Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
A Coup for the Rich: Thailand’s Political Crisis by Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a blistering 144 page analysis of contemporary Thai politics that is both readable and refreshingly frank. Offering a non-doctrinaire Marxist approach, Ungpakorn blames a profound weakness in Thai civil society for its political immaturity and vulnerability to being manipulated by the rich and powerful. The analysis demonstrates that this weakness is positively cultivated by the political elite for its own advantage. In this account the most cherished myths of contemporary Thai society are directly challenged in a style likely to offend some readers, so the author warns in his introduction: “Dear Reader, if you are expecting a mainstream analysis of Thai politics and society, you need read no further. Close the book and toss it away.” (ISBN: 9748822559)
[This post is provided by the National Library of Australia as part of our Book Zone feature. For further information on the featured publications contact Saowapha Viravong at [email protected]]
Thailand blocks access to youtube over material that insults Bhumibol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6528303.stm
0
0
Sounds great, any idea where I can buy it in Bangkok?
0
0
Have a look at the discussion and attachments here.
0
0
I don’t agree with Ji’s approach of interpretating this coup. I doubt that the big h, Prem, junta, and their allies in medias have ever understood or thought of neo-liberal economics. It isn’t essentially the coup for the rich, but for (the cause of) power. Having said this, Ji’s unfailing commitment to pursue his vision of social justice is a quality rarely seen in academia (and he appeared to be less boring than many Thai academics I met 🙂 Well done to Mandala for putting this book in spotlight.
0
0
…a profound weakness in Thai civil society…
By the sounds of it, this book is an indication of a profound strength in Thai civil society. It just needs time to mature, perhaps.
0
0
A Coup for the Rich
0
0
I don’t know how liberalism is taught in Thai universities but must emphasize that the root of liberalism lies in ‘political philosophy’. Its genesis can be traced back to the history of Magna Carta. You can’t simply reduce it to the post war economic theory of the Chicago School.
Thais never actually gave liberalism a chance. All they have are royalism, conservatism, elitism, right-centricism, and Marxism which moulded and translated into the ‘Nationalist’s language of Morality’. This particular way of ‘Thai nationalism’ gave impetus to the army’s staging of the coup. The lefts certainly forgot to assess their own role in this Sept coup.
0
0
JFL: Thanks very much for the link. Just looked through the chapter on the south. Hopefully, the rest of the piece is of better quality, since that chapter is blatantly ignorant.
0
0
re Damian Doyle’s remark: one swallow doth not a spring make!
0
0
Damian/Paul: Giles is more a reflection of British-Marxist culture on Thai soil than one of Thai civil society.
0
0
Thanks for the link JFL!
0
0
Srithanonchai :
I’ve caught up with you at the last chapter of Giles’ book. Could you please elaborate on Giles’ display of blatant ignorance in that chapter? TIA.
From Chapter 3:
It seems as though GIles has heard the criticism of mouthing “foreign ideas” before.
0
0
Another thanks for the link. I was able to get in a bit of reading this weekend. I never imagined myself saying this, but it is refreshing to read an old fashioned Marxist, not many left you know. Not that I am in total agreement with him on all issues, or any issues for that matter, and the underlying yet unspoken assumptions of historical determinism I find rather humerous. But all in all a thought provoking perspective so far. His criticism (deconstruction may be the more modern term that post-dates this cowboy) of the current myth of the historical monarchy is particularly enjoyable, digging back into 17th century English history for comparisons. I myself like to compare Thailand to Renaisannce Europe emerging out of feudalism and to talk about the various estates a la France rather than talk about more modern class conflict.
And even Ji, this nominal Marxist author, shows that it is Handley who has opened the Pandora’s box.
All in all, a fun read so far with lots to ponder and lots to tell the author he is off his rocker. Clearly the author is the kind of guy with whom I would enjoy sharing some Thai whiskey.
0
0
JFL: Please, have a look at his angle and his sources.
0
0
Really Srithanonchai, you shoot off your mouth with a general condemnation, no more than an insult really, and then refuse to specify exactly what the blatant ignorances of the author are. Am I supposed now to construct an argument for you?
