Fortunately the High Court of Australia has overturned the govt’s decision to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia, thereby saving refugees from the experience of liberty & justice, welfare & happiness, at the hands of rabid, perverted dogs. (Not suggesting that Oz concentration camps are good, but Malaysia? No way!)
This view brings a debate on the role of the army. In no mature democracy is the army a part of checks and balances. The army is under the control of the government. Period. E.g. if a general is not loyal to Obama, he will be sacked immediately.
If you believe that the army should be independent from the government, you are actually arguing for the dual state system that Amsterdam is highlighting.
Regarding the comparison between Tak Bai and the Red Shirt crack down, the responsibility depends on Thaksin’s and Abhisit’s involvement. Did the army act independently or did they follow orders directed from the government?
Amaart, on both sides, really do have their hands tied about what they can say about each other. One might think of it as a class code of honor, but it is undoubtedly something more like they have the dirt on each other, but can’t really cleanse it without exposing their own filth to the public gaze. Thus we are forced to witness a constant stream of rather over-inventive off-at-a-tangent legal cases with the judiciary as the proxy bogeyman. The judiciary then either opts for the highest bidder or capitulates to save its future skin (as with this week’s case).
this is a clear and brilliant expose from someone is well qualified to comment… But to me it is also a shame that such astute political insight has to come from a non-academic pen which begs the question: where were our eminent thai political economists looking the past five years? up the karsie?
2. In the case at Tak Bai where demonstrators where stacked on a truck and suffocated to death the problem is the same. If there is no link between Thaksin and the actions of the army, the security forces on the ground are responsible.
The Ratchada case was the best choice because it it would not get their own allies into trouble, and it could be sold easily to a middle class that would not dig into the details.
Now I understand why sick folk when they really want to get to the cause use a CT scan. Scan no 35 above about ‘Ratchada Land Deal’ case to get rid of Thaksin reveals a deep malignancy in the Thai legal system.
But as for puzzling about failure to try nabbing Thaksin over the southern killings I wound think there is an obvious answer. With the army and police which both have strong links to the Prerogative State, it would be unthinkable to raise this. Rather like bringing Osama bin Laden back alive and giving him a fair trial.
What do folk think about Robert’s comment: “The Prerogative State has come into being in Thailand thanks in part to the backing and financial support of the United States government, which saw in a strong and unaccountable military, as well as in the rough justice it meted out to its opponents, a dependable ally in the fight against communism. “??
Read Chomsky to see how US backing of Prerogative States has continued long after the USSR was gone. Does this indicate a line of healthy independent thinking shared with paymaster Thaksin? And how might this translate into action with the new government? Another question for Andrew Spooner’s work .
Thank you, Andrew, for acknowledging that my comments are consistent with what a trusted member of the Australian government told you. And of course you can’t identify him by name, or expect him to provide you with written evidence, because he’s bound by the Official Secrets Act and doesn’t want to do a Bradley Manning.
[…] writing about Thailand today. Besides Pavin himself, speakers include Thongchai Winichakul, David Streckfuss, Andrew Walker, James Ockey, and Federico Ferrara. Also addressing the conference will be Chaturon […]
If you’re interested in the details of how Thaksin undermined virtually all of the checks and balances of the democratic system that facilitated his election, primarily the judiciary and the media, I suggest you read Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker’s biography “Thaksin”.
The words I’ve already used in comparing the Democrats with Thai Rak Thai were that if Abhisit was “Murderous Mark”, then Thaksin was “Monstrous Maew”. That was to point out that if Abhisit was responsible for the 91 deaths during the Red Shirt rallies of 2010, then Thaksin was also responsible for the 76 deaths at Tak Bai in 2004. There were many similarities between their two regimes and the way they did business. Different regime, same game plan.
By mid-2006 the only possible means of restraining Thaksin was the military, which is why General Prem spent so much time visiting army bases to address the troops and remind them that their primary duty was to “protect the monarchy”, not serve the elected government. As I said, the army was the last available check, but unfortunately it was an unbalanced check.
This time around, watch how the new Thaksin/Yinglak Government tries to control the army by pitting the Wong Thewan against the Burapha Phayak, and see who replaces Prem at the head of the privy council. My money is on Thaksin, especially if Rama X replaces Rama IX before Prem goes.
