China has invested billions of dollars in modern Cambodia, more than any other country by far. There are tens of thousands of China nationals operating and working in Cambodia, more than any other country. China has a thoroughly researched plan for the Mekong and Cambodia is crucial to China’s plan. Human Rights issues, Rule of Law issues, Transparency issues, Corruption issues, ordinary Cambodia people issues are of no concern whatsover to China’s plan for Cambodia.
Lao culture and society is about to change much faster than anyone has anticipated, but just how much will remain of the culture that Lao now find so comforting and foreigners so charming, only time will tell.
Beginning of July this year, I went to Vientiane – the second time after my visit 10 years ago. And I was so surprised how much the city has changed. I also met a professor from National University of Laos. He told me also about the rapid development in urban development, like you could not easily give directions, because the buildings couldhave changed already since you were there last time.
Definitely, the ‘socialist’ feeling that was preeminent 10 years ago, was more or less gone this year.
I’ve only been there a short time, so these are just some observations I did.
One should also take into account that there is probably a lot of Chinese “meddling” (or influence if you prefer) in Cambodian politics nowadays. China needs Cambodia and Laos as “pivots” in Southeast Asia. In my opinion, Cambodia’s “new role” was played out quite clearly during the last ASEAN meeting where the countries could not come up with a C.O.C. about the South China Sea disputes.
“Thaksin’s party may have won the election with the promise to amend the Thai constitution but they should heed the call that ‘it is the constitution of all Thais after all’”
The PTP is not Thaksin’s party, notwithstanding his considerable involvement. That is merely opposition propaganda.
If the PTP is Thaksin’s party, who does the Democrat Party belong to?
To minimize and simplify in this manner, is disrespectful of the Thai electorate and the Political Parties they support – both the majority as well as the minority.
Submitting constitutional reform as one plank in an election process is in effect “heeding the call that the constitution is for all Thai’s.
This differentiates it from constitution reform that followed a coup. That did not show concerns for “all Thai’s”.
“But if Thaksin’s party/Red Shirts priority in their call to amend the Thai constitution is to pave the way for the exoneration of Thaksin of all his judicial convictions and ongoing cases . . . . . . . . . that’s dangerous.”
That is not the case, in spite of the Democrats best efforts to frame it as such, as a way of denigrating the reform of their constitution.
Having pre-reform referendums is merely an effort by the coupists to bury the initiative and to ‘process it to death’. They really don’t want the legacy of their coup to be tampered with.
The election was fought in part on the promise to reform the coupist-rooted constitution. That was the referendum in effect. Voters were fully appraised.
Electoral losers would obviously attempt to discount that. One would expect nothing less from them.
The question is…”will the PTP buckle under?’ There is an increasing narrative within the UDD/Red Shirt ranks, about PTP cowardliness.
un Sen is the result of 1) over-involvement of regional and international actors’ in brokering peace in Cambodia…to the point that they “settled” with many former khmer rouge and khmer rouge f-tards; 2) international interventionists doing half a job in delivering “democracy” to Cambodia by not upholding the results of the first elections that were clearly not for Hun Sen.
“…Why not start by unpacking the concept in its Southeast Asian context with some serious research? Just a modest proposal . . .”
It is an important question and one that must be answered. And one that, with Yale now in Singapore, political scientist with a North American bent teaching & possibly researching in Singapore, will come to experience first hand.
Your argument that Siam would have been better off if the “self serving elite” had just capitulated to one of the colonial powers makes no sense at all, even as a possible counter-factual history.The fact is Siam’s elite were heavily influenced by Western ideas and the state was modernised rapidly in line with contemporary concepts of modernity. If all this was just self-serving behaviour of the elite it is not the most obvious course of action (which is to defend the status-quo) and it also reaped benefits for the wider Siamese populace. And even if the elite had been granted magical foresight to see what benefits direct colonization would bring, the vision of indochina being devastated by withdrawing colonial powers in the mid-twentieth century would hardly have motivated them to capitulate to the proposed benefits of colonialism.
I look forward to getting my hands on Larsson’s book.
Not solely of the Red Shirts, nor solely of the Yellows, or of the city or rural dwellers, but of all Thais. Thaksin’s party may have won the election with the promise to amend the Thai constitution but they should heed the call that ‘it is the constitution of all Thais after all’.
