Singaporeans observing the Thai political crisis might be a little bewildered at the sight of their embassy in Bangkok being besieged.

The Republic has become embroiled in Thailand's internal affairs, as a 'proxy target' in the present stand-off.

The underlying tension stems from two contrasting views of how politics in Thailand has been played out in recent years.

On one side is the embattled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who pulled off a major political feat just last year when he became the first Thai prime minister to complete his term and win re-election, and by a landslide.

Also, at least some of the credit for the present healthy state of the Thai economy must surely go to him. He has also given to Thailand's long-neglected rural poor not only economic gains and cheap medical care, but also a sense that they too might benefit from the political system, not just the Bangkok elites.

In the opposing camp is the anti-Thaksin crowd, who accuse him of amassing and abusing power, being corrupt and serving his own business interests, and undermining key national institutions.

To this disparate group, nothing short of his resignation and exit from politics will do. They reject fresh elections because Thaksin is likely to win; they dismiss all talk of compromise, because that would perpetuate a political status quo which they see as fundamentally flawed.

This clash of political world views was well-captured in a December 2005 paper by Professor Duncan McCargo of Leeds University, in the Pacific Review.

He points to how Mr Thaksin has systematically replaced Thailand's old traditional power network with his own, 'playing according to completely different rules and ideas, favouring a mode of leadership which left little space for rival players'.

But Mr Thaksin not only displaced the traditional elites, he also alienated - wittingly or otherwise - many of them. He told academics to 'go back to the library' and was dismissive of the bureaucracy which was at odds sometimes with his CEO-style of government.

This built up resentment among segments of the Thai political, intellectual, business and public sectors.

So visceral is the reaction that some of his more flamboyant critics have likened Mr Thaksin to Adolf Hitler.

Argued Dr Banjerd Sinthudecha of Thammasat University's law faculty 'What makes Thaksin different from Adolf Hitler is that Hitler did not do things for his own benefit.

'Hitler killed Jews but he did several things for his country. He was more useful for the country than Thaksin was.'

The charge is breathtaking. Mr Thaksin, as bad as Hitler, who killed millions of Jews and sparked a devastating world war?

The protesters' demands are just as sweeping. They have issued several ultimatums and set deadline after deadline for Mr Thaksin to step down, threatening ever more dire consequences if he did not. Their latest is a plan to hold their most massive demonstration in Bangkok tonight.

Yet, the latest Abac poll published on Wednesday in The Nation newspaper, hardly a Thaksin booster, showed that 46 per cent of those polled did not think he should step down, with 32 per cent in favour of him doing so.

Some 77 per cent said they wanted an end to the demonstrations taking place in Bangkok, with just 37 per cent believing that the King should appoint a new PM.

Clearly, many Thais are only too aware that, revered as the King is, the implications of royal intervention to resolve a political crisis sparked by mobs in the street are grave indeed for Thailand's fledgling democracy.

The nub of the issue is this Should the democratic will of the Thai people be thwarted - or over-ridden - because the democratic system itself has been undermined?

Where you stand on this question rests on whether you think Mr Thaksin and his rule has indeed been as bad as his critics make out.

As I see it, it has not. For all his faults, unseating him through protests in the streets will be a major setback for Thailand, as well as for democratic development in this part of the world.

Of course, how the situation is resolved is for the Thai people - all of them, not a select and self-appointed few - to decide.

But the situation in Thailand is not without lessons for others, including here in Singapore.

First, it points to the need for leaders to maintain support of critical segments of society if they are to govern effectively.

One of Mr Thaksin's big mistakes, it seems to me, was to assume that because he had won power, this translated automatically into the ability to govern and get things done, as if he were still running a business.

But no one can run a modern democracy without the support of key players in society - in parliament, the civil service, the unions, opinion shapers in the intelligentsia, academia, civic society and the media.

Or, to put it another way, as the Beatles would say 'Money can't buy me love.'

Secondly, apart from just holding elections, democracies need to be underpinned by practices, habits and norms which shape - perhaps even limit - the exercise of power and promote what Harvard professor Amartya Sen calls 'government by discussion' among various groups in society.

Third, it is also worth pondering just how Singaporeans might respond to a crisis similar to the one playing out in Thailand.

Would our political system fare better?

