Much of Asia’s business and land ownership laws are highly nationalistic and xenophobic with very few foreigners allowed to own businesses outright let alone own the land.
Funny thing is John, the only leading politician I have ever heard saying this was wrong and foreigners should be made more welcome is Abhisit, and that was before he became prime minister. I suspect that loosening the rules would have been too toxic during his brief holding of that position as he was already suspected of being too much an Anglophile.
John 31. Agree it is hard to understand why Australia officially seems oblivious to the corruption which ultimately underpins diplomatic ties as well as trade ties. From personal experience I know that Australian diplomats and trade officials don’t want to know. Perhaps it is time to set up a website that details experiences (with names omitted to avoid defamation actions – defamation is a criminal offence in Thailand). Time to shame the crooks and the officials in Thailand and Australia.
Robin I didn’t ever think I would be the defender of the middle classes, but your theory on intelligence and social status doesn’t bare too much examination.
Just for examples let’s look at an average member of Bangkok’s middle class who may even have turned out in 2008 for the PAD and a pro-red shirt villager working on the land in a hamlet in Khon Kaen province.
Now the first thing we could well find is that because we tend to lump everyone working in some sort of clerical job in Bangkok as part of the middle class, the two examples may well have been born in the same place, that village in Khon Kaen province.
The one who made it to Bangkok probably had the opportunity to move either because they were better at schoolwork and made it into a provincial university, or were lucky because they had family members who had already made the move. If they were really lucky they would have had a combination of both and had their high school education in one of Bangkok’s better schools. (The amazing thing is that the explosion in the size of Bangkok’s middle class is so recent, not just in my lifetime, but in the period I have called Bangkok my home.)
Now according to your theory, the increase in the length of education in the one who made it into the middle class would lead to becoming brainwashed into taking a more pro-establishment political stance. At the same time the one who stayed on the land would be more likely to vote according to the policies and character of the competing politicians.
So let’s test that theory by looking at election results in recent history.
We should see a big variance in politicians elected in that upcountry constituency. Well we certainly do in parties they represent. We could find SAP, Chart Thai, TRT, PT and even Democrat if we looked. But when we looked a bit closer we would find the politicians themselves were all under the control of the local provincial influential family, quite possibly a Sino-Thai mafia like operation.
So what about Bangkok you could say, isn’t that just a Democrat stronghold because of the brainwashing? Well actually not. The Bangkok voters can be a fickle lot. The moo baan canvassers have a far harder job of getting any sort of block voting going. This is why we see electoral victories for the likes of TRT and Phalang Dharma in Bangkok. A look at the Bangkok mayoral elections really disproves your point, as does the pro-democracy protests in 1992.
I find Australia’s foreign policy strange and unusual when dealing with South East Asian countries. Corruption and bribery is rife throughout China, Malaysia, Indonesia Thailand and India, I could go on, it makes for interesting trade agreements.
It is no secret in Thailand that the corrupted ‘patronage system’ with its own rules and regulations allows elite families with ties to royalty, the military and the security forces to operate like ‘cliques’. They are far from democratic yet use the facade of democracy and assumed high status to conceal their illegal activities.
Much of Asia’s business and land ownership laws are highly nationalistic and xenophobic with very few foreigners allowed to own businesses outright let alone own the land.
Why in Australia we allow the opposite is intriguing foreign policy and I’m assuming it means that allowing such ownership builds cultural bridges, as opposed to what many Asian nations do and that is obstruct the bridges siting ‘imperialism of the west’ as a major reason to restrict ownership.
Countries like Thailand use extreme nationalism to tell the people foreign ownership will lead to loss of sovereignty, yet in Australia this hasn’t happened and the country and all the people still prosper. Its not a perfect system but at least it allows for dialogue.
Thailand’s elite who are mostly ethnic Chinese with Thai surnames control most of the economy, including the media.
It is their monopolies that stifle and slow the economy down.
It is their monopolies that elections have been fought and won over.