I have my own ideas what sections of the constitution should be amended. Lese majeste law is on top, and, all members of the legislature must be elected and not a single one appointed is the other. Governors of each province must be elected.
But if Thaksin’s party/Red Shirts priority in their call to amend the Thai constitution is to pave the way for the exoneration of Thaksin of all his judicial convictions and ongoing cases . . . . . . . . . that’s dangerous.
Jon, will you ever write a systematic article detailing your strong criticism of mainstream SEA studies? Barking alone is somewhat less than satisfactory.
What to do next? Well, how about scrapping the current amendment proposal and holding a referendum first… combined with the election of a constitutional assembly? Now that would be some strong mandate…
“Not content with a political party by, of and only for Thaksin, they are now bent on rewriting the Thai constitution by, or and only for Thaksin”..By DDJ above.
The characterization of efforts to revise the constitution as being exclusively Thaksin focussed, is both misrepresenting the actual motives, and denigrating those who voted for a constitutional reform mandate.
The actual rationale for constitutional reform is as follows:
– The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.
-Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.
-Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.
-Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.
-The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.
Characterizing the PTP, UDD/Red Shirts as all about Thaksin, and nothing else, is denying political legitimacy of the electoral majority in Thailand.
Does anybody know the specifics of the new Thai constitution that Thaksin’s Peau Thai Party wish or had promised to their constituents?
It is all very vague . . . and they were intent on ramrodding the constitutional rewrite through the parliament without sufficient hearing or debate.
Just because PTP won the recent election there is now no need to consult the Thai people (re a constitutional rewrite) and no referendum?
Given unlimited power to silence critics; having borrowed more money than the previous 26 governments combined for populist policies; having full and vocal support from the military; having almost absolute support from a almost entirely one sided and very experienced propagandist machine; and having done everything they could to stir up ultra-nationalism by trying to start a war with Cambodia; the Democrats still couldn’t win an election.
Thaksin opened the democracy box. It was probably nothing more to him than a means to an end, but the box was opened none-the-less, and there is no shutting it now. Regardless of how far up the chain people think it goes, the traditional oligarchy of royalist elites is under increasing threat from a long oppressed and neglected majority who, far from being “stupid buffaloes” who only vote for people who pay them, are actually the most politically and democratically aware they have ever been. They still have some way to go – abandoning Thaksin would be a great place to start – but they are out of the blocks and recognise what the real biggest hurdle is.
Given the ultimate unpopularity of the junta, and the crushing defeat of the Democrats in the last election, it is clear that the war to retain unelected, unaccountable, and unrestrained power cannot be won. Clear to all, apparently, but the oligarchs and their PAD and Democrat (I always smile at the irony whenever I write their name) front lines. This is because there is no place to retreat for them. They have no place in a democratic, people driven Thailand, and they know it. So, they continue to fight, continue to fight dirty, and will do so unto their inevitable death.
Whilst not the end of the war, a significant blow has been dealt to the oligarchs. The Thai military did all it could do to assist the Democrats during the time they were installed as government so they could arrange everything to ensure election. The massive defeat at the election was not just a defeat for the Democrats, but for their military backers too. This must have scared the military a great deal. When it became clear that Phue Thai was not going to take any revenge, the military must have started to reconsider it’s position. That certainly seems the case. Prayuth has been unusually quiet since the election – or rather, since he knew he wasn’t getting fired – and Thaksin and his Gen Sonthi are even playing the same tune. The military is, after all, interested in the military first and last.
One wonders then, if this was a significant factor in the oligarch appointees at the constitution court not executing yet another judicial coup. Given that they don’t even pretend to be independent or interested in the law, someone must have told them to take a different tack from their traditional approach.
The new strategy seems to be for the Democrats and PAD to keep making up reasons to have the constitution court stop Phue Thai from doing anything, while the media do their jobs of reporting all the speculation and fabrications as fact, whilst also reminding everyone at every opportunity how evil Thaksin is, how his proxies in Phue Thai are completely subservient mindless drones – which they clearly aren’t given their refusal to obey clear orders about not voting – and how the red-shirts are murderous cattle stampeding in whatever direction Thaksin wants – which they clearly aren’t given the rise in open and often scathing criticism of Thaksin in red-shirt media.
