Also in the Koh Kong area, scene of the large-scale Singapore sand dredging operation, there were a number of very large land grabs and grey-area sales of National Park land, etc. Chut Wutty, the Cambodia activist who led the movement against this activity was killed today by Cambodia police per the article below:
Dan said
“No political figure in Thailand is really analogous to Hitler”
I skimmed your posts above (did not really read it) and although your posts received a lot of negative votes, I did give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you really believe that there was no figure in Thailand who had done the same four things Hitler had done, which are:
-brainwashing the Thais
-made it illegal for Thais to criticise him
-jailed those who opposed him
-acquiesced to the withhunting activities his fanatics do to expose those who opposed him
then I have no choice but to withdraw my benefit of the doubt I initially gave to you. From now on I guess I will do the same thing with your posts I did to people who post nonsense like Tony Cartalucci or LandDestroyer: ignore them completely.
No political figure in Thailand is really analogous to Hitler. And it is kind of belittling the terrible crimes of the holocaust and the horrific bigotry that preceded it across both Western Europe and Eastern Europe to even bring the monster into it…… It is a Red Herring….. The constitutional context of 1930s Europe is not. Just look how many changes of government France underwent between World War One and World War Two….. The PAD brainwashing depended on mass hysteria and a lack of knowledge to convince people of the hatespeak…. It was and is awful….. If ‘Bunny’ #53 believes that the Red Stage and Thaksin didn’t employ exactly the same methods then he/she obviously didn’t spend much time at Rajaprasong…… The hate message of the Thaksin fluffers was relentless… Arisaman even urged the crowd to ‘hunt down’ the drivers of BTS trains because the BTS was the ‘tool of the amart’……. Revolting.
Nobody #61 In many cases this is now being at least partially led (maybe a lot more than partially in many cases) from the bottom or near it or grassroots.
So you think the UDD grassroots has already broken free from the chao pho’s that have allowed them to flourish in their specific geographical regions?
Personally, I don’t think that battle has been fought yet, though we are seeing a sign of skirmishes as the UDD leadership takes sides in the amnesty controversy.
I watch with great interest as the UDD and PTP elites slowly maneuver the UDD into an ineffective movement and show their true colors (no pun intended, of course).
Going back to the article, I’ve had a thought . . .
What if the amnesty plan is changed so that it:
1) does not grant amnesty to violent crimes
2) grants amnesty to political crimes
3) cancels all politically motivated charges/sentences
4) the above rulings can be re-tried in court
Such a system would likely please the majority of all sides.
I will try to answer your question as to why there are still many Red Shirts who are ‘fanatical’ to Thaksin.
Perhaps they were the ones who benefited from his government policy? Thaksin’s OTOP project changed the lives of many people. I have read about many people who suddenly become ‘well to do businessmen’ after OTOP because their product became famous. His medical welfare policy saved the lives of many, who were unable to afford medical treatment before this policy exists.
Before Thaksin, I’d say no one had done much for poor people in Thailand. The Royal Projects, whilst having some benefit to the poor, are done with the sole purpose to propagandalise the Royal Family at the cost of the taxpayers, without much consideration on how the projects should be run to become effective and independent from taxpayers’ monetary support. Yet the poor saw it as an attempt from the Royal Family to assist them.
Thaksin did the same thing the Royal Family did, but he also went one step ahead: he came up with a plan to make these projects really work. So this is why many poor people whose lives changed because of Thaksin still regard him as a hero of some sort. So, I must say, although I cringe seeing Red Shirts hugging and crying Thaksin, I would still understand the reasons behind it.
This is why Thaksin is a threat to the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party had years to do this before Thaksin burst out into the scene, yet they never did what Thaksin had done. And now it is too late for them to do it; the poor and unprivileged had made their choice.