I put it out their that it is this diaspora including the Thaksin clan who is from this group, who have for decades colluded with the indigenous elite, the military and the security forces to literally rule the kingdom illegitimately.
This small group owns a huge percentage of the land.
This small group owns many of the national banks as well as the majority of deposits.
This small group’s business style tactics are exclusive to the selective ‘cliques’ they have cultivated to keep this system alive masking it as cultural and or traditional.
In the Arab world this year we have seen how the people have turned on these sorts ‘patrons ‘ who in the past may have offered some sort of security but in actuality are just thieves and crooks enriching themselves through the countries natural resources. They too promoted the ‘patronage system’ as traditional culture.
Thailand’s wealthy elite who are tightly connected with the military and police have used the ‘patronage system’ to keep the illegal flow of money securely within they’re control while building their untouchable empires with it. Their methods of business are highly unethical and downright illegal. They avoid suspicion and conviction of crimes ranging from bribery to murder as they have connections within the judiciary Thousands of poor Thai have died due to their greed and yet they have no shame let alone accountability for their actions as they view themselves as some sort of pseudo royalty using the LM laws to protect the activities of their family ‘cliques’.
Read the history of Thaksins rise to fame and glory and you will see how the family connections of his former wife helped him. Her close connections through the police force gave him direct accesses to contacts and contracts that made him millions. Did he gain them fairly? I’ll let you be the judge.
Why foreign journalists shy away from asking direct questions to these politicians astounds me. Thaksin’s family and their wealth have their origins in the ‘corrupted patronage system’. When will some one open it up to expose it for the illegal and corrupt system that it is. This is why the elites fear the power of the people.as the people in the Arab world had had enough of their lies and deception.
Basically, the EC produced a single, nationwide ballot for use in the constituency contest that did no include party names or logos, and there was no indication about which party had candidates running for seats in each constituency. The Pundit’s post has a sample of the ballot, makes it very easy to see where the confusion could arise.
For those who are interested, Bangkok Pundit now has a clear explanation of how constituency voting is done, with voters getting a list of all parties standing candidates, not in each constituency but for the country as a whole. Had never even thought about this before as a possibility. No wonder people get confused.
Thanks, again, for all of these very useful comments:
I note that Thitinan Pongsudhirak has taken a firm line on the need for Yingluck to distance herself from Thaksin. He writes:
With their vehement distrust of Thaksin, his opponents are not easily mollified. Yingluck will have to reach out with assurances in a demonstrable spirit of compromise on a mutual understanding and agreement that Thailand has suffered enough.
If he were smart and cares for his land of birth, Thaksin would allow his sister complete latitude to govern and seek peace with his enemies. If his enemies were concerned for the future of the Thai people, they would allow Yingluck to rule and make concessions and accommodation that are necessary for Thailand to move on into the 21st century.
@ CT 48, Robin 47
I’m of the opinion that the ‘elites’ are actually better educated. However they have been blinded by hate, heavily one-sided propaganda, circular logic, and deep prejudices distorting their better rationale. But they will not stay this way forever – the PAD is effectively dead as the educated are slowly learning to see through them.
Aung San Suu Kyi has more integrity than all Thai politicians both male and female put together.
Her moral and ethical convictions it terms o fighting for democracy is what has kept her locked away for so long.
She is a REAL threat to Burma’s male dominated military government as opposed to Thailand’s new PM who many fail to know what she really stands for outside of Big money, big face and bring the countries most corrupt PATRON back her brother.
It’s not just how “ignorant” the middle classes are. (I won’t use the word “uneducated” like you did, because they are actually ‘educated’. Unfortunately, the education system in Thailand is flawed in many parts. Hence students are not taught to think critically, but to parrot what the teachers have taught them.) It is their fanaticism to the King as well as the alienation to Thaksin in which they are indoctrinated through official meida, which is the problem.