Maybe the hope is that people will lose faith in Phue Thai, but given the Democrats are the only real alternative, it doesn’t seem likely it will work. Not only do they still have the staunchly anti-peasant, unswervingly arrogant, completely disingenuous Abhisit as their leader, but they have only recently stated that they will not change any of the policies that saw them crushed in the last election despite all their hard work stacking the deck in their favour. It is, apparently, that the people don’t understand their policies, not that the policies are wrong – which may contain an element of truth as it is almost certain that a vast majority don’t care what the Democrat’s policies are. Certainly, many people hate Abhisist and Suthep with the same passion Bangkok Post readers hate Thaksin, and they won’t ever forgive them for orchestrating the violence of 2010. The fact that they are openly hostile to anyone who doesn’t have at least two cars and a detached house in central Bangkok is also a factor, but the main reason that the Democrats are no longer electable is that the Democrats are anything but democratic, representing, as they do and have always done, the unelected oligarchs that have so completely raped and pillaged Thailand and her people for much longer than Thaksin has even been around.
It’s a very weakened form of attack, this new strategy, but they are running out of options. Sadly though, the Thai people must continue to endure these destructive battles for yet more time to come. At least, that is, until the inevitable event that no one wants to, or indeed can, talk about. Then the end is really nigh for the oligarchs because, without the fancy icing, no one can continue to pretend the cake isn’t rotten to its core.
I find it very interesting that the 2007 constitution, which was brought about only through an illegal coup; and a referendum that was illegal under section 214, paragraph 4 of the preceding constitution, have suddenly become paragons of democracy and law.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
Its impressive to look all this red shirts coming in Cambodia for follow Thaksin. Its very rare for a politic man!
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
Can anybody provide any reference, positive or negative, about NIDA in Bangkok?
Thank you
Xeralf
Democracy in Southeast Asia: A new generation’s take
Maybe, Michael Montesano could do some of this “unpacking” himself?
The strongman strikes again: A chat with Mam Sonando’s lawyer, Sok Sam Oeun
China has invested billions of dollars in modern Cambodia, more than any other country by far. There are tens of thousands of China nationals operating and working in Cambodia, more than any other country. China has a thoroughly researched plan for the Mekong and Cambodia is crucial to China’s plan. Human Rights issues, Rule of Law issues, Transparency issues, Corruption issues, ordinary Cambodia people issues are of no concern whatsover to China’s plan for Cambodia.
Lao history: Don’t look back
Beginning of July this year, I went to Vientiane – the second time after my visit 10 years ago. And I was so surprised how much the city has changed. I also met a professor from National University of Laos. He told me also about the rapid development in urban development, like you could not easily give directions, because the buildings couldhave changed already since you were there last time.
Definitely, the ‘socialist’ feeling that was preeminent 10 years ago, was more or less gone this year.
I’ve only been there a short time, so these are just some observations I did.
The strongman strikes again: A chat with Mam Sonando’s lawyer, Sok Sam Oeun
One should also take into account that there is probably a lot of Chinese “meddling” (or influence if you prefer) in Cambodian politics nowadays. China needs Cambodia and Laos as “pivots” in Southeast Asia. In my opinion, Cambodia’s “new role” was played out quite clearly during the last ASEAN meeting where the countries could not come up with a C.O.C. about the South China Sea disputes.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
“Thaksin’s party may have won the election with the promise to amend the Thai constitution but they should heed the call that ‘it is the constitution of all Thais after all’”
The PTP is not Thaksin’s party, notwithstanding his considerable involvement. That is merely opposition propaganda.
If the PTP is Thaksin’s party, who does the Democrat Party belong to?
To minimize and simplify in this manner, is disrespectful of the Thai electorate and the Political Parties they support – both the majority as well as the minority.
Submitting constitutional reform as one plank in an election process is in effect “heeding the call that the constitution is for all Thai’s.
This differentiates it from constitution reform that followed a coup. That did not show concerns for “all Thai’s”.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
‘it is the constitution of all Thais after all’
Unless it’s the Substitution by Coup of the Royal Thai Army … which is the case about 89% of the time.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
Hiding behind lofty notions of public participation to delay and avoid revision of their constitution is disengenuous.