Ok. Give me a hint. What should I say?
Your answer is of the order “anyone but a fool could see exactly what I’m talking about.” Well please help this old fool Khun Srithanonchai. I have no idea what you are talking about.
0
0
Like they say, the longer you fight your enemies, the more you are becoming like them.
0
0
JFL, having read some of this work, in my opinion I think that the angle Srithanonchai refers to is that it’s largely a rant. The sources Ungpakorn uses are often from media outlets and the few remaining references are not particularly academic in nature.
For me though it’s a rather “informative” rant, so like reading a trashy Michael Moore conspiracy – I briefly get to feel in on the big picture then suddenly realise that I’m not at all.
0
0
Well… the fact that no one offers substantial criticism leads me to believe that this is all “inside baseball”… a question of intellectual fashionistas sniffing at the one who’s “style sense” is in bad odor. Is “so over!”
I found the work informative and am thankful for it. Hope I don’t hang around long enough to develop a too refined sense of style myself.
0
0
I ought to be a little more specific myself about what I found apt in this work.
Although I am not at all doctrinaire and have become convinced that every institution is my personal enemy unless it is being actively throttled and controlled by the humans presently lending it their lives, I found Giles’ lament about a lack of… someone else here called it a “political philosophy”, sawarin?… very apt and to the point.
How else can an alternative be realized?
pg 101.
I don’t know about labour in the 80’s but I do know all about “anybody but Bush”, which should have been termed “nobody but Bush”, for that was and is the effect of that stance.
In fact the choice between two faces of the same party, Republicrat or Demoplican, neither one representing the people’s interest, seems to be very similar to the situation that still prevails in Thailand.
There’s the military or there’s the crony capitalists.
No alternative is being proposed. If we’re going to “vote for what we believe in” we’re going to have to develop the candiates and their support network ourselves.
0
0
I think that if you really want to delve into this further, you must consider the conceptualisation of liberalism in Thailand.
In the West, our political philosophy is individual determinism and our analytical paradigm emerges from this position. When you call for a third body, what are you looking for in Thailand?
For me, I look for the embodiment of truth and as I become more educated here in Australia – if I don’t look at the world from the perspective of liberalist realism then the truth seems very far away. As a liberalist, I must accept this in other people’s perspectives, irrespective of whether or not they themselves are in fact in tune with liberalism (or what I see as a poor imitation). Otherwise I would become aware of my own obvious hypocrisy. So what we have here, as we have all over the world is the language of mirrors. Everything is correct if argued from the right position irrespective of whether or not it comes from the heart. Furthermore despite stark polarising rhetoric, the language used blurs the lines.
For Thailand as a nation, if their citizen’s hearts are with the King – then the King is the truth. Liberalist skepticism and polarising rhetoric (as opposed to acceptance of this individual determinism imitation) will only serve to isolate people within their respective culture, rather than (in spite of not having nearly enough time for organic acceptance) embrace globalism.
Therefore, in regards to this comparison with Bush, he is just proof of our retreat home… as opposed to ‘developing’ nations not really venturing out the front door.
There, I have displayed my ignorance and ranted. Haha…
0
0
JFL:
Perhaps, I should say that I have been interested in the public and academic discourse on the South for some years. As part of this interest, I have collected piles of material, both from newspapers and academic sources. I thus read new arrivals with certain expectations.
I am decidedly not interested in political pamphlets (Pig Latin calls it “rant”). And it makes liitle sense to analyze such pieces from an academic point of view. These are just two completely different genres.
Nevertheless, here are three points to ponder:
— “The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.” Is there any analysis in that chapter that would support this claim (if it was meant academically, that is–as a political statement, never mind)?
— “Most of those killed may have died at the hands of the security forces.” Would anybody in his or her right mind make such an outrageous statement? And where is his supporting evidence or analysis?
— “A solution can only be achieved by open democratic discussion.” Right — invite all those Habermas-loving insurgents to a power- and weapons-free discourse!