I believe (and have argued in another thread) that these people don’t actually ‘love’ the King. Conversely, they are actually ‘fanatical’ to him. Fanaticism is a dangerous thing. With ‘love’, people who have this feeling still retains a certain level of objectivity. When they see the people they “love” do something wrong, they still can see that it’s wrong.
Fanaticism, on the other hand, is the extreme positive feeling which crosses the line of objectivity to the state of extreme irrationality. This is why you see some Thais cry when they see the King. They never think anything he does is bad. Even when he endorses the coup in 2006, they think it is good. Even when the King’s wife sides with the PAD and attended the PAD funeral, they still think it is good. Even when the King has never come out and stop all the violence last year (despite the fact that it is his duty), they still think he has not done anything wrong. When they know that someone is arrested because they don’t “love” the King, they would wish those people dead.
Furthermore, they have zero tolerance for people who criticise the Royal Family. They will not listen, and argue in a scholarly manner with the points their opposition raise. They will deny the blatant truth. They will become agitated, rude, and resort to personal attack. Many of them woud not hesitate to resort to violence. This, combined with the extreme hatred to Thaksin, becomes even harder to un-distort their rationale. Okay, I am not saying that Thaksin is clean. He isn’t, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise would get nowhere in the debate. However, the level of hatred these people have to him is irrational and blatantly disproportionate to the ‘wrong’ Thaksin has committed. And this is because of the alienation they receive from the biased media.
I think the Thai elites have done something very harmful to the Thai society. They have created a large army of irrational and violent ‘ignorant masses’ to protect themseves. These ‘ignorant masses’ cannot reason or critically analyse. They have been indoctrinated to ‘kill’ to protect the King, and to prevent Thaksin from coming into power. And they will do anything (no matter how crazy it is) to achieve these two aims. This is why you see Thai people violently killing the Thammasat University Students in 1976 to ‘protect the King”. This is why you see the brainwashed PADs doing something so stupid (if looked objectively) such as closing the airport in 2008, to oust Thaksin from power.
Of course, when these people have woken up, they will realise what the fools they have been. The problem is, when would they wake up? How many lives would be lost because of their ignorance before they will wake up? What other ‘crazy’ things these people will do before they wake up? I wish I can be optimistic, but I seem to foresee more tragedies in the near future.
Link to a BKK Post article on interesting survey that shows Thailand leads world in percentage of women in senior roles in business (45%), & highest percentage of woman CEO’s (30%)…
I think anyone who’s been around Thailand and especially Bangkok for a while has noticed how many Thai companies and organizations have women in management positions, often key positions in terms of making the corporation or organization go, even though there might be a man in the “figurehead” role.
Whilst I hope Yingluck would achieve significant gains for Thai women and wish her luck in making it happen, her success in winning power and the failure of ASSK rest mainly on the somewhat different roles of the military and state violence in the two countries. The trouble with ASSK is simply confrontation without being prepared to go all the way. Cory Aquino at least managed to pull it off.
I can well understand the skepticism expressed by Sutada Mekrungruengkul. Margaret Thatcher, who once answered no to a reporter’s question (while she was a junior minister in Edward Heath’s government) if she would see a woman Brititish PM in her life time , was a prime example of a poor representative of her own kind, and she was aptly described by some as really a man in a skirt suit in her thinking and leadership methods.
Is it me, or does this map actually present quite a reasonable fit to how Thailand was before it became a modern nation state around a century ago?
On one side (more or less), the areas with a history of at least some central control – the central plains, the lower north, Chanthaburi, Khorat, the south (excluding the Malay states).
On the other side we have the tributary states, the “colonies”, the Northern Ireland’s of this part of the world.
It makes you wonder if after a century of this “Nation, Religion and King” business that it might not really have entered people’s hearts as much as you once thought.
CT, I think what you have described just illustrates how in Amazing Thailand the “educated” people are often more stupid than those with limited state education. Or to put it another way the “uneducated” are smarter than the educated. Paridoxical as this would seem, I am coming to the conclusion that this is really the case.