As for me, I abstain my vote altogether. I see no point voting for Thaksin who plays politics mainly for his own interest. Nor would I vote for the Democrat party who plays politics for the elites’ interest. Although I am a Thai, but I prefer to live overseas and pay tax to the country that actually looks after its taxpayers and listen to what they say seriously.
I never said you compared Thaksin to Hitler. Read my post again. It was not even addressed to you, but to everyone here. In fact, I did note your post above that you think the PAD comparing Thaksin to Hitler is idiotic. The person who should be compared to Hitler in Thailand is not Thaksin. Rather it is the person who the PAD wants to protect and defend the most whose behaviour is moat analogous to Hitler. Unfortunately the PAD is too blind to see this blatant fact.
In 2007 Indonesia issued a ban on the export of sand in reaction to that insatiable hunger referred to in this article. Islands (some of which allegedly located in disputed territory, see http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070102/070213-4.htm) were basically slowly disappearing…obviously devastating for an island state.
This ban seems to have shifted activities increasingly towards Cambodia. The ban was a brave move by Indonesia, undoubtedly motivated by other concerns than environmental ones, but still.
Now I read that in 2009 Cambodia has officially banned sand mining as well (I think the Witness Report deals with that as well) so how can its implementation be enforced? And who is monitoring whether Singapore is in fact still importing sand from Indonesia, for that matter?
Thanks to Catherine Ingram for a most interesting article. It reminded me of my stay in Kunming (Yunnan Province, China) for five weeks in February 2010. A visit to the city’s “minorities village” provided me with some insight into issues around the packaging of minority cultures for tourists in China – particularly interesting for me because I used to work (ironically, perhaps, in an “official” capacity) in the area of promoting “people-to-people” (that is, “unofficial”) relations between Australia and overseas countries. This included cultural relations, and covered consideration of what aspects of Australian culture might be accessible – and of interest – to overseas audiences – and vice-versa.
The “minorities village” concept raised obvious issues of authenticity, and this was particularly so with the cultural performances I witnessed. They were packaged as a stage show held in a vast semi-covered “music bowl,” and came complete with extravagant multimedia lighting and sound effects. There seemed to be particular emphasis on noise, action and – in the accompanying commentary, choreography and overall staging – conventional notions of “the primitive.”
I suppose it could be argued that this ersatz version of traditional and minority cultures usefully provided a mainstream Chinese audience with at least some exposure to aspects of “the real thing” which they might otherwise not have had. All the same, from what I saw of Chinese television – in my room at a cut-rate guesthouse in Kunming, with hundreds of channels from all over China available at the flick of a switch – there is actually no shortage of opportunities in China for ordinary people to access official versions of minority performing cultures. What is of course missing in such performances is any verifiable authenticity or cultural context. As noted in Catherine’s article, these elements could be present, but only an expert would know.
I was interested to note that the audience at the performance that Catherine attended in Australia seems to have been predominantly of Chinese background. I wonder if this was the intended audience, or was simply a case of “preaching to the converted?” Undoubtedly the Chinese government – and associated private or commercial entities – appropriate, package and promote minority cultures, both in China and overseas, for nationalistic purposes. So, of course, do many governments – including Australia’s. (How to “get attention” from the “target audience” for my particular suite of “cultural products” was precisely the issue I used to wrestle with on a daily basis!) Increasingly, this kind of governmental promotion seems to be occurring in a “disguised” format – that is to say, slick, sophisticated and commercialised. There’s nothing wrong, of course, with culture as entertainment – it’s certainly reached a highly-evolved level in the West, and one might even argue that all cultural works embody at least some element of proselytisation for a particular set of values – whether political, religious, philosophical, ideological, social or commercial. I suppose the challenge is to ensure that non-mainstream cultures and values can be preserved in the cultural market-place, and are not smothered or forgotten.
Obviously, research into historically- or socially-authentic cultural practices needs to be continued and enhanced. This research will to include issues relating to cultural communication, transmission, transformation, influence, appropriation, promulgation, access, preservation and education. Presumably the survival of minority cultures will in the long term come down to economic viability or “audience development” in some shape or form.
