This site contains a partial archive of my past articles from the South China Morning Post, TIME Asia, Newsweek Asia, Asiaweek, Project Syndicate, and other publications. I also post additional material from time to time on my blog site.
Copyright to these articles is held by the publications in which they appeared, and may not be republished without prior written consent.
Thaksin and the Lessons of Hong Kong
Project Syndicate | Mar 1, 2008
By Sin-ming Shaw
HONG KONG – Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was gracious when he ended his exile in Hong Kong: “Thank you, Hong Kong, for having me here, so warmly. Hong Kong is a destination where I would always like to come.”
If Thaksin is sincere, he could serve Thailand by bringing back a few of his host city’s more admirable virtues. Two stand out: a largely uncorrupt, efficient, transparent, and accountable government, and an open and competitive economy.
Hong Kong is, of course, by no means perfect: Mainland China’s politics and habits are slowly infecting the island. Nevertheless, Transparency International, the world’s premier corruption rating agency, ranked Hong Kong as the 14th cleanest society in 2007.
From 2001 when Thaksin first became prime minister, to 2007 under military rule, Thailand’s corruption ranking plunged from an already low 61 to 84, which puts the country in the same league as Gabon and Swaziland, two countries notorious for violent and corrupt leaders who routinely trample on their citizens’ rights.
Thailand’s public sector is historically plagued by frequent military coups, managed with rare exception by incompetent generals and civilians who rule with condescension towards the people who pay them to serve. Public accountability, government transparency, and official integrity remain largely slogans.
Thailand was once touted as a future “Asian Tiger.” None of the four “tiger” economies – Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea – were as blessed with natural resources and fertile soil. And, unlike Thailand, all of them had suffered from war or internal strife. Yet, even the most cursory analysis reveals the vast gap in economic performance between them and Thailand in the past 50 years.
The cause is obvious: the inferior quality of governance in Thailand. While a relatively small business, military, and political elite misgoverned Thailand – often cynically, and sometimes incompetently – others in Asia, with more selfless and competent public servants, succeeded in finding their competitive niche in the modern world. Much of Asia, including China, focused on meeting the challenge of globalization, whereas Thailand’s elite has protected the country’s economy to serve its parochial interests.
Thus, in the Heritage Foundation’s annual rankings of countries by how free and competitive their economies are, Thailand routinely comes up short. In 2007, Thailand was ranked 54th, compared to first and second place for Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively. Taiwan was ranked 25th and Korea 41st.
Korea’s relatively low ranking reflects the inclusion of North Korea. Yet several South Korean companies, such as Samsung and Hyundai, have become global household names competing successfully against far more established brands, such as Sony and Honda.
Indeed, South Korea has shown how a poor country without natural resources can become a world-class economy. China was at the bottom of the rankings 30 years ago, but at its present rate it will soon overtake Thailand. In several key sectors such as financial services and retail, China is already more open than Thailand. The quality of China’s roads and telecommunication puts to shame Thailand’s uneven, badly maintained streets and its slow and expensive Internet service.
Likewise, China has identified three of its universities as candidates to join the world’s top 10 in the near future. Without quality education, there cannot be a quality work force, and without that, no country can hope to compete in a world where the march of globalization cannot be stopped. To that end, the government is injecting public capital, while wealthy graduates are pouring in private money in the style of American alumni donors.
By contrast, Thailand’s government and local elite seem content to remain a provincial country shielded from global competition in science and technology. Foreign employers are appalled by the poor quality of Thailand’s education system, whose graduates have little foreign language proficiency and possess scant analytical skills.
Competition is not a zero-sum game. The successes of Hong Kong, Singapore, China, and South Korea should serve as a powerful reminder that Thailand has great potential, if only its elites would stop behaving like spoiled children playing a game at which only they are allowed to win.
Thaksin has unique qualifications to serve Thailand well. He is one of the country’s rare politicians who understands economics, and how to put the government to good public use.
In his new life as a “non-politician,” Thaksin can tell many of his business and political friends to chart a new course for Thailand, one that would help the country become a near “tiger.” Or he can let history judge him even more harshly. The choice is his.
Sin-ming Shaw is a former visiting scholar in history at Princeton, Columbia, Harvard, and Oxford Universities.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2008.
Back to home page