interest.

Element Four

Governance through the rule of law together with public accountability and transparency form the basis of responsible government. This is related to the fourth and final element of the new normal that I would like to talk about, namely the need to recalibrate the balance of power between the state and the people.

Responsive government lies at the core of true democracy. It can occur only when there is comprehensive decentralization and local political empowerment. The closer a government is to the people governed, the more responsive the government will be.

A centralized system of governance cannot keep pace with the increasing complexity of today’s society. Decentralization enables the participation of more diverse interest groups and represents one way to curb the concentration of power and influence exercised by political forces.

By decentralization, I do not mean the distribution of power to local government bodies that report to the central authority. I mean dispersion of power directly into the hands of the people or their representatives.

In the past, we have established local institutions but always retained centralized control over them. Going forward, we must reform these local bodies so that they become answerable to the needs and demands of the local populace, rather than to the central government.

The heart of democracy beats only with the participation of all citizens in exercising their rights on issues that affect them directly. They must be well informed on these issues if there is to be ‘active citizenship’. In each locality, province, and region, the demands and solutions to various challenges may or may not be similar. The formulation of policies and plans of action should give precedence to the input of local communities.

The success of decentralization hinges on a balanced and diverse flow of information, which brings me next to the crucial role of civil society. An active civil society provides a mechanism whereby the collective views of citizens can shape and influence government policy. By bringing arguments and information into the public domain, policies can be examined and challenged. A genuinely democratic government will feel obliged to present counterarguments or to modify its position. Such interactions are healthy for democracy, and enhance the decision-making process.

A vibrant civil society relies on the wisdom of the populace and its ability to make rational and informed decisions. Democracy becomes a force for meaningful progress when voters not only understand the issues at hand, but are also conscious of their context, the various alternatives available, as well as their responsibilities as democratic citizens. We must therefore urgently reform our education system from one that simply produces graduates to one that nurtures the ability of people to think critically and make constructive changes in society.

There has been much discussion on this topic over the years but little tangible progress. We must take a step back and carefully reassess our fundamental approach. No one here, or anywhere else for that matter, can predict with confidence what that world will be like five years from now, let alone in that distant future. Yet we are tasked with educating our children for that world – to ensure they are equipped to solve the problems of their time.

In my view, the best way to do this is to shift the emphasis of education away from memorizing facts and rote learning to focus instead on nurturing creativity and adaptability. This all starts with getting teachers to teach less, encouraging students to read more diversely, and ensuring teachers engage in dialogues with students. The main focus should not be on getting the right answer but on instilling confidence to think problems through, to voice opinions and to articulate reasoned arguments.

In an age where a staggering amount of information is available at the touch of a button or the swipe of a smartphone, learning will be more important than knowing. If our children are to be able to solve the complex problems of the future – and climate change is but one – they will need a high degree of creativity. This is something I feel has been sadly neglected so far.

The enemy of creativity is the fear of being wrong or making mistakes. I believe every child is born with an immense amount of creativity and the capacity to innovate. But an education system that stigmatizes mistakes, focuses on correct answers, and penalizes wrong ones, serves to retard creativity. By the time children grow into adults, they have been deprived of their creative impulse by the fear of being wrong.

Innovation does not come from a fear of being wrong. On the contrary, the courage to risk making mistakes, the relentless process of trial and error, and the ability to bounce back from repeated failures are the seeds of innovation and advancement. Let us not forget that the iPhone many of you carry around was regarded with some scepticism when it was first released in 2007. Its success is a testament to Steve Jobs’ willingness to be wrong rather than his fear of not being right.

An education system that promotes good learning skills in children will contribute to a citizenry capable of grasping issues of concern and placing them in the right context. This contributes to well-informed, rational decisions, and helps ensure that the responsibilities of society under democratic rule are met.

A New Normal for Thailand

What I have laid out so far is a vision for a new normal for Thailand built upon the foundations of democratic governance. It broadly represents a framework for governance that Thailand has lacked up to now.

We have a tendency to focus on democracy in form rather than in substance. We follow procedures and go through the motions of elections. Yet we have paid little attention to developing the institutions that are critical to sustaining democracy. The challenges that we are presently facing have their roots in the fact that we have never had a true democratic transition – a genuine change in our political system.

Change has always been superficial, old wine in a new bottle – or you could even say old wine in an old bottle but with a new cork. Critically, we have not dug deeply enough to uncover the true underlying cause of current divisions in Thai society.

Much of this is not related to the actual policies of governments, present or past, nor is it about a fight between pro-government or anti-government forces. Rather it is about poverty, social injustice, unequal rights and opportunities, and about the way power is divided between the state and the people – or even among groups of people.

Thais have traditionally been good at creating problems. Some say that they are also good at solving them, but is this not really a bit of a myth? Our development path has been one of muddling along, an ‘ad-hocracy’ you might say. Little has been done in the way of strategic long-term planning or effective implementation.

While substantial progress has been achieved in terms of economic development, we have not taken sufficient note of its negative political and social impact. At this juncture, it has become patently clear that many of our economic, social and political institutions are inadequate when faced with the challenges of globalization. We have simply not kept up. Rather than face up to our problems, we Thais often yearn for a knight in shining armour to ride to the rescue. But the time for that kind of ‘I-know-best’ style of management has passed.

The Road to Reform

To make headway towards the new normal that I have described, we must embark on comprehensive structural reforms now.

Successful reforms often result from leveraging on opportunities that arise, such as at times of crisis. I have always held the view that we did not make the most of the 1997 financial crisis.

Thus at this point we should not waste time debating where we are, or if we got here in the right or wrong way. These are important and legitimate questions that deserve reflection, but they should not prevent us from moving forward or seeking solutions to the problems at hand.

A reform strategy must always be assessed within the context of the bigger picture. In the past, the main thrust has been through constitutional reform, which is not ideal and may even be counterproductive. We have been rather profligate with our constitutions. We are on our 19th in the space of 83 years – which happens to coincide exactly with my age.

I was involved in drafting Thailand’s 1997 constitution, which for the first time involved broad-based public participation. I had hoped it would make Thai democracy more open, transparent and accountable, and that electoral reforms would limit money politics and corruption.

That said, I have always recognized that a constitution is not a silver bullet for all that ails society. For a constitution to make a real difference, society must first embrace the underlying values it espouses. A constitution alone cannot bring about meaningful change without the necessary reforms to other key democratic pillars, particularly political institutions and the people’s mindset.

Structural reform is a continuous process rather than a one-shot exercise. It might begin with drafting a new constitution, but the process must evolve. We must not imagine that certain initiatives today will bring about lasting change and forever resolve prevailing problems. There are no once-and-for-all solutions.

There is no unique blueprint for reforms to bring about true democracy. The seeds of democracy must be sown from within each society for the shoots to be accepted and nurtured. People must want democracy for it to take hold. As Mahatma Gandhi once observed, “The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.”

The elements of democratic governance that I have outlined can serve as overarching supports to encourage democracy to evolve meaningfully.

As a nation, we have come far, and there is no turning back to the way things were. Change is inevitable and permanent. Each and every one of us has a stake in the future of our country. We must forge a collective vision that is progressive and contributes to change that is constructive.

Democratic governance is ultimately a state of mind, rather than a set of tangible rules or procedures. Over and above the implementation of critical reforms, moving forward requires that we fundamentally change our way of thinking, attitudes, and mindsets to embrace openness, a diversity of views, as well as values that support societal change.

Democratic governance opens up channels through which the diversity in our society can come together to advance political, economic and social development. It thus represents the most direct route to true sustainability. That is my hope for Thailand’s new normal.