There is an obvious analogy here with institutions such as national parks, zoos, museums, galleries, databases, heritage precincts – and perhaps even “cultural villages.” We clearly need continued research into the economics of culture, which I take to be investigation into what determines the economic priority which individuals, groups and societies give to what kinds of culture. Or are there other determinants of cultural survival? I for one would greatly appreciate any thoughts which you or other contributors to New Mandala might have on these issues.
this is one of the good book on south east Asia so far but sir i would like to beseech you that must add political situation , historical perspective, human resources development,and trade relation in new addition.
johninbkk: in theory, yes, of course. But dicks can also try to screw with the electoral system (oops, now Dan will liken me to racist English comedians). Of course, the dicks in the other systems (like absolute monarchies or Fascist states) don’t even have to bother about that.
Thanks for the intriguing inputs from everyone, Nick Nostitz especially.
Ok, i got some thoughts not quite same with everybody. While the focal point in most posts remains on Thaksin (and comparison with Hitler and the alike), maybe we should also look at the red shirts who made the effort to meet him. True, there are many emotional expressions with tears and hugs involved. Yet, why are they still so “fanatical” (in CT’s word) or obsessed with Thaksin even when he’s been out of the country for quite some time? How do they change from saving all the tears and flowers only to the monarchy to giving all out so generously to Thaksin? How has Thaksin become an alternative to receive these strong gestures that used to be reserved only to HM?
Well you can go on to stick with “brainwash” if you like. But CT makes a good point that Thaksin has yet to cross the line to brainwash people. What I see is really that people see more of what this man represents or represneted. He delivers/ed something the red shirts desire — a political rule that honors their dignity and speasks in their interest.
When we only believe personal charisma is all that a leader uses to appeal to supporters, we really miss out what the supporters see in their own eyes and what they think in their own minds. Personal charm may win ears and eyes, but ideological and material delivery win hearts.
@Ralph #49
And if that leader is a ‘dick’, democracy, over that ‘something else’, has three benefits:
1) the majority approve of him
2) his powers are clearly defined and limited
3) he has an expiration date, ie can be impeached and must face re-election
“If the government of Malaysia believes that its electoral process will free and fair, according to international standards, we would welcome being invited to come to Malaysia as independent electoral observers. If the Malaysian government does not invite independent international observers, the question will be left: What do they have to hide?”
Professor Damien Kingsbury is Director, Centre for Citizenship, Development and Human Rights at DeakinUniversity, Melbourne, and is coordinator of the Australian Friendship observer mission to the East Timor elections, as well as having been an accredited observer to elections in Indonesia and Cambodia.
This statement was made available to Global Bersih.
@Dan #36
You quoted the first paragraph in the wikipedia article which, on the surface, would appear to prove your point. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us read beyond that first paragraph.
The PAD has made a concerted effort to discredit democracy. Using selective and even false information to ‘prove’ that point is their tool.
#45 Nganadeeleg “Thaksin only came on the scene a decade or so ago”
No, he came on the scene 2 decades ago when he entered politics and was in government in the 90s before he became PM as leader of Thai Rak Thai at the turn of the century…. General Chamlong was an initial supporter. ….. Banharn? Chavalit?
#47 Ralph “Dan: who is doing the avoiding? If you can’t get basic facts right, what’s the point? Missing points? Speak for yourself.”
That Hitler came to power by winning the largest section of the votes in 1933 and forcing the passing of the enabling act?…… As I said already, which fact are you disputing?
So you (and no doubt Pro Oligarch ‘John Smith’ in an upcoming post) will continue to march your straw men up blind alleys, whilst clutching at straws in order not to answer the salient questions that make up the central theme of this thread…. I can’t say I am surprised.
CT #45 “Just for these four facts, I’d say the analogy between Thaksin and Hitler is not convincing.”
