====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
An excerpt from an article written in 2009. Makes clear the natural relation between "neo-liberal" policy and NGO do-gooderism. After all, a universal health care system would expose the NGO crowd as parasites: "Initially, the NGOs loved-up to Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai government. They believed that it was open to NGO lobbying, which it was. Thai Rak Thai took on board the idea of a universal health care system from progressive doctors and health-related NGOs. But then, when they were wrong-footed by the government’s raft of pro-poor policies that seemed to prove to villagers that the NGOs had only been “playing” at development, they rushed over to love-up to the Conservative Royalists. Such an about face was only possible by ignoring politics, international lessons and any theory. NGO leaders argue proudly that they are the “true activists”, not book worms or theoreticians. This explains why they can justify to themselves the support for the 2006 coup and why they have failed to defend democracy since. Instead of bothering to analyse the political situation, they beat a path to lobby generals, governments of every shade and anyone who has power. "Granted, the political situation was extremely messy and difficult. In 2006 you had Thai Rak Thai, a big business party with a record of Human Rights abuses and corruption. On the other hand you had the Army and the Conservative Royalists, with a history of Human Rights abuses and corruption. There was not much to choose from between the two. But Thai Rak Thai had power through the electoral process. In this situation the NGOs should have remained neutral and with the poor and they should have opposed the coup. But they were angry that Thai Rak Thai had won over their supporters and were distrustful of Thai Rak Thai’s use of the state to build welfare programmes and stimulate the economy. This distrust came from an anarchistic distrust of the state. For many NGOs, welfare should be organised by communities. But this anti-state position opened the door to accepting a neo-liberal concept of a small state, a view shared by the Conservative Royalists. Their anarchistic rejection of representative politics, also allowed them to see “no difference” between a parliament controlled by Thai Rak Thai and a military coup. "Since the poor voted on mass for Thai Rak Thai, the NGOs have become viciously patronising towards villagers, claiming that they “lack the right information” to make political decisions. In fact, there was always a patronising element to their work. Many Thai NGO leaders are self-appointed middle class activists who shun elections and believe that NGOs should “nanny[6]” peasants and workers. They are now fearful and contemptuous of the Red Shirt movement, which is starting a process of self-empowerment of the poor. Of course, the Red Shirts are not angels, but in today’s crisis, they represent the poor and the thirst for freedom and democracy. "The NGO movement’s relationship with NGO and trade union leaders in the PAD was also a factor. The top PAD leadership was made up of a coalition between (1) Sondhi Limtongkul: Conservative Royalist media tycoon and owner of the Manager Group. (2) Chamlong Simuang: leading light in the reactionary and anti-abortion Buddhist Santi Asoke movement . (3)Somsak Kosaisuk: Retired leader of the Railway workers union. (4) Pipop Tongchai: Advisor to the Campaign for Popular Democracy and “N.G.O. elder”. (5) Somkiat Pongpaiboon an activist working with teachers’ groups and farmers. (6) Suriyasai Takasila, ex-student movement bureaucrat." http://prachatai.com/english/node/1180 -Matt ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