There was no such concerns justifying their coup, and their subsequent self-serving tampering with the constitution.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
“But if Thaksin’s party/Red Shirts priority in their call to amend the Thai constitution is to pave the way for the exoneration of Thaksin of all his judicial convictions and ongoing cases . . . . . . . . . that’s dangerous.”
That is not the case, in spite of the Democrats best efforts to frame it as such, as a way of denigrating the reform of their constitution.
Having pre-reform referendums is merely an effort by the coupists to bury the initiative and to ‘process it to death’. They really don’t want the legacy of their coup to be tampered with.
The election was fought in part on the promise to reform the coupist-rooted constitution. That was the referendum in effect. Voters were fully appraised.
Electoral losers would obviously attempt to discount that. One would expect nothing less from them.
The question is…”will the PTP buckle under?’ There is an increasing narrative within the UDD/Red Shirt ranks, about PTP cowardliness.
The strongman strikes again: A chat with Mam Sonando’s lawyer, Sok Sam Oeun
un Sen is the result of 1) over-involvement of regional and international actors’ in brokering peace in Cambodia…to the point that they “settled” with many former khmer rouge and khmer rouge f-tards; 2) international interventionists doing half a job in delivering “democracy” to Cambodia by not upholding the results of the first elections that were clearly not for Hun Sen.
Democracy in Southeast Asia: A new generation’s take
Michael Montesano #5 noted:
“…Why not start by unpacking the concept in its Southeast Asian context with some serious research? Just a modest proposal . . .”
It is an important question and one that must be answered. And one that, with Yale now in Singapore, political scientist with a North American bent teaching & possibly researching in Singapore, will come to experience first hand.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577530524046581142.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_Careers_PublicSearch
Review of Land and Loyalty
James McAulife #1
Your argument that Siam would have been better off if the “self serving elite” had just capitulated to one of the colonial powers makes no sense at all, even as a possible counter-factual history.The fact is Siam’s elite were heavily influenced by Western ideas and the state was modernised rapidly in line with contemporary concepts of modernity. If all this was just self-serving behaviour of the elite it is not the most obvious course of action (which is to defend the status-quo) and it also reaped benefits for the wider Siamese populace. And even if the elite had been granted magical foresight to see what benefits direct colonization would bring, the vision of indochina being devastated by withdrawing colonial powers in the mid-twentieth century would hardly have motivated them to capitulate to the proposed benefits of colonialism.
I look forward to getting my hands on Larsson’s book.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
Yes ‘it is their constitution after all’.
Not solely of the Red Shirts, nor solely of the Yellows, or of the city or rural dwellers, but of all Thais. Thaksin’s party may have won the election with the promise to amend the Thai constitution but they should heed the call that ‘it is the constitution of all Thais after all’.
I have my own ideas what sections of the constitution should be amended. Lese majeste law is on top, and, all members of the legislature must be elected and not a single one appointed is the other. Governors of each province must be elected.
But if Thaksin’s party/Red Shirts priority in their call to amend the Thai constitution is to pave the way for the exoneration of Thaksin of all his judicial convictions and ongoing cases . . . . . . . . . that’s dangerous.
Review of Land and Loyalty
Jon, will you ever write a systematic article detailing your strong criticism of mainstream SEA studies? Barking alone is somewhat less than satisfactory.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
What to do next? Well, how about scrapping the current amendment proposal and holding a referendum first… combined with the election of a constitutional assembly? Now that would be some strong mandate…
Constitutional court or national advisor?
“Not content with a political party by, of and only for Thaksin, they are now bent on rewriting the Thai constitution by, or and only for Thaksin”..By DDJ above.
The characterization of efforts to revise the constitution as being exclusively Thaksin focussed, is both misrepresenting the actual motives, and denigrating those who voted for a constitutional reform mandate.
The actual rationale for constitutional reform is as follows:
– The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.
-Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.
-Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.
-Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.
-The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.
Characterizing the PTP, UDD/Red Shirts as all about Thaksin, and nothing else, is denying political legitimacy of the electoral majority in Thailand.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
Does anybody know the specifics of the new Thai constitution that Thaksin’s Peau Thai Party wish or had promised to their constituents?
It is all very vague . . . and they were intent on ramrodding the constitutional rewrite through the parliament without sufficient hearing or debate.
Just because PTP won the recent election there is now no need to consult the Thai people (re a constitutional rewrite) and no referendum?
