Q: Are you still involved in the Shinawatra Group's business, and if so to what extent?

A: I resigned all my positions in the Shinawatra Group prior to entering politics the first time, when I became the Minster for Foreign Affairs. My family and I are shareholders in various companies and businesses under the Shinawatra Group. The actual running of the business is done by professionals.

However, as the founder and someone with much experience in communications, the Shinawatra Group's executives sometimes come to ask me for advice when there are changes in the economy or in the business itself, but any decisions that are made concerning the operations are left completely up to them. When a business develops as rapidly as communications has, the management must follow the changes closely, issuing policies expeditiously, must follow the implementation of those policies carefully. There is no space for an amateur or part-time manager.

Q: You are a wealthy man already, so why the interest in politics?

A: I believe that the principal reason behind the country's slump is the fact that politics has not developed. My interest in politics stem from a desire to see politics improve. Should we be able to improve politics we will have better politicians and that will make society even better.

My interest in politics is not something that just happened. My father was a politician, a member of parliament for Chiang Mai. I used to go around with him when he canvassed for votes, went to political meetings with him. When I became a policeman I was the police escort of Mr. Prida Phattanathabutra for a time. My interest in helping to develop the country is therefore something that I've had for some time.

I am delighted that Thailand has a new constitution. Some say that the constitution is far too detailed, some say that it's too long at 336 clauses. I think that whether it is long or short is not an important issue. I believe it is the content or the intention in this constitution that is important in that it calls for transparency in politics, a political system that offers the people for opportunity to have their say. It proposes public scrutiny, full accountability. Most importantly, it creates a political system that emphasizes the development of quality of life for the people first and foremost.

I am convinced that the principles of the constitution, the structure of the political system laid down in it through legal principles, and the details of the legal foundation it lays, will motivate more good people to enter politics. Anyone who is not prepared to undergo scrutiny by society, whether he is wealthy or not, in whatever business, if he or she is unprepared to be scrutinized then that person is probably not right for politics.

Q: What are your political targets?

A: My target at this time is to enter politics to solve problems and attract good, able people to play a part in that solution through innovative thinking. We have to change our way of thinking, the way we look at the problems and the accompanying methodology for solving them. We have to develop the country, change politics and administration around. We have to increase the potential to produce and manage. We have to change agriculture, industry, agro-industry and commerce, to revive society again. Make the community strong by popular action. We have to develop the quality of life to match the country's resources.

Thailand's problems are severe and touch on every section of the economy, politics and society. I am confident the best thing we have is the constitutional monarchy. We should care for what we still have left. Things can easily slip away.

Q: How much money is needed to enter politics? Is it true that you are determined not to buy votes?

A: There are some aspects of politics where it is necessary to spend money, like setting up a party and applying to stand for parliament. Advertising, whether on television, radio or otherwise requires payment, as do political workers. These are all reasonable expenses. However much is to be spent, it must follow the limits laid down by the law. This is the principle I intend to follow.

You can see that all efforts in the past to persuade people not to sell their votes, even one time, met with no success. The whole system therefore needs to be remade. I believe that the new constitution has pretty much tried to achieve this by getting votes counted on the spot, defining voting as a duty, not just a right, appointing an independent election commission to oversee the election process. For sure, the election system, the election law, laws controlling political parties, the election commission laws, these must establish the best rules for our country. Low voter turnout, vote-buying or selling, these things are still up to the people.

How do we get these people not to sell their votes? Just putting up posters asking them not to has proven a dead end. The only way we can stop vote-buying is to ensure that the people have more of a part to play in the administration and government of the country. When this happens, they will see that by selling their votes they are actually selling their chance to call the shots.

One of the policies that I want to press forward is to allow the people to get people involved in the administration and control of the country. Our nation has problems and the people must band together to solve them. This is the new way of thinking reflected by the new constitution.

Q: How do you measure political success?

A: Prior to measuring political success we have to judge whether the opportunity to use one's abilities was there. Measuring results then is probably not all that difficult.

Though the periods of my political tenure were too brief to put into place deep-rooted policies, you will see that I managed to push through "economics leads politics" and "assertive diplomacy" while I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and, later, long term traffic policies that emphasized the implementation of a systematic master plan.

The political success of which I am most proud came about when I was leader of the Palang Dharma Party. My friends and I in the party opened up a new dimension in political transparency when we revealed our assets and bank accounts for public scrutiny. You may recall that we were hammered by some politicians who said we "wanted prestige." But here we are and the new constitution as we know says that politicians have to reveal their assets by law before and after taking public office. This is a truly important change in politics as it basically draws a line that will affect all those who follow after. It is a political success of which I am most proud to have begun, pushed for and played a part in its eventual fruition.

Q: What is the toughest and most serious problem facing the country at the moment and do you have a plan to solve it?

A: There are at least three issues: the serious lack of liquidity, the high and, for business, unsustainable interest rates and unemployment.

The country's lack of liquidity has had an effect on business generally. The weakening of the baht, instead of quickly supporting further exports, saw a drop in production below market needs as companies became unable to purchase raw materials without available cash.

This lack of liquidity must be solved soon and requires changes in regulations. We have to watch the level of cash in the economy to stimulate growth. This is accompanied by strict monetary policy and a sensible, balanced budget. The private sector has almost run out of capital, so how can we set a budget just to support civil servants' salaries? The government has to attract funds. Use loans to support industrial and agricultural production for export.

Interest rates are so high because the government is trying to control the exchange rate. I see the weakening of the baht as the result of, not the reason for, the problem. I believe that interest should be quite high at the present time, but not as high as it is. It may not be the intention, but the result has been to halt business in its tracks. What business can make enough to pay off interest at 20 per cent? Of course, interest is not something that the government can order up or down, yet the state has mechanisms, through the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. Use these monetary mechanisms to force the interest rates to go to a more suitable level, enough to stimulate investment. Let producers get a return befitting the interest rate.

As for the million or so people unemployed, this is really a result of the lack of liquidity and high interest rates causing businesses to close. If we can achieve some of the solutions needed, then employment will recover. The state, moreover, has to have the political will to set budgets that stimulate employment and create jobs.

Q: If you were in a position to control the budget, what would you like to see done, or how would you envision Thailand?

A: I want to see Thailand become a knowledge society. Society must be steered or developed through the power of knowledge. Society must have lifelong learning, and use that knowledge as a tool or factor in practice or occupational development.

During our agricultural period the soil gave us its produce. In the industrial age, a tool of production is money, which the knowledge - information - society uses for income and capital.

The knowledge society can come about with research, openness and the dissemination of information. Apart from protecting the right of the people to gain knowledge, development must tear down obstacles to acquiring knowledge.

We should not just throw away what we learned in the Industrial Age and hope to return to the idyll of agrarianism. Yet we cannot leap from an industrial society to a knowledge society. We have to balance science with art. Though I may or may not have a chance of directing the policies of the country, I shall endeavor to use my full potential to push for a knowledge society so that we can continue to advance.