The “uneducated” are essentially less “brainwashed” and have less direct exposure or involvement with the state bureacracy and its socialization. This leaves them more open to ideas and feeling much more free to discuss issues in their families and social groups.
Also, as they are less economically privileged, they can be quite well engaged with issues as they understand from their own experience how politics can affect their lives. This actually contrasts quite positively in my experience with many people in a “mature democracy” like the UK where the welfare state and general prosperity has left many happily ignorant and very unsophisticated in relation to political and economic issues.
In sum, in my opinion there is absolutely no problem with Thailand’s masses. They are as “ready for democracy” as ordinary people are in any developed country. Thailand’s greater problem is how “uneducated” the middle class are.
This all bodes well for a thorough independent investigation into the killings of 2010 and the responsibility that leaders of the various political factions and military in ordering and/or carrying out the killings. It might also raise into question the political brinkmanship that could only end in violence.
If we are serious about holding the state and the military accountable for human rights abuses, abductions, imprisonment and murder then there are many on all sides who should face full legal process. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen with the new or any other administration.
The test of democracy will go beyond this election – and let’s see whether Thailand will truly be able to address the double standards that have characterised politics and legal system.
According to the Army Training Command’s Senathipat journal,Vol 59,issue 3,September – December which was highlighted in – http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2615 – ” the Prime Minister gave orders at the CRES meeting on 12 May for the military to start the operation as planned.” But this Army training summary of the crackdown came well before Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban stood on the Ratchaprasong stage at the Democrats final rally saying “Abhisit Vejjajiva had not taken part in ordering the crackdown of the redshirts.”…..So who are we to believe from this bunch of liars ? Did Abhisit sign the order ? Probably.Was he pressured by Suthep ? Probably.Has Suthep been the lynch pin between the Goverment and the Queens 3 favourite “Tigers of the East”Generals…well yes.Did the King remain silent while the redshirts pleaded for his intervention to save lives ? Yes,as he has ignored many other pleas for clemency (death penalty incl).Were there any other unelected elites involved in the decisions ? Again probably there were.Should all of the above including the Thai royal family be held to account for their role in the Ratchaprasong massacre.Most definately yes,but when that day will come,who knows as they are all lizards.
[Thais] “believe that …there won’t be any electoral violations like the stuffing of ballot boxes at the eleventh hour.”
I certainly hope he is right. However the recent result in Bangkok where a 28-5 win for Pheua Thai predicted by the exit polls turned out to be 23-10 victory for the “Democrats” certainly raises questions. The point about exit polls is that, while they are by no means an infallible guide, they do highlight obvious anomalies that need to be investigated. So far I have not heard of any word abouit this from the Election Commission.
It may be that in light of the overall success of Pheau Thai, nobody is paying much attention.
Given the circumstances and surrounding events of the initial public emergence of this term here on September 19, 2010, the context was quite clear, and is as Ajarn Somsak has implied in his posts.
This is a indisputable historical fact (i am getting bored to repeat this, but again, and as usual – i was there and saw it… 😉 ).
This occurrence has set many future developments in motion, of which only some have happened already, and many more are quite possible to emerge. Therefore I view September 19 as one of the days with enormous historical importance. This day has brought fear into the hearts of the elites and the military, maybe even more so than the first open appearance of the militants on April 10. Violence is something the military can deal with, in the end, but an ideological bomb such as was laid on September 19 the military was even less prepared for than militants shooting at soldiers.
How others may (mis)interpret this term and its first emergence now, in hindsight, does not change the context of its emergence.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s precarious politics
John – 31
Much of Asia’s business and land ownership laws are highly nationalistic and xenophobic with very few foreigners allowed to own businesses outright let alone own the land.
Funny thing is John, the only leading politician I have ever heard saying this was wrong and foreigners should be made more welcome is Abhisit, and that was before he became prime minister. I suspect that loosening the rules would have been too toxic during his brief holding of that position as he was already suspected of being too much an Anglophile.