Seh Fah #24 You are right and I’m sure many others remember well the period when Monday was yellow shirt day and almost everybody wore their yellow shirts to work. If I recall correctly this started after the King entered hospital wearing yellow. I think it reflected peoples sense of uncertainty arising from the King being ill and was a show of support for him. Our wardrobe here at home still contains several yellow shirts from this pre-PAD time.
My own observation is that the PAD politicized the king’s colour and that is why those yellow shirts are no longer worn so freely. As CT says this does not reflect a corresponding decrease in respect for the king.
I honestly don’t know, because I go back to Thailand only once or twice a year, and usually I stay for only two weeks. Therefore, I never really notice what Thai people do on Monday.
However, I do not think it is easy to change a yellow into a red overnight. It takes a “yellow person” a lot of reading and thinking to change their opinion. I wish to think that most yellows have turned reds. However, I do not think this actually happened. I think most yellows are now waiting to come out. They are waiting for the signal from Sondhi Lim I think.
Which powers are you referring to when you say that Thaksin “systematically undermined virtually all of the checks and balances”? And how was it done? I am not arguing that you are wrong, I am just interested in the details.
Let’s have a look at the records of the Democrats.
The primary checking power to control a government is the judiciary. I know little about the process to ensure that judges are independent and politically unbiased. But in the last 5 years, one political side has won every case while the other side has lost almost all. The Democrats have not only ignored this, but pretended that everything is fine.
Another checking power is the media. In the Press Freedom Index Thailand’s rating went from 23 in 2002 to 28 in 2005. For 2010 it is 57 and Thailand is now ranked 153 out of 178. If Thaksin “systematically undermined” the media, what words would you choose for what the Democrats has done?
CT, as I’ve mentioned before, reading Slimdog’s detailed analysis of the background to the land case is at least a good start: http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/
On why that case was pursued rather than others, I suspect the answer has a lot to do with where else (i.e. to whom) other cases would properly lead if properly pursued.
#35 Not really that much of a mystery. They are constantly looking to make accusations that won’t leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy,but which can be easily fixed in court through incentives or threats. As the duplicity of both sides is breathtaking, they constantly have to think up lame excuses. This should be obvious from this week’s judicial copouts.
The High Court has declared invalid the Government’s attempt to send asylum seekers to Malaysia.
A summary of the decision said the court ruled that under section 198a of the Migration Act, the minister could not validly declare a country as a country to which asylum seekers could be taken for processing unless that country was legally bound to meet three criteria.
“The country must be legally bound by international law or its own domestic law to: provide access for asylum seekers to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection; provide protection for asylum seekers pending determination of their refugee status; and provide protection for persons given refugee status pending their voluntary return to their country of origin or their resettlement in another country,” it said.
“In addition to these criteria, the Migration Act requires that the country meet certain human rights standards in providing that protection.’
Extract from, “Malaysia deal invalid“, Ross Peake and Bianca Hall, The Canberra Times, 31 August 2011.
One thing which I still don’t quite understand until today is why the Thai elites decide to use the ‘Ratchada Land Deal’ case to get rid of Thaksin.
According to my understanding (I have not done much study on this case, so my opinion on this case is admittedly very shallow and can be incorrect, so anyone please feel free to correct me), the Ratchada Land Deal case is, at most, a case about seeking unauthorised profit. Thus it is likely to be the civil case, and the worst which would happen (in any western courts) is that the Court would invalidate such transaction. It can never be a criminal case with an imprisonment penalty, especially not after Thaksin had sought legal advice prior to the transaction and that his lawyer told him that “everything would be all right”, because he had sought legal advice beforehand, and relied on such advice before entering into the transaction.
Thus the decision to imprison Thaksin because of this deal does not make any sense. It won’t happen in any independent court in any western countries.
Nonetheless, if the elites really want to put Thaksin in jail, the best case to put him in there is the extra judicial killings in southern Thailand. If they want to put him in jail, that’s the right case to charge him. Thus, I wonder why the elites didn’t use that case to charge Thaksin? Instead they relied on this land deal and delivered questionable legal principle to imprison him?
I’m not sure how relevant this is, but five or six years ago the Monday morning crowds were made up almost entirely of people wearing yellow shirts with royal insignia to show their love and respect for the king. Nowadays these yellow shirts are rarely seen. Is this because the yellow shirt was tainted by association with the odious Sonthi Limthongkun and his PAD, or has respect for the monarchy fallen sharply? Or was wearing yellow shirts, like eating Roti Boy buns, just a passing fad?
