Thailand in 1995: The More Things Change, The More They Remain the Same

Summary

Nineteen ninety-five was a frustrating year for those who had high hopes for democratization in Thailand as the more things changed, the more they remained the same. The year saw a political crisis being resolved by democratic and parliamentary means — through an election — rather than by a military coup. It resulted in the smooth and peaceful transfer of power from the government of Chuan Leekpai, leader of the Democrat Party, to one led by Banharn Silpa-archa, leader of the Chart Thai (CT) party. But while the process represented a step forward for Thai democracy, the results of the election were, for democracy advocates, a step backwards. The main winners were rural-based, old-style patronage politicians, some of whom had been in the 1988–91 Chatichai government which had been accused of being very corrupt. Their presence in the new government raised concerns that history would repeat itself.

The Downfall of the Chuan Government

After two relatively successful years in power, the Chuan government found itself in a series of troubles beginning in late 1994. The most serious stemmed from allegations of irregularities in the handling of a land reform scheme that was originally intended to benefit poor landless farmers. The opposition and press pounced on the government after it was discovered that one of the beneficiaries of the scheme in the southern resort island of Phuket was the husband of a local Democrat Member of Parliament (MP), who was formerly secretary to the Deputy Agriculture Minister, Suthep Tuaksuban. The opposition's attempt to grill the Democrat Agriculture Minister and his deputy in December was thwarted when the two men resigned before the parliamentary debate on the issue could take place. However, the government was kept on the defensive by opposition charges that much of the land under the land-reform scheme handed out in Phuket had gone to wealthy families associated with Democrat politicians rather than to poor farmers.

Chuan tried to defend the government's implementation of the scheme, insisting that there was no irregularity involved.