Thailand’s precarious politics
John 31. Agree it is hard to understand why Australia officially seems oblivious to the corruption which ultimately underpins diplomatic ties as well as trade ties. From personal experience I know that Australian diplomats and trade officials don’t want to know. Perhaps it is time to set up a website that details experiences (with names omitted to avoid defamation actions – defamation is a criminal offence in Thailand). Time to shame the crooks and the officials in Thailand and Australia.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
Robin – 47
Robin I didn’t ever think I would be the defender of the middle classes, but your theory on intelligence and social status doesn’t bare too much examination.
Just for examples let’s look at an average member of Bangkok’s middle class who may even have turned out in 2008 for the PAD and a pro-red shirt villager working on the land in a hamlet in Khon Kaen province.
Now the first thing we could well find is that because we tend to lump everyone working in some sort of clerical job in Bangkok as part of the middle class, the two examples may well have been born in the same place, that village in Khon Kaen province.
The one who made it to Bangkok probably had the opportunity to move either because they were better at schoolwork and made it into a provincial university, or were lucky because they had family members who had already made the move. If they were really lucky they would have had a combination of both and had their high school education in one of Bangkok’s better schools. (The amazing thing is that the explosion in the size of Bangkok’s middle class is so recent, not just in my lifetime, but in the period I have called Bangkok my home.)
Now according to your theory, the increase in the length of education in the one who made it into the middle class would lead to becoming brainwashed into taking a more pro-establishment political stance. At the same time the one who stayed on the land would be more likely to vote according to the policies and character of the competing politicians.
So let’s test that theory by looking at election results in recent history.
We should see a big variance in politicians elected in that upcountry constituency. Well we certainly do in parties they represent. We could find SAP, Chart Thai, TRT, PT and even Democrat if we looked. But when we looked a bit closer we would find the politicians themselves were all under the control of the local provincial influential family, quite possibly a Sino-Thai mafia like operation.
So what about Bangkok you could say, isn’t that just a Democrat stronghold because of the brainwashing? Well actually not. The Bangkok voters can be a fickle lot. The moo baan canvassers have a far harder job of getting any sort of block voting going. This is why we see electoral victories for the likes of TRT and Phalang Dharma in Bangkok. A look at the Bangkok mayoral elections really disproves your point, as does the pro-democracy protests in 1992.
Better look again at that theory Robin.
Thailand’s precarious politics
I find Australia’s foreign policy strange and unusual when dealing with South East Asian countries. Corruption and bribery is rife throughout China, Malaysia, Indonesia Thailand and India, I could go on, it makes for interesting trade agreements.
It is no secret in Thailand that the corrupted ‘patronage system’ with its own rules and regulations allows elite families with ties to royalty, the military and the security forces to operate like ‘cliques’. They are far from democratic yet use the facade of democracy and assumed high status to conceal their illegal activities.
Much of Asia’s business and land ownership laws are highly nationalistic and xenophobic with very few foreigners allowed to own businesses outright let alone own the land.
Why in Australia we allow the opposite is intriguing foreign policy and I’m assuming it means that allowing such ownership builds cultural bridges, as opposed to what many Asian nations do and that is obstruct the bridges siting ‘imperialism of the west’ as a major reason to restrict ownership.
Countries like Thailand use extreme nationalism to tell the people foreign ownership will lead to loss of sovereignty, yet in Australia this hasn’t happened and the country and all the people still prosper. Its not a perfect system but at least it allows for dialogue.
Thailand’s elite who are mostly ethnic Chinese with Thai surnames control most of the economy, including the media.
It is their monopolies that stifle and slow the economy down.
It is their monopolies that elections have been fought and won over.
I put it out their that it is this diaspora including the Thaksin clan who is from this group, who have for decades colluded with the indigenous elite, the military and the security forces to literally rule the kingdom illegitimately.
This small group owns a huge percentage of the land.