0
0
I don’t understand a word you say Pig. “libertalist realism”? “acceptance of this individual determinism imitation”? What are you talking about?
Imagine that you’re speaking to an ordinary human being and say it again, please. Clarity, clarity, clarity.
I have no reason to think that you’re ignorant. I can’t claim that this is a rant. I can’t understand it and so can’t say anything about it other than that obviously do you have something to say and that I wish I understood it.
I do notice that you’ve mentioned HM the King. I think that there is no reason to let HM continue to be the exclusive preserve of the militarists. Organizing around an honest implementation of what has been termed his sufficiency economy, pointing up the difference between the actual policy as embodied not only in HM’s words but by his actual works over the course of the years and the projects such as the one presently highlighted at the top the page might be a good start.
0
0
Srithanonchai :
I didn’t find
The single thread that runs through the “rice mixed-salad” jumble of explanations is the brutality of the Thai State and the fact that the Thai State has occupied the 3 Southern border provinces for 200 years like a colony.
Is this statement in dispute? What is the root cause of violence in South Thailand in your opinion?
I did find
I don’t know what this means. I think it means : “The security forces may have killed more people than the local terrorists, but I don’t know.” I don’t either. Do you? I agree that it’s a strange way to state that, if that is what it does mean. I do not conclude that the Giles is crazy.
I did find
It is in the middle of a paragraph :
I generally agree with that. I realize that the giving up Thai territory is a terrifying thought to the “authorities”, but it may well not even come into play if the interests of all the people in the South are taken into account. The terrorists operating there, or anywhere, do not “represent” anyone but themselves. If they are operating within a population that identifies more strongly with them, while deploring their actions, than with the forces they are opposing then the forces they are opposing may claim or actually believe that the terrorists “represent” the entire population.
In any case I agree that “People must have the right to self-determination in whatever form they choose.” Do you?
Is your argument with Giles due to his being on “the wrong side” of some sort of argument you seem to see between Habermas and unamed antagonists?
0
0
My discussion of the first point raised should have two quoted sections, like this (I hope) :
I didn’t find
The single thread that runs through the “rice mixed-salad” jumble of explanations is the brutality of the Thai State and the fact that the Thai State has occupied the 3 Southern border provinces for 200 years like a colony.
Is this statement in dispute? What is the root cause of violence in South Thailand in your opinion?
0
0
The second quoted section :I didn’t find
I did find
I apologize for taking up so much space. I hope that you can see that the above are Giles’ words and not mine or Srithanonchai’s.
0
0
JFL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Liberal_international_relations_theory
In regards to the section you initially highlighted, when I refer to liberalism in Thailand being an imitation of Western liberalism, it is because there has been an overriding cultural power to take that ‘liberalism’ away as exemplified in the recent coup. As opposed to the West, where liberalism is not only a political value, but an ingrained cultural one making it much more meaningful and that much more impossible to obviously remove.
Sufficiency liberalism perhaps?
The political philosophy in Thailand is very stark in that there is a revered King whose judgment is trusted by the majority (and even if its not, it’s going to be enforced) Politically, there doesn’t need to be an alternative for this majority of Thai people. However, the way we communicate is ironically interfering with this liberalism we supposedly value, irrespective of whether Thai society does as a whole. (be it under a militaristic interim government or even Thaksin.) That we do not seem to see our hypocrisy means that we don’t truly value it – and judgment and analysis from our position as “slightly more free than the rest” becomes totally irrelevant.
In this respect, we in the West are rewinding while the ‘developing’ world is stuck on loop.
What I’ve now deviates from the original point, but I hope this better explains where my idiocy here begins. I’ve tried to say too much 🙂
0
0
JFL:
The quote “The Thai state…” is the headline of section 1., right on p. 119. That the Thai state has occupied those provinces is undisputed (well, at least to me, not to the Thais), as is the fact that the Thai state has committed violent acts in the South. The question is whether this constitutes the “root cause” of the current insurgency. This is highly doubtful as is the possibility that there indeed is just one “root cause” (but see third point).