How far inside do you have to be to qualify as an insider? Regular lunchtime discussions with the consular case officer just a little too far out of the loop?
Credibility reduced by the use of a pseudonym? I’m old enough to remember The Honeymooners. Don’t tell me Ralph Kramden is your real name.
I would love to hear Harry’s reflections on his experience. He did write a very nice “thank you” letter to his case officer.
In the gross scheme of things, Robert’s opinions are pretty much an irrelevance anyway. He might change some outsider perceptions of this country, but that opinion is likely to show no real little interest in interfering in the local succession bunfight. How much has western public opinion done to stave off the far higher priority fiascos in North Africa, for instance? Fact is, western public opinion is about as good as useless in resolving just about any crisis in the world today. Not that it has ever really been any different. Western governments will continue to appease such lowlife in the short-term interests of keeping the multinationals happy. They really do not care a toss whether it is Thaksin or Abhiset violating human rights. Thailand will largely have to deal with this problem for itself. Most locals are too cowed to do anything other than stay at home and watch the various political mafias destroy their country.
Thank you, Andrew, for correcting my mistaken impression that the Australian Embassy’s actions following the arrest of Harry Nicolaides may have had a positive effect in presuading the Thai Government to pardon and deport him after serving six months of a six year sentence. I was clearly quite wrong, and should never had suggested such an absurd explanation. From now on I will do my level best to match your own carefully nuanced choices about what I say and how I say it.
I have one query. If you had been the Australian ambassador to Thailand at the time of Harry’s arrest, what exactly would you have done to secure his release? I assume it would not have involved any resort to diplomacy, which the Macquarie Dictionary defines as follows:
1. The conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between states.
2. The science of conducting such negotiations.
3. Skill in managing any negotiations; artful management.
I also have a request. After Andrew has told us all what he would have done to get Harry out of gaol, could everyone else please tell me which approach they would prefer in the unfortunate event of their arrest on lese majeste charges.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Happy Independence Day, Malaya
Fortunately the High Court of Australia has overturned the govt’s decision to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia, thereby saving refugees from the experience of liberty & justice, welfare & happiness, at the hands of rabid, perverted dogs. (Not suggesting that Oz concentration camps are good, but Malaysia? No way!)
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Seh Fah #39
This view brings a debate on the role of the army. In no mature democracy is the army a part of checks and balances. The army is under the control of the government. Period. E.g. if a general is not loyal to Obama, he will be sacked immediately.
If you believe that the army should be independent from the government, you are actually arguing for the dual state system that Amsterdam is highlighting.
Regarding the comparison between Tak Bai and the Red Shirt crack down, the responsibility depends on Thaksin’s and Abhisit’s involvement. Did the army act independently or did they follow orders directed from the government?
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Amaart, on both sides, really do have their hands tied about what they can say about each other. One might think of it as a class code of honor, but it is undoubtedly something more like they have the dirt on each other, but can’t really cleanse it without exposing their own filth to the public gaze. Thus we are forced to witness a constant stream of rather over-inventive off-at-a-tangent legal cases with the judiciary as the proxy bogeyman. The judiciary then either opts for the highest bidder or capitulates to save its future skin (as with this week’s case).
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
this is a clear and brilliant expose from someone is well qualified to comment… But to me it is also a shame that such astute political insight has to come from a non-academic pen which begs the question: where were our eminent thai political economists looking the past five years? up the karsie?
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
This is a pretty good blog covering the entire court case of the Ratchada land purchase controversy:
http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/2009/09/ratchada-phisek-land-scandal.html
Regarding the South there a mainly two events.
1. As for the massacre in the Krue Se Mosque, the army disobeyed a direct order from the government to solve it peacefully. Not a good case to bring to light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency#Krue_Se_Mosque_Incident
2. In the case at Tak Bai where demonstrators where stacked on a truck and suffocated to death the problem is the same. If there is no link between Thaksin and the actions of the army, the security forces on the ground are responsible.
The Ratchada case was the best choice because it it would not get their own allies into trouble, and it could be sold easily to a middle class that would not dig into the details.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Now I understand why sick folk when they really want to get to the cause use a CT scan. Scan no 35 above about ‘Ratchada Land Deal’ case to get rid of Thaksin reveals a deep malignancy in the Thai legal system.