And nor has anyone made this analogy apart from you…. It would be utterly absurd to claim one corrupt and self serving oligarch in any way serves as a parallel with the author of one of the most brutal and evil crimes against humanity in history……. The echo is in the fragility and maleable nature of state institutions within a weak ‘democracy’ such as the Weimar Republic….. And a separate point about the way fascism employed the mass brainwashing of crowds with hatespeak….. Something parcticed by both the Red and Yellow leadership. This echoing of Fascist method does not make Thaksin or even Sonthi ‘like Hitler’…. It just makes him sound a bit like him when he is trying to encourage his supporters to violent acts.
While so many and especially the media look at Thaksin and what he embodies form both negative and positive perspectives, underneath this Thailand and it socio-poltical structures are being reformed. In many cases this is now being at least partially led (maybe a lot mor ethan partially in many cases) from the bottom or near it or grassroots.
Those that hoped for a managed change, and one managed by them are seeing their dream collapse and there is nothing they can do about it. In the short term this is only going to fuel nager and hatred towards Thaksin who they can still lash out and whose destiny they still feel they have some control over. However, whatever happens to Thaksin will actually have no effect on the changes that have occurred and are coming. While if succesful these managers of society wont have be humiliated by seeing Thaksin’s return celebrated, they will still become increasingly sidelined and irrelevant.
In fact an arguement could be made that the the return of Thaksin to the poltical fold would actually guarantee more power for these characters. In here for them lies the irony and their own tragedy.
The basis of the question of democracy vs. something else producing better or worse politicians and leaders is dumb. Democracies produce dicks (Chalerm, Bush, Bjelke-Petersen and so on) and so do all the something elses (think of the raving loonies who have been monarchs).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Singapore’s insatiable hunger for sand
Also in the Koh Kong area, scene of the large-scale Singapore sand dredging operation, there were a number of very large land grabs and grey-area sales of National Park land, etc. Chut Wutty, the Cambodia activist who led the movement against this activity was killed today by Cambodia police per the article below:
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/top-cambodian-activist-dead-after-police-shoot-out
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
Dan said
“No political figure in Thailand is really analogous to Hitler”
I skimmed your posts above (did not really read it) and although your posts received a lot of negative votes, I did give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you really believe that there was no figure in Thailand who had done the same four things Hitler had done, which are:
-brainwashing the Thais
-made it illegal for Thais to criticise him
-jailed those who opposed him
-acquiesced to the withhunting activities his fanatics do to expose those who opposed him
then I have no choice but to withdraw my benefit of the doubt I initially gave to you. From now on I guess I will do the same thing with your posts I did to people who post nonsense like Tony Cartalucci or LandDestroyer: ignore them completely.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
Ct #56
No political figure in Thailand is really analogous to Hitler. And it is kind of belittling the terrible crimes of the holocaust and the horrific bigotry that preceded it across both Western Europe and Eastern Europe to even bring the monster into it…… It is a Red Herring….. The constitutional context of 1930s Europe is not. Just look how many changes of government France underwent between World War One and World War Two….. The PAD brainwashing depended on mass hysteria and a lack of knowledge to convince people of the hatespeak…. It was and is awful….. If ‘Bunny’ #53 believes that the Red Stage and Thaksin didn’t employ exactly the same methods then he/she obviously didn’t spend much time at Rajaprasong…… The hate message of the Thaksin fluffers was relentless… Arisaman even urged the crowd to ‘hunt down’ the drivers of BTS trains because the BTS was the ‘tool of the amart’……. Revolting.
When Thaksin comes home
Nobody #61
In many cases this is now being at least partially led (maybe a lot more than partially in many cases) from the bottom or near it or grassroots.
So you think the UDD grassroots has already broken free from the chao pho’s that have allowed them to flourish in their specific geographical regions?
Personally, I don’t think that battle has been fought yet, though we are seeing a sign of skirmishes as the UDD leadership takes sides in the amnesty controversy.