After all, the picture of political abuse that has been painted by Thai opposition groups - of populist leaders plundering the country and undermining institutions - sounds very much like the nightmare scenario that is often cited by political leaders here to explain the need for an elected president.

Would Singapore's fledgling institutions - its political parties, the elected president, civic society, academics, the media - be able to handle such a crisis if put to the test?

Perhaps. With each passing year, as society here matures and more are drawn into the political process, the chances of Singapore weathering such a storm improve.

But I do worry sometimes, not least because it has become so commonplace - and fashionable - among the young in this country to declare how 'boring' they find all things political.

Indeed, a recent survey by this newspaper of young Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34 saw half of those polled saying they had no interest in politics. About half could not name their MP and four in 10 could not name their constituency.

Despite this, seven in 10 said they are keen to vote at the coming General Election. Four in 10 would be disappointed if they did not get to vote because there is a walkover in their constituency.

Now, how to square this circle of young people saying they are not interested in knowing what's going on politically, but insisting they be given a say nonetheless?

So, like many others, I too would be disappointed if there are more walkovers in the coming polls.

Not only because a contest will put candidates through an electoral test, but more importantly, as it will provide a crucial opportunity for voters to get involved in the political process.

It is only through constant engagement that Singaporeans will learn not to be easily swayed by political rhetoric, or how to suss out vested interests, challenge conventional wisdom and avoid groupthink, form sound political judgments of their own and not just go with the flow of mob rule.

It would be tragic if a lack of interest - and practice - gave rise not just to a cohort of 'election virgin MPs', but also a generation of political novices, unpractised and inexperienced in the political ways of the world, who might be found wanting should a Thai-style crisis hit Singapore someday.

It could happen.

* * * * *

5 April 2006
Straits Times editorial

The Thai political stand-off has veered in a direction not quite expected and possibly damaging to the country's political culture. Months after holding firm against opposition barracking over allegations of abuse of office, and days after winning his third consecutive parliamentary election, Mr Thaksin Shinawatra unaccountably caved in yesterday. He would step down as prime minister as soon as the new Parliament chosen after Sunday's election convenes to choose the new premier. This could take weeks as staggered by-elections for a number of seats are being readied under the country's convoluted election laws. The resignation decision was made after Mr Thaksin met King Bhumibol Adulyadej late in the afternoon. Question Was he pushed or did he offer to step aside? It may not matter that much, except that the timing and the resignation itself were very odd considering his Thai Rak Thai party had won the election handily.

For now, this development has satisfied the opposition bloc's latest demand that he not lead the government when Parliament is convened as soon as constitutional requirements on unfilled seats are met. Beyond that, whether a new ballot is called within two years - as Mr Thaksin offered on Monday if the street protests were ended - is conjecture. Whatever the permutations, mob rule has triumphed. Mr Thaksin's enforced departure is not a nod to popular wishes, as his party had received a majority of 57 per cent of the vote in Sunday's ballot. Although opposition parties led by the Democrat Party took no part in the election on the reasoning that it was a sham, the ruling party had been faithful to democratic principles. Rather, this was a surrender to street justice. Thais may rue the day a determined opposition and a coalition of civic groups were permitted to force out an elected civilian prime minister on the basis of allegations that had not been put to scrutiny.

What now? The triumphant Democrats, as the principal opposition entity, have to quickly discharge their debt to those Thais not enamoured of their politics of rough justice. Quite how they could perform a constitutional role is a misnomer as they have no representation in the new Parliament. It is a confused situation. As for Mr Thaksin, it may turn out to be his finest hour if indeed he had sacrificed himself to save Thailand from itself. But was Thailand ever at the edge?

* * * * *

6 April 2006
Straits Times

Savvy businessman brought life to economy but his grip on politics divided the nation
By Nirmal Ghosh, Thailand Correspondent

Bangkok - Mr Thaksin Shinawatra often told people he knew how to make money.

'I can turn paper into cash!' he shouted into microphones in a hundred dusty villages during his election campaign last year - and many loved him for it.

His awkward English is misleading; speaking before an audience in Thai, he is fluent and charismatic, his blunt down-home style connecting instantly.

A billionaire telecoms tycoon before turning to politics, Mr Thaksin, now 56, brought to politics the dynamic, entrepreneurial and risk-taking management style that had built his business - the sprawling Shin Corp conglomerate - into one of Thailand's largest corporations.