This small group owns many of the national banks as well as the majority of deposits.
This small group’s business style tactics are exclusive to the selective ‘cliques’ they have cultivated to keep this system alive masking it as cultural and or traditional.
In the Arab world this year we have seen how the people have turned on these sorts ‘patrons ‘ who in the past may have offered some sort of security but in actuality are just thieves and crooks enriching themselves through the countries natural resources. They too promoted the ‘patronage system’ as traditional culture.
Thailand’s wealthy elite who are tightly connected with the military and police have used the ‘patronage system’ to keep the illegal flow of money securely within they’re control while building their untouchable empires with it. Their methods of business are highly unethical and downright illegal. They avoid suspicion and conviction of crimes ranging from bribery to murder as they have connections within the judiciary Thousands of poor Thai have died due to their greed and yet they have no shame let alone accountability for their actions as they view themselves as some sort of pseudo royalty using the LM laws to protect the activities of their family ‘cliques’.
Read the history of Thaksins rise to fame and glory and you will see how the family connections of his former wife helped him. Her close connections through the police force gave him direct accesses to contacts and contracts that made him millions. Did he gain them fairly? I’ll let you be the judge.
Why foreign journalists shy away from asking direct questions to these politicians astounds me. Thaksin’s family and their wealth have their origins in the ‘corrupted patronage system’. When will some one open it up to expose it for the illegal and corrupt system that it is. This is why the elites fear the power of the people.as the people in the Arab world had had enough of their lies and deception.
Yingluck and Thailand’s women
Khun Yingluck has done something great for the country: to put Apisit out of office. This alone should be enough to endear her to all lucky Thais.
Regional voting
For Ralph Kramden and LesAbbey, regarding the spoiled constituency ballots, Bangkok Pundit had a second post that explains the challenge associated with the constituency ballot (http://asiancorrespondent.com/59281/what-of-the-%e2%80%98no-vote%e2%80%99-and-the-spoilt-ballots-in-the-thai-election-part-ii/).
Basically, the EC produced a single, nationwide ballot for use in the constituency contest that did no include party names or logos, and there was no indication about which party had candidates running for seats in each constituency. The Pundit’s post has a sample of the ballot, makes it very easy to see where the confusion could arise.
Thailand’s precarious politics
a few court cases would reduce officer numbers and reduce the attractiveness of military careers
I am afraid that such action would severely increase the income of the temples for doing a lot of funerals of witnesses and plaintiffs
Regional voting
For those who are interested, Bangkok Pundit now has a clear explanation of how constituency voting is done, with voters getting a list of all parties standing candidates, not in each constituency but for the country as a whole. Had never even thought about this before as a possibility. No wonder people get confused.
Thailand’s precarious politics
Thanks, again, for all of these very useful comments:
I note that Thitinan Pongsudhirak has taken a firm line on the need for Yingluck to distance herself from Thaksin. He writes:
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
@ CT 48, Robin 47
I’m of the opinion that the ‘elites’ are actually better educated. However they have been blinded by hate, heavily one-sided propaganda, circular logic, and deep prejudices distorting their better rationale. But they will not stay this way forever – the PAD is effectively dead as the educated are slowly learning to see through them.
Yingluck and Thailand’s women
Aung San Suu Kyi has more integrity than all Thai politicians both male and female put together.
Her moral and ethical convictions it terms o fighting for democracy is what has kept her locked away for so long.
She is a REAL threat to Burma’s male dominated military government as opposed to Thailand’s new PM who many fail to know what she really stands for outside of Big money, big face and bring the countries most corrupt PATRON back her brother.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
@Robin, thanks. Your summaary is very precise.
It’s not just how “ignorant” the middle classes are. (I won’t use the word “uneducated” like you did, because they are actually ‘educated’. Unfortunately, the education system in Thailand is flawed in many parts. Hence students are not taught to think critically, but to parrot what the teachers have taught them.) It is their fanaticism to the King as well as the alienation to Thaksin in which they are indoctrinated through official meida, which is the problem.