“Most of the killings…” suggests that of the 2,000+ killed, most are attributable to the Thai state authorities. I think that my initial remark is sufficient.
The paragraph from which my third quote was taken is altogether naive, given the present situation. Do you think we should organize a referendum, in which the insurgents will lose, and then they will stop their armed struggle? This also doesn not take into account that, obviously, the “traditional” Malay-nationalist separatism has been overtaken (Giles mention this) by a network-based radical Islamist insurgency that looks at separatism from the perspective of establishing an Islamist Pattani state. In other words, the majority Muslims are as much under threat by these people as are the representatives of the Thai state. Even if the Thai state would let people determine their own lot, the separatists, old and new, would not.
0
0
(The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.) This is highly doubtful as is the possibility that there indeed is just one “root cause”
How does this statement differ from Giles’ with regard to “any analysis… that would support this claim”? Or do you believe that the people of the region are just perverse killers, unlike ourselves in every respect? As the Israelis would have us believe of the Palestinians. The Neocons of the “Islamofascists” who are sitting on “our” oil?
“Most of the killings…” suggests that of the 2,000+ killed, most are attributable to the Thai state authorities. I think that my initial remark is sufficient.
I’m afraid that merely quantifying the total number killed without attribution is not sufficient to prove that most of them were not killed by Thai authorities. There are far more innocent Palestinians killed by Israelis than there are Israelis killed by Palestinians, far more innocent Iraqis killed by Americans than Americans killed by Iraqis, yet the average Israeli or American cannot think Palestinian or Iraqi without thinking “terrorist”. I have no idea how many people have been killed in the South, or how many have been killed by the Thai authorities or by those opposing them. Apparently you don’t either. It may be unknowable. The Thai authorities may just “disappear” most of their victims.
Do you think we should organize a referendum, in which the insurgents will lose, and then they will stop their armed struggle?
No. I think that the administration of ALL Tambons, Amphoes and Jangwats in Thailand should be given over to the local people and taken out of the hands of Bangkok. Starting with the South because that is where the crisis is. Didn’t the 1997 Constitution call for decentralization? Neither the crony capitalists nor the military think that is a good idea, apparently.
Even if the Thai state would let people determine their own lot, the separatists, old and new, would not.
I don’t know how you can know this. I think that the people are the sea in which the separatists swim. That the separatists are tolerated as long as the people in general feel ground beneath the heel of Bangkok. That terrorism will not be tolerated when the people themselves are in charge of their own affairs.
This reminds me of the argument put forth by the Neocons in the USA. The USA’s armed forces must stay in Iraq to control the violence. In fact the violence in Iraq is due to the American armed forces’ invasion and occupation of that country.
0
0
JFL:
Keep living in your confused dreamworld. Alternatively, take some time to study these issues further. As I said, Giles’ piece merely is a political pamphlet, and nobody involved in the study of the South will take it seriously. There are lots of things out there for you to read and then arrive at a more informed understanding.
As for Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Neocons, Iraq or whatever — I am not quite intererested, and I fail to see what such references help us in analyzing the problems in Thailand’s South.
Finally, something positive/negative: Yes, the 1997 Constitution called for decentralization. However, the constitution currently under preparation might well give the provinces as state administration constitutional status.
0
0
Pig :
As opposed to the West, where liberalism is not only a political value, but an ingrained cultural one making it much more meaningful and that much more impossible to obviously remove.
The present “adventure” of my country, the United States, in Iraq leads me to believe that liberalism is a fairy tale a population can afford to tell itself when it’s grabbed enough of the world’s wealth to be able to do so. The doctrine of American exceptionalism which locates America and Americans closer to the liberal than to the realist end of the political continuum, as defined by your wikipedia article, in their own minds is just that illusory liberalism that allows my nation blamelessly to engage in war crimes.
I do not see that it is “much more impossible to obviously remove”, unless you are talking about the obstinate denial that allows Americans to insist that it existed to begin with.
The political philosophy in Thailand is very stark in that there is a revered King whose judgment is trusted by the majority (and even if its not, it’s going to be enforced). Politically, there doesn’t need to be an alternative for this majority of Thai people.