I watch with great interest as the UDD and PTP elites slowly maneuver the UDD into an ineffective movement and show their true colors (no pun intended, of course).
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
Going back to the article, I’ve had a thought . . .
What if the amnesty plan is changed so that it:
1) does not grant amnesty to violent crimes
2) grants amnesty to political crimes
3) cancels all politically motivated charges/sentences
4) the above rulings can be re-tried in court
Such a system would likely please the majority of all sides.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Bunny #53
I will try to answer your question as to why there are still many Red Shirts who are ‘fanatical’ to Thaksin.
Perhaps they were the ones who benefited from his government policy? Thaksin’s OTOP project changed the lives of many people. I have read about many people who suddenly become ‘well to do businessmen’ after OTOP because their product became famous. His medical welfare policy saved the lives of many, who were unable to afford medical treatment before this policy exists.
Before Thaksin, I’d say no one had done much for poor people in Thailand. The Royal Projects, whilst having some benefit to the poor, are done with the sole purpose to propagandalise the Royal Family at the cost of the taxpayers, without much consideration on how the projects should be run to become effective and independent from taxpayers’ monetary support. Yet the poor saw it as an attempt from the Royal Family to assist them.
Thaksin did the same thing the Royal Family did, but he also went one step ahead: he came up with a plan to make these projects really work. So this is why many poor people whose lives changed because of Thaksin still regard him as a hero of some sort. So, I must say, although I cringe seeing Red Shirts hugging and crying Thaksin, I would still understand the reasons behind it.
This is why Thaksin is a threat to the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party had years to do this before Thaksin burst out into the scene, yet they never did what Thaksin had done. And now it is too late for them to do it; the poor and unprivileged had made their choice.
As for me, I abstain my vote altogether. I see no point voting for Thaksin who plays politics mainly for his own interest. Nor would I vote for the Democrat party who plays politics for the elites’ interest. Although I am a Thai, but I prefer to live overseas and pay tax to the country that actually looks after its taxpayers and listen to what they say seriously.
Institutions and regional development in Southeast Asia
The author seems to have moved on to Laos. See
http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/22973/wp522.pdf
http://eadi.org/gc2011/andriesse-613.pdf
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Dan
I never said you compared Thaksin to Hitler. Read my post again. It was not even addressed to you, but to everyone here. In fact, I did note your post above that you think the PAD comparing Thaksin to Hitler is idiotic. The person who should be compared to Hitler in Thailand is not Thaksin. Rather it is the person who the PAD wants to protect and defend the most whose behaviour is moat analogous to Hitler. Unfortunately the PAD is too blind to see this blatant fact.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Ralph #54
“But dicks can also try to screw with the electoral system”
Oh yes, definitely: http://m.bangkokpost.com/topstories/230850
But . . . the 2007 Constitution is hardly democratic.
Singapore’s insatiable hunger for sand
In 2007 Indonesia issued a ban on the export of sand in reaction to that insatiable hunger referred to in this article. Islands (some of which allegedly located in disputed territory, see http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070102/070213-4.htm) were basically slowly disappearing…obviously devastating for an island state.
This ban seems to have shifted activities increasingly towards Cambodia. The ban was a brave move by Indonesia, undoubtedly motivated by other concerns than environmental ones, but still.
Now I read that in 2009 Cambodia has officially banned sand mining as well (I think the Witness Report deals with that as well) so how can its implementation be enforced? And who is monitoring whether Singapore is in fact still importing sand from Indonesia, for that matter?
Kam ‘big song’ down under
Thanks to Catherine Ingram for a most interesting article. It reminded me of my stay in Kunming (Yunnan Province, China) for five weeks in February 2010. A visit to the city’s “minorities village” provided me with some insight into issues around the packaging of minority cultures for tourists in China – particularly interesting for me because I used to work (ironically, perhaps, in an “official” capacity) in the area of promoting “people-to-people” (that is, “unofficial”) relations between Australia and overseas countries. This included cultural relations, and covered consideration of what aspects of Australian culture might be accessible – and of interest – to overseas audiences – and vice-versa.