I believe (and have argued in another thread) that these people don’t actually ‘love’ the King. Conversely, they are actually ‘fanatical’ to him. Fanaticism is a dangerous thing. With ‘love’, people who have this feeling still retains a certain level of objectivity. When they see the people they “love” do something wrong, they still can see that it’s wrong.
Fanaticism, on the other hand, is the extreme positive feeling which crosses the line of objectivity to the state of extreme irrationality. This is why you see some Thais cry when they see the King. They never think anything he does is bad. Even when he endorses the coup in 2006, they think it is good. Even when the King’s wife sides with the PAD and attended the PAD funeral, they still think it is good. Even when the King has never come out and stop all the violence last year (despite the fact that it is his duty), they still think he has not done anything wrong. When they know that someone is arrested because they don’t “love” the King, they would wish those people dead.
Furthermore, they have zero tolerance for people who criticise the Royal Family. They will not listen, and argue in a scholarly manner with the points their opposition raise. They will deny the blatant truth. They will become agitated, rude, and resort to personal attack. Many of them woud not hesitate to resort to violence. This, combined with the extreme hatred to Thaksin, becomes even harder to un-distort their rationale. Okay, I am not saying that Thaksin is clean. He isn’t, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise would get nowhere in the debate. However, the level of hatred these people have to him is irrational and blatantly disproportionate to the ‘wrong’ Thaksin has committed. And this is because of the alienation they receive from the biased media.
I think the Thai elites have done something very harmful to the Thai society. They have created a large army of irrational and violent ‘ignorant masses’ to protect themseves. These ‘ignorant masses’ cannot reason or critically analyse. They have been indoctrinated to ‘kill’ to protect the King, and to prevent Thaksin from coming into power. And they will do anything (no matter how crazy it is) to achieve these two aims. This is why you see Thai people violently killing the Thammasat University Students in 1976 to ‘protect the King”. This is why you see the brainwashed PADs doing something so stupid (if looked objectively) such as closing the airport in 2008, to oust Thaksin from power.
Of course, when these people have woken up, they will realise what the fools they have been. The problem is, when would they wake up? How many lives would be lost because of their ignorance before they will wake up? What other ‘crazy’ things these people will do before they wake up? I wish I can be optimistic, but I seem to foresee more tragedies in the near future.
Yingluck and Thailand’s women
Link to a BKK Post article on interesting survey that shows Thailand leads world in percentage of women in senior roles in business (45%), & highest percentage of woman CEO’s (30%)…
http://goo.gl/aiIS0
I think anyone who’s been around Thailand and especially Bangkok for a while has noticed how many Thai companies and organizations have women in management positions, often key positions in terms of making the corporation or organization go, even though there might be a man in the “figurehead” role.
Yingluck and Thailand’s women
Whilst I hope Yingluck would achieve significant gains for Thai women and wish her luck in making it happen, her success in winning power and the failure of ASSK rest mainly on the somewhat different roles of the military and state violence in the two countries. The trouble with ASSK is simply confrontation without being prepared to go all the way. Cory Aquino at least managed to pull it off.
I can well understand the skepticism expressed by Sutada Mekrungruengkul. Margaret Thatcher, who once answered no to a reporter’s question (while she was a junior minister in Edward Heath’s government) if she would see a woman Brititish PM in her life time , was a prime example of a poor representative of her own kind, and she was aptly described by some as really a man in a skirt suit in her thinking and leadership methods.
Regional voting
Is it me, or does this map actually present quite a reasonable fit to how Thailand was before it became a modern nation state around a century ago?
On one side (more or less), the areas with a history of at least some central control – the central plains, the lower north, Chanthaburi, Khorat, the south (excluding the Malay states).
On the other side we have the tributary states, the “colonies”, the Northern Ireland’s of this part of the world.
