Thai police were probably afraid that no journalists would turn up to cover the protests against the IMF-World Bank meetings, so on Thursday they beat up the anti-IMF-World Bank protesters in Bangkok instead. Now, journalists have turned up in droves.
It brings to mind the Thai saying: “Stupid, but hardworking.”
What followed was a barrage of criticism and doubt raised by opponents of the protesters, ranging from questioning whether some of the poor rural villagers even know what the IMF stands for, to whether they are paid protesters funded by foreign anti-globalisation organisations, or driven by those who simply want to embarrass the Anutin Charnvirakul government.
“I’ll bet 300 baht… that half the people protesting against the IMF don’t even know what IMF stands for,” wrote Facebook user JRT Desk พาxวย on Thursday, just hours after news of the scuffle—which led to a few minor injuries among the protesters—went viral.
“What are these protesters demonstrating against the World Bank and IMF trying to achieve? What are they actually doing? Don’t just seek the satisfaction of protesting. Spare a thought for the country’s reputation,” wrote Facebook user “Follow Me” on the same day.
“They want to discredit the government. They always do this when there’s an international meeting [in Thailand],” Facebook user Aey Kittipongse Yenphosri opined.
The divide between those opposed to the IMF-World Bank meetings and those opposed to the protesters is vast, and the two sides seem unable to bridge the gap. It is as if they live in two different worlds within Thailand.
There is a huge gap in understanding, and a lack of empathy or recognition that a Thai person’s views on the IMF and World Bank depend largely on their socioeconomic class and ideology.
Some Thais end up as losers, while others remain unaffected, or minimally affected and unaware. Meanwhile, big businesses, particularly foreign ones, can more easily penetrate Thai markets through neoliberal policies supported by the IMF and World Bank.
The World Bank
The Pak Moon Dam case: Imagine yourself as a Pak Moon villager who has made a living fishing at the numerous rapids along the Moon River for generations.
Suddenly, more electricity is needed for the cities, including several major shopping malls in Bangkok, and the World Bank supports the Thai government to build a large hydroelectric dam there.
Rapids are blown up to make way for the dam. The livelihoods of many villagers are lost. Able-bodied adults head to big cities to work as low-paid labourers or taxi drivers, leaving their young children behind in Ubon Ratchathani province—a 10-hour bus ride from Bangkok—to be cared for by elderly grandparents.
These children become ‘virtual orphans’. In worse cases, families borrow money using their ancestral land as collateral to make ends meet. Some end up landless after failing to repay the loans.
The IMF
Impact on Thai tertiary education: One possible ‘unintended’ repercussion of the 11 conditions imposed by the IMF as part of its loan programme after the 1997 Asian financial crisis was reduced funding for state universities. This led many public universities to increase tuition fees to make up for lost subsidies.
For every studentship or scholarship won by a low-income student, dozens—if not hundreds—fail to make the cut. It is tough luck, and unfair, if funding cuts linked to IMF terms mean there are fewer public universities whose fees you or your parents can afford. Naturally, rich Thai kids will not be affected and may not even be aware of such issues because they have no impact on them—if anything, these universities may have to create English-language programmes that are notorious for charging much higher fees while applying lower admission standards. These programmes are now the cash cows of universities that increasingly depend on generating more revenue, if not profits.
The privatisation of parts of state electricity enterprises also led to these organisations having to extract higher profits from the public, who are now treated as mere consumers. That means higher electricity costs and more. Some private Thai firms have also amassed fortunes by generating and selling electricity, as users are treated as customers rather than citizens.
There was some serendipity in the protests on Thursday and Friday, and in Thursday’s scuffle, as they cajoled many Thais into taking a position and expressing themselves on social media.
Defending the meetings, Facebook user JRT Desk พาxวย mounted a more serious defence on Thursday in another post:
“I’ve seen people protesting against the IMF and the World Bank, and I genuinely wonder how much they understand the roles these two institutions play.
“There is nothing wrong with criticising the IMF or the World Bank. Both organisations have pursued policies that caused real harm and deserve scrutiny.
“But calling for their abolition without proposing anything better to replace them is closer to economic ignorance than a movement for the people.
“The IMF is part of the global financial safety net that member countries can turn to when facing balance-of-payments crises. The World Bank provides development financing and technical assistance, and helps mobilise private capital for development projects. Imagine the Thai government foolishly giving in to these demands, seriously damaging its relationships with both institutions.”
Meanwhile, former People’s Party MP candidate Suphalak Bumroongkit defended the protesters in a Facebook post on the same day:
“Why are Thais protesting against the World Bank and IMF?
“Well, they do have a point. We’ve seen what China has done in Cambodia, Laos, and across much of Africa. Western countries have been doing similar things to us for a long time, too.
“What is the ideology behind the World Bank and IMF? Neoliberalism. The state should spend less and tighten its belt. What should be cut? Welfare, of course. They promote financial liberalisation and the privatisation of state-owned enterprises. That alone empowers big capital and harms ordinary people like us.
“The projects they recommend and finance are not all wonderful, either. Countless people have been affected, losing their homes, land, and food sources, while pollution has damaged their livelihoods. Think of the Pak Moon Dam and potash mining projects. When austerity measures cut welfare, women are often affected more severely than men. And when it comes to infrastructure and green transition projects, who benefits the most? Big business, of course. There is still plenty of debate over just how much the poor actually benefit. As institutions providing the money, the World Bank and IMF must also take responsibility for the damage caused.”
No matter where you stand on the IMF and the World Bank, it is hoped that we try to show empathy towards those who think differently.
At noon on Friday, I asked Baramee Chairat—a key member of the Assembly of the Poor, a network of grassroots people affected by various mega-development projects—what his views were regarding Bangkokians who complain about traffic disruptions caused by him and fellow protesters. He told me that the disruption and inconvenience last only a few hours, whereas the adverse impacts of the IMF and the World Bank on the poor last for generations.
The post Opposing Thai views on IMF and World Bank Protests Expose a Divide in Empathy appeared first on Khaosod English.