I just don’t go along with this. I think that the King and politics are separate in the minds of Thais, just as they are officially billed to be, although the monarchy is then used as cover for all manner of crime by all manner of politicians.
I think the majority of the Thai people definitely need an alternative to the present realist mode of politics in Thailand, and that their belief in the other, more important dimensions of politics, those dimensions mentioned in your wikipedia liberalism article, are just the alternative dimensions they seek.
And then… you’ve lost me again I’m afraid. With the irony, interference, supposition and hypocrisy and the tape recorder. Sorry.
0
0
For JFL & Pig: A quote from Giles about the co-opting of leftists into Thai Rak Thai:
“No matter what they may believe about being close to the corridors of power, they become more of an instrument of the ruling class than advocates for the poor. Thai Rak Thai was no exception. It was a party of the rich capitalists for the rich capitalists and any reasonable policies it might have had were designed to buy social peace at the cheapest possible price.”
He’s right on the money (pun intended).
I’m still waiting for Andrew to explain how Thaksin’s tax avoidance/evasion fits in with TRT’s position of helping the rural poor.
0
0
JFL, maybe you should enrol in one of these institutions you find deplorable.
Liberalism isn’t what you’ve described or believe at all because it is not something that can give permission… Surely you can see this in what you go on to say about needing this alternative for Thai people?
What I see your nation is actively engaged in is the erosion of discourse. (- often by making ridiculous assumptions) By extension, do you see a parallel here?
My haphazard rant only highlights my igorance! It provides no value (unlike Srinthanonchai) other than really to say that we should shutup and pay attention.
0
0
Keep living in your confused dreamworld. Alternatively, take some time to study these issues further.
I’m open to the possibility that I’m living in a confused dreamworld. Can you give me some (electronic) pointers to study these issues further?
I just read that the new constitution is going to have an elected PM but an appointed Senate. Does that mean that real power will now devolve to the Senate?
I don’t know how democracy wll become rooted in Thailand, but the events unfolding before my eyes make it seem clear to me that HM the King’s admonitions to the Thai people to take control of as much of their own lives as possible in order that they may better be insulated from stresses over which they have no control (aka the sufficiency economy) is good advice indeed.
0
0
Pig:
The institutions to which I was referring are all institutions, not some particular, “deplorable” ones.
I imagine that human institutions are like living organisms in that some survive and others don’t based upon a sort of fitness. That the organelles of an instituion are us humans who orignally called the institution into being, but now toil for its interests. If the institution survives and thrives then we, as its dependents survive and thrive. It is only through the active exertions of each generation of instituional slaves/masters that an institution can be made to serve the human interests of its masters, generally those it was founded to serve, rather than merely continue to survive and thrive do to the activities of its human slaves.
I cannot see how we can get along without institutions, so I imagine that our best chance to keep them serving human needs is to be careful of their scale. Small is good.
Carrying on a discourse using esoteric terms seems to me to suit the purposes of academic institutions. You need academics to invent the obfuscating terminology in order to fuel the never ending discourse which actually has the survival and thrift of the institution, the home of the obfuscators, as its object. A case of total internal reflection at its institutional best.
Of course academic institutions are no different from commercial or political institutions. It’s just that within them the institutional paradigm is more transparently visible, since they have readily measurable “product” to distract attention from their “process”.
0
0
…no readily measurable “product”…
0
0
“any reasonable policies it might have had were designed to buy social peace at the cheapest possible price.” > Those were rather high-price policies, not at all cheap!
0
0
“the recent slaughter of Malay Muslims by Thai Buddhist volunteers– and the given justifications for that.” (from M. Jerryson on the Thai/Siam thread)
This sad event reflects the dangerous deterioration of relationships between local Muslims (not merely the terrorists) and local Buddhists (not merely defense volunteers) that has been going on for quite some time.
0
0
Srithanonchai: I agree, not cheap – but TRT, Thaksin family & cronies were not the ones paying.