It makes you wonder if after a century of this “Nation, Religion and King” business that it might not really have entered people’s hearts as much as you once thought.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
CT, I think what you have described just illustrates how in Amazing Thailand the “educated” people are often more stupid than those with limited state education. Or to put it another way the “uneducated” are smarter than the educated. Paridoxical as this would seem, I am coming to the conclusion that this is really the case.
The “uneducated” are essentially less “brainwashed” and have less direct exposure or involvement with the state bureacracy and its socialization. This leaves them more open to ideas and feeling much more free to discuss issues in their families and social groups.
Also, as they are less economically privileged, they can be quite well engaged with issues as they understand from their own experience how politics can affect their lives. This actually contrasts quite positively in my experience with many people in a “mature democracy” like the UK where the welfare state and general prosperity has left many happily ignorant and very unsophisticated in relation to political and economic issues.
In sum, in my opinion there is absolutely no problem with Thailand’s masses. They are as “ready for democracy” as ordinary people are in any developed country. Thailand’s greater problem is how “uneducated” the middle class are.
Who ordered the killing?
This all bodes well for a thorough independent investigation into the killings of 2010 and the responsibility that leaders of the various political factions and military in ordering and/or carrying out the killings. It might also raise into question the political brinkmanship that could only end in violence.
If we are serious about holding the state and the military accountable for human rights abuses, abductions, imprisonment and murder then there are many on all sides who should face full legal process. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen with the new or any other administration.
The test of democracy will go beyond this election – and let’s see whether Thailand will truly be able to address the double standards that have characterised politics and legal system.
Who ordered the killing?
According to the Army Training Command’s Senathipat journal,Vol 59,issue 3,September – December which was highlighted in – http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2615 – ” the Prime Minister gave orders at the CRES meeting on 12 May for the military to start the operation as planned.” But this Army training summary of the crackdown came well before Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban stood on the Ratchaprasong stage at the Democrats final rally saying “Abhisit Vejjajiva had not taken part in ordering the crackdown of the redshirts.”…..So who are we to believe from this bunch of liars ? Did Abhisit sign the order ? Probably.Was he pressured by Suthep ? Probably.Has Suthep been the lynch pin between the Goverment and the Queens 3 favourite “Tigers of the East”Generals…well yes.Did the King remain silent while the redshirts pleaded for his intervention to save lives ? Yes,as he has ignored many other pleas for clemency (death penalty incl).Were there any other unelected elites involved in the decisions ? Again probably there were.Should all of the above including the Thai royal family be held to account for their role in the Ratchaprasong massacre.Most definately yes,but when that day will come,who knows as they are all lizards.
Thailand better than Malaysia
[Thais] “believe that …there won’t be any electoral violations like the stuffing of ballot boxes at the eleventh hour.”
I certainly hope he is right. However the recent result in Bangkok where a 28-5 win for Pheua Thai predicted by the exit polls turned out to be 23-10 victory for the “Democrats” certainly raises questions. The point about exit polls is that, while they are by no means an infallible guide, they do highlight obvious anomalies that need to be investigated. So far I have not heard of any word abouit this from the Election Commission.
It may be that in light of the overall success of Pheau Thai, nobody is paying much attention.
Who ordered the killing?
Given the circumstances and surrounding events of the initial public emergence of this term here on September 19, 2010, the context was quite clear, and is as Ajarn Somsak has implied in his posts.
This is a indisputable historical fact (i am getting bored to repeat this, but again, and as usual – i was there and saw it… 😉 ).
This occurrence has set many future developments in motion, of which only some have happened already, and many more are quite possible to emerge. Therefore I view September 19 as one of the days with enormous historical importance. This day has brought fear into the hearts of the elites and the military, maybe even more so than the first open appearance of the militants on April 10. Violence is something the military can deal with, in the end, but an ideological bomb such as was laid on September 19 the military was even less prepared for than militants shooting at soldiers.
How others may (mis)interpret this term and its first emergence now, in hindsight, does not change the context of its emergence.