The “minorities village” concept raised obvious issues of authenticity, and this was particularly so with the cultural performances I witnessed. They were packaged as a stage show held in a vast semi-covered “music bowl,” and came complete with extravagant multimedia lighting and sound effects. There seemed to be particular emphasis on noise, action and – in the accompanying commentary, choreography and overall staging – conventional notions of “the primitive.”
I suppose it could be argued that this ersatz version of traditional and minority cultures usefully provided a mainstream Chinese audience with at least some exposure to aspects of “the real thing” which they might otherwise not have had. All the same, from what I saw of Chinese television – in my room at a cut-rate guesthouse in Kunming, with hundreds of channels from all over China available at the flick of a switch – there is actually no shortage of opportunities in China for ordinary people to access official versions of minority performing cultures. What is of course missing in such performances is any verifiable authenticity or cultural context. As noted in Catherine’s article, these elements could be present, but only an expert would know.
I was interested to note that the audience at the performance that Catherine attended in Australia seems to have been predominantly of Chinese background. I wonder if this was the intended audience, or was simply a case of “preaching to the converted?” Undoubtedly the Chinese government – and associated private or commercial entities – appropriate, package and promote minority cultures, both in China and overseas, for nationalistic purposes. So, of course, do many governments – including Australia’s. (How to “get attention” from the “target audience” for my particular suite of “cultural products” was precisely the issue I used to wrestle with on a daily basis!) Increasingly, this kind of governmental promotion seems to be occurring in a “disguised” format – that is to say, slick, sophisticated and commercialised. There’s nothing wrong, of course, with culture as entertainment – it’s certainly reached a highly-evolved level in the West, and one might even argue that all cultural works embody at least some element of proselytisation for a particular set of values – whether political, religious, philosophical, ideological, social or commercial. I suppose the challenge is to ensure that non-mainstream cultures and values can be preserved in the cultural market-place, and are not smothered or forgotten.
Obviously, research into historically- or socially-authentic cultural practices needs to be continued and enhanced. This research will to include issues relating to cultural communication, transmission, transformation, influence, appropriation, promulgation, access, preservation and education. Presumably the survival of minority cultures will in the long term come down to economic viability or “audience development” in some shape or form.
There is an obvious analogy here with institutions such as national parks, zoos, museums, galleries, databases, heritage precincts – and perhaps even “cultural villages.” We clearly need continued research into the economics of culture, which I take to be investigation into what determines the economic priority which individuals, groups and societies give to what kinds of culture. Or are there other determinants of cultural survival? I for one would greatly appreciate any thoughts which you or other contributors to New Mandala might have on these issues.
Institutions and regional development in Southeast Asia
this is one of the good book on south east Asia so far but sir i would like to beseech you that must add political situation , historical perspective, human resources development,and trade relation in new addition.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
johninbkk: in theory, yes, of course. But dicks can also try to screw with the electoral system (oops, now Dan will liken me to racist English comedians). Of course, the dicks in the other systems (like absolute monarchies or Fascist states) don’t even have to bother about that.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
Thanks for the intriguing inputs from everyone, Nick Nostitz especially.
Ok, i got some thoughts not quite same with everybody. While the focal point in most posts remains on Thaksin (and comparison with Hitler and the alike), maybe we should also look at the red shirts who made the effort to meet him. True, there are many emotional expressions with tears and hugs involved. Yet, why are they still so “fanatical” (in CT’s word) or obsessed with Thaksin even when he’s been out of the country for quite some time? How do they change from saving all the tears and flowers only to the monarchy to giving all out so generously to Thaksin? How has Thaksin become an alternative to receive these strong gestures that used to be reserved only to HM?
