Thailand: The Politics of Continuity
Since the 1932 revolution when constitutional rule replaced the absolute monarchy, Thailand has intermittently experimented with democratic government. The Kingdom's most recent attempt began in June 1968 with the promulgation of the eighth post-revolution Constitution. The Constitution called for national elections, held on February 10, 1969, for the House of Representatives, the lower house in the bicameral legislature.' Under the leadership of Prime Minister Thanom Kittakachorn, the Thai government mobilized some 250,000 rural and urban officials and spent approximately 102 million baht ($5,100,000) in order to carry out the elections. The massive organizational effort resulted in elections which were considered by spokesmen for both government and opposition parties to be the most orderly and least corrupt in Thai history. Isolated incidents of double voting by military units, bribery, and ballot box stuffing were reported informally, yet only twelve nullification suits, a very small number of protests in comparison with past elections, were filed officially with the Minister of Interior. Although political parties had been banned since 1958, thirteen parties managed to organize, register and engage in campaigning. Of these, the pro-government United Thai People's Party (UTPP) and the opposition Democrat Party merit particular attention. The organizers of the UTPP were comprised of the persons in the most powerful political institutions of Thailand. In addition to the Prime Minister, Party leaders included the most prominent civilian and military cabinet members and the Army, Navy, and Air Force Commanders-in-Chief. At election rallies in the Kingdom's 71 provincial constituencies, the UTPP candidates stressed: 1) the need for strong centralized leadership to ensure continued stability in the Kingdom; 2) the ability of the existing military regime to meet the dangers of Communism; 3) the success of the government's economic development program; and 4) the advantages UTPP candidates would have in terms of access to government funds for local development projects. The Democrat Party, the oldest and most influential of the opposition parties, was led by former Prime Minister Seni Pramoj. In contrast to the UTPP which was able to field a full slate of 219 candidates, the Democrat
Rural Taxation in Thailand
THE THAI ECONOMY has recorded impressive progress in the past decade. During the period from I958 to i962, the gross domestic product at constant prices grew at an average rate of 6.5 per cent per annum. From i962 to i968, this rate of growth accelerated to an average slightly above 8 per cent per annum. Despite this strong overall performance, there remain certain unsatisfactory aspects of the pattern of development. Perhaps foremost among these has been the degree to which economic gains have failed to find adequate reflection in the rural areas of the country. Sharp differences persist between the standards of living in rural and urban areas (most notably the metropolitan center of Bangkok-Thonburi).' In this article, the Thai system of taxing the agricultural sector is analyzed to isolate its effect on rural development. The first part describes the system of rural taxation; this is followed by an analysis of its effect on rural development; and the article concludes with a consideration of policy alternatives. Under the present system, the burden of taxation on the rural community in Thailand may be divided into three categories: a direct tax burden in the form of the local (land) development tax;2 a hidden tax burden in the form of the rice premium-an export tax on the main product of Thai agriculture;3 and a share of all other indirect taxes such as sales taxes and import duties. In the eyes of the farmer, the local development tax represents his major tax payment. The burden of this direct taxation is rather light; in i966 it was only about five baht4 per person
REFORMA DO ESTADO E AS POLÍTICAS PARA A EDUCAÇÃO SUPERIOR NO BRASIL NOS ANOS 90
This article aims at discussing the federal policies for higher education implemented in Brazil in the 1990s. It assumes that such policies are based on socio-political choices and interests linked to the changes occurring in the contemporary Brazilian scene, changes that have deep historical roots, which emerge in the process of reformation of the Brazilian State. This situation implies alterations in the field of public policies, and more particularly in that of social policies, since the on-going official proposals and projects are characterized by a decrease of the role of State. The borders between public and private affairs have become increasingly blurred in a process detrimental to the former. The contradictions in the federal policies for higher education are analyzed here, as well as their results as for the following fields: institutional diversification and differentiation; assessment criteria, broadening and privatization of this level of education.