0
0
nganadeeleg: “but TRT, Thaksin family & cronies were not the ones paying” > Exactly. 🙁
The fun part of governing is that you can spend the money of other people — the NSC and the Surayud government have discovered a similiar basic truth.
0
0
JFL #33:
For electronic resources, please allow me to refer you to a google search along the lines of “Thailand South Insurgency.” This should return quite a number of sources. I have also posted two or three links in the thread on the South here on New Mandala. As soon as Askew’s paper comes out, I will place the link here as well.
Just in case you have access to books, here are four titles:
Duncan McCargo, ed. 2007. Rethinking Thailand’s Southern Violence. Singapore: SUP.
Rohan Gunaratna, Arabinda Acharya, Sabrina Chua. 2005. Conflict and Terrorism in Southern Thailand. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Aademic.
Imtiyaz Yusuf and Lars Peter Schmidt, eds. 2006. Understanding Conflict and Approaching Peace in Southern Thailand.” Bangkok: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
Utai Dulyakasem and Lertchai Sirichai, eds. 2005. Knowledge and Conflict Resolution: The Crisis of the Border Region of Southern Thailand. Nakhon Sri Thammarat: The Asia Foundation, School of Liberal Arts, Walailak University, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Hope this helps.
0
0
Coup amnesty:
New draft charter to grant amnesty to coup makers
A de facto amnesty was given to the September 19 coup makers in the new constitution.
When the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) told the press conference after the half-day secret meeting in Chon Buri, they didn’t mention anything about granting amnesty to last September’s coup makers in the new charter.
However, the amnesty was stated in Article 299 of the new draft.
The article states: “Whatever has been recognised under the Thai (interim) constitution of 2006 to be legal and constitutional, including all actions related to the incident be it before or after the promulgation of this constitution, will be legal under this charter.”
The Nation online 11 April 2007
0
0
I’m so pleased that the posting of “Coup for the Rich” has generated so much discussion. I think that it is time to wrap up this thread, and I encourage New Mandala contributors to turn to some other issues and events being raised on this blog.
0
0
Srithanonchai :
You previous statement :
seems to be contradicted in the course of The Nation’s on the 14 April bombing in Yala that left 11 dead :
The Nation does not contradict her assertion. I know that reportorial standards world wide are not what we might wish, but I can’t imagine The Nation printing that if it were patently untrue.
0
0
Srithanonchai :
This one incident does not prove that all of the Thai military in South Thailand are corrupt, but it does show that some of them are. Certainly double dealing such as this helps to sow the seeds of resentment of the Central authorities pretty deeply.
Army anti-narcotics agent held after deadly shootout
These last two, topical posts were predeeded by a posting about a paper by Nidhi Aeusrivongse, ‘ Understanding the Situation in the South as a “Millenarian Revolt” ‘, which I found over-the-wire, at your urging.
That posting doesn’t seem to have been accepted, although it is now refused when I try to resubmit it on the grounds that it’s already been submitted.
I think that article is both very soundly reasoned and presented and am interested to hear what your opinion of it is.
0
0
JFL:
On your first post: What that lady meant to say is that the Islamistic militants kill both Muslims and Buddhists (that’s well known and is reported about daily in the papers), not that the Muslims normally were killed by state authorities. And she complains about what she perceives as unequal distribution of attention. Thus there is no inconsistency.
On Nidhi: I read his piece a while ago. I found some elements quite interesting, especially references to religious motives. However, I tend to agree with a friend of mine who has been doing field research in Pattani. He asserts that Nidhi is rather naive. That same friend wrote about the “unorderly border region” which enabled a number of shadowy elements, amongst them police and soldiers, but also smugglers, drug traders, etc., to go about their business more easily than in other parts of the country. However, that does decidedly not mean that police, military or bureaucrats, for that matter, serving in other parts of the country are clean.
Thanks for making the effort of identifying and reading additional sources of information on the south.
0
0
[…] have received the following message from Ji Ungpakorn, author of A Coup for the Rich. Thai Special Branch Police ban the sale of “A Coup for the […]
0
0