Well you can go on to stick with “brainwash” if you like. But CT makes a good point that Thaksin has yet to cross the line to brainwash people. What I see is really that people see more of what this man represents or represneted. He delivers/ed something the red shirts desire — a political rule that honors their dignity and speasks in their interest.
When we only believe personal charisma is all that a leader uses to appeal to supporters, we really miss out what the supporters see in their own eyes and what they think in their own minds. Personal charm may win ears and eyes, but ideological and material delivery win hearts.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Ralph #49
And if that leader is a ‘dick’, democracy, over that ‘something else’, has three benefits:
1) the majority approve of him
2) his powers are clearly defined and limited
3) he has an expiration date, ie can be impeached and must face re-election
Malaysia: Desperate times, disparate solutions
Australian observers in Malaysia?
Professor Damien Kingsbury is Director, Centre for Citizenship, Development and Human Rights at DeakinUniversity, Melbourne, and is coordinator of the Australian Friendship observer mission to the East Timor elections, as well as having been an accredited observer to elections in Indonesia and Cambodia.
This statement was made available to Global Bersih.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Dan #36
You quoted the first paragraph in the wikipedia article which, on the surface, would appear to prove your point. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us read beyond that first paragraph.
The PAD has made a concerted effort to discredit democracy. Using selective and even false information to ‘prove’ that point is their tool.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
#45 Nganadeeleg “Thaksin only came on the scene a decade or so ago”
No, he came on the scene 2 decades ago when he entered politics and was in government in the 90s before he became PM as leader of Thai Rak Thai at the turn of the century…. General Chamlong was an initial supporter. ….. Banharn? Chavalit?
#47 Ralph “Dan: who is doing the avoiding? If you can’t get basic facts right, what’s the point? Missing points? Speak for yourself.”
That Hitler came to power by winning the largest section of the votes in 1933 and forcing the passing of the enabling act?…… As I said already, which fact are you disputing?
So you (and no doubt Pro Oligarch ‘John Smith’ in an upcoming post) will continue to march your straw men up blind alleys, whilst clutching at straws in order not to answer the salient questions that make up the central theme of this thread…. I can’t say I am surprised.
CT #45 “Just for these four facts, I’d say the analogy between Thaksin and Hitler is not convincing.”
And nor has anyone made this analogy apart from you…. It would be utterly absurd to claim one corrupt and self serving oligarch in any way serves as a parallel with the author of one of the most brutal and evil crimes against humanity in history……. The echo is in the fragility and maleable nature of state institutions within a weak ‘democracy’ such as the Weimar Republic….. And a separate point about the way fascism employed the mass brainwashing of crowds with hatespeak….. Something parcticed by both the Red and Yellow leadership. This echoing of Fascist method does not make Thaksin or even Sonthi ‘like Hitler’…. It just makes him sound a bit like him when he is trying to encourage his supporters to violent acts.
When Thaksin comes home
While so many and especially the media look at Thaksin and what he embodies form both negative and positive perspectives, underneath this Thailand and it socio-poltical structures are being reformed. In many cases this is now being at least partially led (maybe a lot mor ethan partially in many cases) from the bottom or near it or grassroots.
Those that hoped for a managed change, and one managed by them are seeing their dream collapse and there is nothing they can do about it. In the short term this is only going to fuel nager and hatred towards Thaksin who they can still lash out and whose destiny they still feel they have some control over. However, whatever happens to Thaksin will actually have no effect on the changes that have occurred and are coming. While if succesful these managers of society wont have be humiliated by seeing Thaksin’s return celebrated, they will still become increasingly sidelined and irrelevant.
In fact an arguement could be made that the the return of Thaksin to the poltical fold would actually guarantee more power for these characters. In here for them lies the irony and their own tragedy.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
The basis of the question of democracy vs. something else producing better or worse politicians and leaders is dumb. Democracies produce dicks (Chalerm, Bush, Bjelke-Petersen and so on) and so do all the something elses (think of the raving loonies who have been monarchs).