But as for puzzling about failure to try nabbing Thaksin over the southern killings I wound think there is an obvious answer. With the army and police which both have strong links to the Prerogative State, it would be unthinkable to raise this. Rather like bringing Osama bin Laden back alive and giving him a fair trial.
What do folk think about Robert’s comment: “The Prerogative State has come into being in Thailand thanks in part to the backing and financial support of the United States government, which saw in a strong and unaccountable military, as well as in the rough justice it meted out to its opponents, a dependable ally in the fight against communism. “??
Read Chomsky to see how US backing of Prerogative States has continued long after the USSR was gone. Does this indicate a line of healthy independent thinking shared with paymaster Thaksin? And how might this translate into action with the new government? Another question for Andrew Spooner’s work .
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Andrew Walker #97
Thank you, Andrew, for acknowledging that my comments are consistent with what a trusted member of the Australian government told you. And of course you can’t identify him by name, or expect him to provide you with written evidence, because he’s bound by the Official Secrets Act and doesn’t want to do a Bradley Manning.
David Streckfuss on lese majeste
[…] writing about Thailand today. Besides Pavin himself, speakers include Thongchai Winichakul, David Streckfuss, Andrew Walker, James Ockey, and Federico Ferrara. Also addressing the conference will be Chaturon […]
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Chris L #38
If you’re interested in the details of how Thaksin undermined virtually all of the checks and balances of the democratic system that facilitated his election, primarily the judiciary and the media, I suggest you read Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker’s biography “Thaksin”.
The words I’ve already used in comparing the Democrats with Thai Rak Thai were that if Abhisit was “Murderous Mark”, then Thaksin was “Monstrous Maew”. That was to point out that if Abhisit was responsible for the 91 deaths during the Red Shirt rallies of 2010, then Thaksin was also responsible for the 76 deaths at Tak Bai in 2004. There were many similarities between their two regimes and the way they did business. Different regime, same game plan.
By mid-2006 the only possible means of restraining Thaksin was the military, which is why General Prem spent so much time visiting army bases to address the troops and remind them that their primary duty was to “protect the monarchy”, not serve the elected government. As I said, the army was the last available check, but unfortunately it was an unbalanced check.
This time around, watch how the new Thaksin/Yinglak Government tries to control the army by pitting the Wong Thewan against the Burapha Phayak, and see who replaces Prem at the head of the privy council. My money is on Thaksin, especially if Rama X replaces Rama IX before Prem goes.
Thailand’s succession planning
Seh Fah #24 You are right and I’m sure many others remember well the period when Monday was yellow shirt day and almost everybody wore their yellow shirts to work. If I recall correctly this started after the King entered hospital wearing yellow. I think it reflected peoples sense of uncertainty arising from the King being ill and was a show of support for him. Our wardrobe here at home still contains several yellow shirts from this pre-PAD time.
My own observation is that the PAD politicized the king’s colour and that is why those yellow shirts are no longer worn so freely. As CT says this does not reflect a corresponding decrease in respect for the king.
Thailand’s succession planning
@Seh Fah #24,
Thank you for your observation.
I honestly don’t know, because I go back to Thailand only once or twice a year, and usually I stay for only two weeks. Therefore, I never really notice what Thai people do on Monday.
However, I do not think it is easy to change a yellow into a red overnight. It takes a “yellow person” a lot of reading and thinking to change their opinion. I wish to think that most yellows have turned reds. However, I do not think this actually happened. I think most yellows are now waiting to come out. They are waiting for the signal from Sondhi Lim I think.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
@See Fah #6
Which powers are you referring to when you say that Thaksin “systematically undermined virtually all of the checks and balances”? And how was it done? I am not arguing that you are wrong, I am just interested in the details.
Let’s have a look at the records of the Democrats.
The primary checking power to control a government is the judiciary. I know little about the process to ensure that judges are independent and politically unbiased. But in the last 5 years, one political side has won every case while the other side has lost almost all. The Democrats have not only ignored this, but pretended that everything is fine.
Another checking power is the media. In the Press Freedom Index Thailand’s rating went from 23 in 2002 to 28 in 2005. For 2010 it is 57 and Thailand is now ranked 153 out of 178. If Thaksin “systematically undermined” the media, what words would you choose for what the Democrats has done?