And behind him stood a woman many reckon is one of Thailand's most powerful - Khunying Pojamarn Shinawatra, whom he often credits for his success.

Mr Thaksin ran Thai Rak Thai, the party he founded in 1998, like a corporation. It merged with or acquired smaller political rivals and factions until only two parties were left standing against it - the Democrat Party and Chart Thai.

The Mahachon emerged as a third for last year's elections, but saw a dismal start.

Mr Thaksin did much to revive the Thai economy, jolting it into life and giving it a sense of policy direction after the body blows of the 1997-98 Asian financial crash.

With the help of his chief ideologue Pansak Vinyaratn and economic and marketing strategist Somkid Jatusripitak, he devised schemes that boosted demand by putting money into the hands of the poor in the form of debt relief and microcredit.

By early 2003, Thailand was well into an export- and consumer-led recovery.

Mr Thaksin also paid off Thailand's debt to the International Monetary Fund ahead of time, trumpeting it to the country in a live TV address in which he declared 'independence' from the IMF.

This played well with the Thai people, for whom the 1997 financial crisis - when a once-booming Thai economy was brought down abruptly - was a major blow to the collective psyche.

His easy credit schemes won him the gratitude of the poor, who were glad to be out of the clutches of loan sharks who charged 20 per cent to 25 per cent interest per month; far better to be in debt to government agencies for a fraction of that crippling interest rate.

His 30 baht (S$1.26) health-care scheme drew howls of protest from hospital administrators and doctors, who cut back on beds and budgets.

Mr Thaksin barrelled ahead anyway, and it proved one of his most popular policies. For just 30 baht, any Thai could go to a government hospital and receive diagnosis, treatment and medication.

But along the way, clouds gathered because of Mr Thaksin's style and tactics.

Economists said his populist schemes were only sustainable so long as the economy was growing; any slump and the money would dry up. But Mr Thaksin brushed off their advice.

In his 2003 war on drugs, launched to rein in Thailand's huge amphetamine problem, police were given targets for arrests and set out to meet them. It turned out to be a bloody affair; the death toll was more than 2,000.

Some were innocents shot by mistake. Police said the rest were killed by officers in self defence or by other gang members as drug cartels imploded.

But it was clear to observers that summary justice was being meted out - and not always to the right people.

The intelligentsia was appalled. When a United Nations envoy made a critical remark, Mr Thaksin, a former police lieutenant-colonel, famously snapped 'The UN is not my father.'

He was emboldened by opinion polls, which showed that Thais were consistently in favour of the war on drugs.

The Premier, with a firm grasp of his electorate's sentiments, knew human rights was not an issue for ordinary folk, who thought drug pushers were a menace.

Mr Thaksin's dismantling of a joint military-civilian command structure in the troubled southern provinces also created a serious blowback.

The dormant separatist insurgency resurfaced in league with local criminal gangs. Brutal crackdowns by Thai security forces incensed ethnic Malay communities of the southern border provinces.

Mr Thaksin's insensitive remarks about Muslims further inflamed sentiments. As the insurgency rumbled on, the Thai Rak Thai was wiped out by the Democrat Party in the southernmost provinces in last year's elections.

Mr Thaksin rarely bothered to attend Parliament, where his party controlled 377 out of 500 seats.

Institutional checks and balances were eroded. The National Counter Corruption Commission - a key watchdog agency - ceased to function last year. The National Human Rights Commission was ignored. The Senate became toothless; word went out that around a quarter of the 200 senators were somehow beholden to Mr Thaksin.

He bought over or co-opted the electronic media. He snapped at journalists and critics, including some of Thai society's most respected figures.

Mr Thaksin made history by becoming the only Thai leader to be elected prime minister twice in a row - the second time by a landslide.

He replaced old power networks with those of his own and brought a new hands-on style to governance that the Thai masses had never seen.

'So what if there is vote buying. All political parties buy votes. So long as he does something for us, that is fine; no prime minister ever bothered to show up here before,' a villager in the north-eastern province of Udon Thani once told The Straits Times.

This month, the refrain in Mr Thaksin's upcountry rural strongholds remained the same. They appreciated drug suppression and loved the 30 baht scheme. They were happy to be free of loan sharks, and they liked firm decisive government.

But in the end, Mr Thaksin's very strength - his total dominance of the system - turned out to be his weakness as other powerful figures saw their wings clipped and their space reduced.