Yingluck

The pre-election polls predicted it. The exit polls confirmed it. The actual count, available by today, should formalize it.

Yingluck Shinawatra, younger sister of exiled former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, won last Sunday’s election by a landslide. Yingluck’s Pheu Thai party is expected to control 313 seats in the 500-seat parliament. That is much more than the absolute majority the new party needs to exercise full political control. The victorious new party swamped the incumbent Democratic Party two-to-one.

Although his name was not on the ballot, Thaksin’s personality dominated this election campaign. The decisive outcome may be considered his political vindication.

Five years ago, Thaksin was ousted by a military coup. His party, the Thai Rak Thai, was banned and demobilized. His assets were seized and numerous corruption charges were piled upon him.

In elections called after a brief period of military control, Abhisit Vejjajiva’s Democratic Party gained majority control of the Thai parliament. He represented better, more modern, governance and, more importantly, was considered strongly supported by the monarchy.

Abhisit’s years as prime minister were characterized by intense political turmoil. There were demonstrations and counter-demonstrations between the anti-Thaksin “yellow shirts” and pro-Thaksin “red shirts.” Once the “red shirts” occupied central Bangkok for weeks and, on another instance, the “yellow shirts” took over the new airport and shut it down.

The political turbulence once forced the cancellation of an Asean summit meeting a few years ago. Political uncertainty weighed heavily on the performance of the Thai economy. The effects of the recent global recession on the lives of the Thai people furthermore undermined the base of support for Abhisit’s government.

In last Sunday’s election, he enjoyed the support of the Bangkok middle classes, the military and the king. Those were obviously not enough to save him from the political tsunami driven by a longing for a return to the populist patronage politics that Thaksin represented.

Thaksin may be unpopular among the cosmopolitan people of Bangkok. They see him as a reckless populist who bought popular support by giving away state resources to the poor. My Thai friends tell me that by dishing out so much patronage, Thaksin earned the ire of King Bhumipol because he usurped the traditional role of the monarchy as the main patron for the whole society. The king’s evident disdain encouraged the military to step in and depose the populist prime minister.

Outside Bangkok, however, Thaksin remains a well-loved figure. He is remembered for condoning the debts of farmers and disseminating capital for communities to start up their small enterprises. The thousands of small community enterprises funded by the Thaksin government created millions of jobs and improved rural incomes palpably.

The One Town, One Product (OTOP) program Thaksin started has been copied here in a program with the same name administered by the DTI. Our version of this highly successful Thai program has had little success because of one missing crucial ingredient: the dissemination of state funds to capitalize the rural enterprises.

The continuation of the OTOP program does not seem to enjoy high priority under the Aquino administration. Instead, in its place, we have expanded the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program to arrest the long-term debilitating impact of poverty and prop up consumer demand among the lowest income brackets. The CCT, its critics point out, does not create jobs to justify the borrowed money used to fund it. But, like the OTOP, it does buy political support.

We are not sure if Yingluck’s landslide victory will mean a restoration of the populist Thaksin-era policies. That is certainly the expectation of the provincial bases of political support for the unabashedly pro-Thaksin party.

What is more certain is that last Sunday’s electoral outcome will unlikely end the political polarization Thaksin’s emphatic political presence fostered. Although her immense mandate enables Yingluck to begin crafting the politics of conciliation, her base of votes will demand precisely the populist polices that once before brought problems for her elder brother.

Bigger footprint

Unfortunately, most of the decisions we have to make regarding the protection of our environment entail risks and costs either way.

When the 117-kilometer oil pipeline sprung a leak beneath the West Tower condominium, there was much remediation to be done. The incident sparked knee-jerk demands for the pipeline to be permanently shut down — even after it has been repaired and reinforced by FPIC, owner of that pipeline.

Shutting down the pipeline, unfortunately, will entail even larger costs. Fuel will have to be hauled all the way from the Batangas port to the Pandacan depots. That will involve thousands of tankers moving around the clock.

Hauling all the oil we need by truck is much more expensive and the costs are to be borne by consumers — and eventually the whole economy. All those trucks hauling oil around the clock entails a much larger carbon footprint. The method likewise raises the risks for accidents in moving flammable products on our crowded roads. It also adds to traffic congestion — and even more fuel wastage. The adverse economic and ecological impact is much more magnified if we do not return to the inherent efficiency of the pipeline.

A return to the more economical option of using the pipeline, to be sure, involves a large trust issue. The unfortunate accident beneath the West Tower condominium taxed our trust for FPIC’s capability to ensure safe operation of the pipeline. FPIC will have to regain the public’s trust that the corporation will spare no expense at ensuring safety so that critical support for reopening the pipeline might be won.

Reopening that pipeline is, after all, the better option for all of us.