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
c35
CT, as I’ve mentioned before, reading Slimdog’s detailed analysis of the background to the land case is at least a good start: http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/
On why that case was pursued rather than others, I suspect the answer has a lot to do with where else (i.e. to whom) other cases would properly lead if properly pursued.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
#35 Not really that much of a mystery. They are constantly looking to make accusations that won’t leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy,but which can be easily fixed in court through incentives or threats. As the duplicity of both sides is breathtaking, they constantly have to think up lame excuses. This should be obvious from this week’s judicial copouts.
Najib still an asset?
Extract from, “Malaysia deal invalid“, Ross Peake and Bianca Hall, The Canberra Times, 31 August 2011.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
One thing which I still don’t quite understand until today is why the Thai elites decide to use the ‘Ratchada Land Deal’ case to get rid of Thaksin.
According to my understanding (I have not done much study on this case, so my opinion on this case is admittedly very shallow and can be incorrect, so anyone please feel free to correct me), the Ratchada Land Deal case is, at most, a case about seeking unauthorised profit. Thus it is likely to be the civil case, and the worst which would happen (in any western courts) is that the Court would invalidate such transaction. It can never be a criminal case with an imprisonment penalty, especially not after Thaksin had sought legal advice prior to the transaction and that his lawyer told him that “everything would be all right”, because he had sought legal advice beforehand, and relied on such advice before entering into the transaction.
Thus the decision to imprison Thaksin because of this deal does not make any sense. It won’t happen in any independent court in any western countries.
Nonetheless, if the elites really want to put Thaksin in jail, the best case to put him in there is the extra judicial killings in southern Thailand. If they want to put him in jail, that’s the right case to charge him. Thus, I wonder why the elites didn’t use that case to charge Thaksin? Instead they relied on this land deal and delivered questionable legal principle to imprison him?
Thailand’s succession planning
CT #23
I’m not sure how relevant this is, but five or six years ago the Monday morning crowds were made up almost entirely of people wearing yellow shirts with royal insignia to show their love and respect for the king. Nowadays these yellow shirts are rarely seen. Is this because the yellow shirt was tainted by association with the odious Sonthi Limthongkun and his PAD, or has respect for the monarchy fallen sharply? Or was wearing yellow shirts, like eating Roti Boy buns, just a passing fad?
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Ralph Kramden #99
How far inside do you have to be to qualify as an insider? Regular lunchtime discussions with the consular case officer just a little too far out of the loop?
Credibility reduced by the use of a pseudonym? I’m old enough to remember The Honeymooners. Don’t tell me Ralph Kramden is your real name.
I would love to hear Harry’s reflections on his experience. He did write a very nice “thank you” letter to his case officer.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
In the gross scheme of things, Robert’s opinions are pretty much an irrelevance anyway. He might change some outsider perceptions of this country, but that opinion is likely to show no real little interest in interfering in the local succession bunfight. How much has western public opinion done to stave off the far higher priority fiascos in North Africa, for instance? Fact is, western public opinion is about as good as useless in resolving just about any crisis in the world today. Not that it has ever really been any different. Western governments will continue to appease such lowlife in the short-term interests of keeping the multinationals happy. They really do not care a toss whether it is Thaksin or Abhiset violating human rights. Thailand will largely have to deal with this problem for itself. Most locals are too cowed to do anything other than stay at home and watch the various political mafias destroy their country.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Andrew Spooner #98
Thank you, Andrew, for correcting my mistaken impression that the Australian Embassy’s actions following the arrest of Harry Nicolaides may have had a positive effect in presuading the Thai Government to pardon and deport him after serving six months of a six year sentence. I was clearly quite wrong, and should never had suggested such an absurd explanation. From now on I will do my level best to match your own carefully nuanced choices about what I say and how I say it.
I have one query. If you had been the Australian ambassador to Thailand at the time of Harry’s arrest, what exactly would you have done to secure his release? I assume it would not have involved any resort to diplomacy, which the Macquarie Dictionary defines as follows:
1. The conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between states.
2. The science of conducting such negotiations.
3. Skill in managing any negotiations; artful management.
I also have a request. After Andrew has told us all what he would have done to get Harry out of gaol, could everyone else please tell me which approach they would prefer in the unfortunate event of their arrest on lese majeste charges.
Over to you, Andrew.