Postcards from Thailand

On February 8th our fragrant lady Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, was spotted heading upstairs in the Four Seasons hotel. The businessman who spotted her secret visit whilst sitting in the hotel’s coffee shop was attacked immediately after she left, though that obviously is a coincidence. After all, people get beaten up and have a gun drawn on them in five star luxury hotel coffee shops all the time.

When the news leaked out some smutty minds thought she might be having a secret tryst when she should have been appearing in parliament. (Though not legally married, she lives in sin with a man and has a son by him.) When it was further revealed that there were actually seven men there with her in the hotel room, the same smutty minds leapt to the obvious conclusion that she has a Snow White fetish. Kinky!

Two weeks later the Prime Ministeress revealed the truth on her Facebook page: she was having a meeting with prominent business executives. She made it absolutely clear that the meeting was not in the slightest unethical, and certainly didn’t involved any conflict of interest, and most definitely did not in any way shape or form concern the valuation of land to be used as floodways or water retention areas, which is good.

So far the only businessman who has revealed he was at the meeting is the President of Sansiri, a major real estate developer that happens to have built lots of moobaans on the floodway to the north and east of Bangkok and which could potentially be very badly affected by the government’s flood prevention plans.

I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence, but since the end of last year the Sansiri share price has risen 61%. (For comparison, the share price of Land & House – a very similar company, but without heavy investment on the floodway – has risen 10%. The SET index over the same period has risen 12%) No hint of dodgy dealings here whatsoever.

***

During last week’s televised parliamentary debate Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm appeared unsteady on his feet, slurred his words, had a flushed face, and repeatedly harangued the leader of the opposition. One MP rushed to the outrageous conclusion that he was drunk – though the fact the she thought he smelled of booze might have prompted her in the direction.

When he sobered up Chalerm later explained that he suffered from an inner ear condition which made him unsteady on his feet. So that’s all right, then.

His response to the scurrilous accusation of his having been three sheets to the wind has been to start legal action against seven newspapers and a couple of opposition MPs. He said “I am not trying to intimidate the press. I am only preserving my rights.” So that’s all right, too.

[597]

Late last year a gang of thieves broke into the house of a civil servant, Supoj Saplom, whilst he was attending his daughter’s wedding. They were rather surprised to find sacks of cash all over the place – an estimated total value of somewhere between 700 million and 1 billion baht (that’s £14.6 to £20.9 million). They weren’t equipped to steal such a large sum, so just grabbed what they could and fled the scene.

Supoj initially claimed that just one million Baht had been stolen, though later changed his story to say it was his daughter’s sinsot (bride price). It seems a little strange though that more than 17 million Baht has been recovered from those gang members who have so far been arrested.

It also is a little strange that the bands on the notes recovered apparently relate to money for certain state railway projects, and Supoj just happens to be Permanent Secretary for Transport.

On investigation, it turned out that his personal bank accounts had about 20 million Baht (£420,000) in them, but Supoj claims that this was money he received for working overtime. (It seems civil servants are surprisingly well remunerated.)

The panel charged with investigating Supoj’s surprising riches has now decided to abandon its investigation, being unable to determine the source of his wealth.

There are a number of possible explanations for what happened. The following spring to mind:

1. There never was all that money, and he was set up by someone bearing a grudge
2. He was “looking after” the money for someone more powerful the he
3. He has the sort of friends who can influence the outcome of official investigations.

Whatever the truth, it all looks rather fishy.

And the fact that the investigation has been closed down after only three months suggests that the government isn’t all that interested in tackling corruption – so no surprise there.

[596]

There was a news story that caused me to draw me up short. It concerned a woman who had tried to steal from a donation box at Wat Kasattrathirat Worawihan in Ayutthaya. It’s a temple I know well; I used regularly to drive through it on the way to a favourite riverside restaurant. The shock, however, wasn’t so much the crime, but the woman’s circumstances. Her husband had left her. She had lost her job due to the flooding. And she was seven months pregnant – so no one would employ her and she had looming medical bills. She also has a ten year old son to look after.

It made me think of the old woman in a cheap polyester dress who used to scavenge through the dustbins at my moobaan in Ayutthaya. It made me think of the mentally ill man, skin grained black with dirt with long, matted hair, who wanders along Sukhumwit Road wearing home-made trousers – nothing more than a couple of rubber flaps tied together – with his behind hanging out. It made me think of the couple, clad in rags, who sat outside 7-eleven begging day in, day out.

There is no state provision here to care for the most desperately needy in society. If you don’t have family to fall back on. If you can’t root your way through garbage to find plastic bottles and paper to sell. If you have nothing, then robbing a donation box might be your only option.

The woman was caught red-handed. The temple’s abbot, with true Buddhist compassion, decided to let her go free.

But still, like the poorest and most vulnerable in society, she’s still living without any safety net.

***

It’s not only Thais who can end up in dire straights. There are at least two westerners living on the streets of Bangkok. One is clearly mentally ill and has long, rambling conversations with himself. The other lives under a pedestrian overpass, though somehow manages to scrape enough money together for beer and cigarettes. And there’s an elderly gentleman who has senile dementia. His wife and family have found his increasingly cantankerous attitude unbearable and have abandoned him. He lives alone in an apartment, unable to care for himself.

Needless to say, the embassies of the countries these people are nationals of have done nothing to help.

***

Coming from Europe, where everyone has a right to be looked after, from cradle to grave, I find the lack of any social support rather shocking; there it’s a given that you’ll have free access to medical treatment, free education and some sort of state-provided income if jobless. Surely the way a society looks after its weakest and most vulnerable is its true measure. Perhaps if I’d been born American I’d have a different viewpoint, given that in the world’s richest country it’s still possible for people to die for lack of access to medical treatment and millions go to bed hungry*, a place where 38% of Negro children and 35% of Hispanic children live in poverty**. Still, you wouldn’t want the obscenely wealthy there to pay a little more in taxes to help the poorest and most desperate in society. That would be socialism.

* In 2010 14.5% of Americans were food-insecure at some time during the year. Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR125/
** Source: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

[592]

In Thailand it’s not unusual to see children working in restaurants – some looking as young as 4 or 5. They, presumably sons and daughters of the owners and staff, take orders and deliver food, sometimes late into the night. Not a great situation, but far worse happens behind the doors of garment factories and seafood processing plants. It’s not unusual for 11 and 12 year olds to be working 12 or more hours a day. (That’s below legal minimum working age of 13 – but enforcement of the law is lax.)

Thailand is on a US watchlist because of its child labour situation. The government’s response has been to draft a list of dangerous work. It includes:

• Working night shifts between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m..
• Working in a slaughterhouse
• Working on scaffolding above 10 metres. (It’s apparently OK for a child to fall from 9 metres as it will bounce.)
• Working on a fishing trawler

It’s rather horrific to think that there must be children doing these things if the government needs to include them on a list – not that the list will make any difference to these children’s lives whatsoever. (Living in Thailand makes one very cynical about the police when it comes to suppressing crime. They’re excellent at running illegal gambling dens, taking bribes, and extorting money, though.)

What is rather strange, though, is that the Thai government appears to be concerned about what the American government thinks. After all, the Prime Minister last month appointed Nalinee Taveesin to the Cabinet, even though she is subject to US sanctions for facilitating gem trading, real estate transactions and financial transactions for the Mugabe regime.

[590]