Silly and very dangerous.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
Given unlimited power to silence critics; having borrowed more money than the previous 26 governments combined for populist policies; having full and vocal support from the military; having almost absolute support from a almost entirely one sided and very experienced propagandist machine; and having done everything they could to stir up ultra-nationalism by trying to start a war with Cambodia; the Democrats still couldn’t win an election.
Thaksin opened the democracy box. It was probably nothing more to him than a means to an end, but the box was opened none-the-less, and there is no shutting it now. Regardless of how far up the chain people think it goes, the traditional oligarchy of royalist elites is under increasing threat from a long oppressed and neglected majority who, far from being “stupid buffaloes” who only vote for people who pay them, are actually the most politically and democratically aware they have ever been. They still have some way to go – abandoning Thaksin would be a great place to start – but they are out of the blocks and recognise what the real biggest hurdle is.
Given the ultimate unpopularity of the junta, and the crushing defeat of the Democrats in the last election, it is clear that the war to retain unelected, unaccountable, and unrestrained power cannot be won. Clear to all, apparently, but the oligarchs and their PAD and Democrat (I always smile at the irony whenever I write their name) front lines. This is because there is no place to retreat for them. They have no place in a democratic, people driven Thailand, and they know it. So, they continue to fight, continue to fight dirty, and will do so unto their inevitable death.
Whilst not the end of the war, a significant blow has been dealt to the oligarchs. The Thai military did all it could do to assist the Democrats during the time they were installed as government so they could arrange everything to ensure election. The massive defeat at the election was not just a defeat for the Democrats, but for their military backers too. This must have scared the military a great deal. When it became clear that Phue Thai was not going to take any revenge, the military must have started to reconsider it’s position. That certainly seems the case. Prayuth has been unusually quiet since the election – or rather, since he knew he wasn’t getting fired – and Thaksin and his Gen Sonthi are even playing the same tune. The military is, after all, interested in the military first and last.
One wonders then, if this was a significant factor in the oligarch appointees at the constitution court not executing yet another judicial coup. Given that they don’t even pretend to be independent or interested in the law, someone must have told them to take a different tack from their traditional approach.
The new strategy seems to be for the Democrats and PAD to keep making up reasons to have the constitution court stop Phue Thai from doing anything, while the media do their jobs of reporting all the speculation and fabrications as fact, whilst also reminding everyone at every opportunity how evil Thaksin is, how his proxies in Phue Thai are completely subservient mindless drones – which they clearly aren’t given their refusal to obey clear orders about not voting – and how the red-shirts are murderous cattle stampeding in whatever direction Thaksin wants – which they clearly aren’t given the rise in open and often scathing criticism of Thaksin in red-shirt media.
Maybe the hope is that people will lose faith in Phue Thai, but given the Democrats are the only real alternative, it doesn’t seem likely it will work. Not only do they still have the staunchly anti-peasant, unswervingly arrogant, completely disingenuous Abhisit as their leader, but they have only recently stated that they will not change any of the policies that saw them crushed in the last election despite all their hard work stacking the deck in their favour. It is, apparently, that the people don’t understand their policies, not that the policies are wrong – which may contain an element of truth as it is almost certain that a vast majority don’t care what the Democrat’s policies are. Certainly, many people hate Abhisist and Suthep with the same passion Bangkok Post readers hate Thaksin, and they won’t ever forgive them for orchestrating the violence of 2010. The fact that they are openly hostile to anyone who doesn’t have at least two cars and a detached house in central Bangkok is also a factor, but the main reason that the Democrats are no longer electable is that the Democrats are anything but democratic, representing, as they do and have always done, the unelected oligarchs that have so completely raped and pillaged Thailand and her people for much longer than Thaksin has even been around.
It’s a very weakened form of attack, this new strategy, but they are running out of options. Sadly though, the Thai people must continue to endure these destructive battles for yet more time to come. At least, that is, until the inevitable event that no one wants to, or indeed can, talk about. Then the end is really nigh for the oligarchs because, without the fancy icing, no one can continue to pretend the cake isn’t rotten to its core.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
I find it very interesting that the 2007 constitution, which was brought about only through an illegal coup; and a referendum that was illegal under section 214, paragraph 4 of the preceding constitution, have suddenly become paragons of democracy and law.