Somsak # 113 :
re –
“For legal, political and cultural reasons (cultural because no one dared to think thus)”
I have to disagree against your statement “no one dared to think this”. I’ve visited Thailand since 1963, and have found many Thais willing to indicate this – although very quietly indeed.
#9 “To answer the question posed, you would need to know if there had been an arrangement or accommodation made between the various leaders of the various parties and and the more shadowy characters behind them. If there has then we revert to game as per normal as we knew before with maybe a few minor changes. ”
Did we ever deviate from the ‘normal’ script? I’ve seen this farce umpteen times before. The denouement is a foregone conclusion. The usual wedding-day hotel reception massacre followed by the belated arrival of the ‘men’ in tight trews.
The only way to break this vicious cycle is for the afflicted viewer to switch off the set and throw the damned thing out the window, since the following evening will inevitably see the beginning of yet another slight rehash of the same old turgid plot. (An impossibility for folks who are to all intents and purposes permanently attached to those devices which churn out the endless propaganda of whoever is currently paying the highest price (to acheive the best long-term yield).
The question whether the elections will be fair or not is important in a formal western understanding of democracy. However, none of the social, economic or philosophical parameters that underpin the idea of “fair elections” are accepted or understood in Thailand. Neither by the electorate nor by the disposers.
Patronage is the name of the ecosystem and as long as the top dogs – no matter what positions they hold or if they are Amaat or not – adhere to it and military holds its unconstitutional ground (!), all “operational equality” and fairness in the electoral process are at best temporary make up. After all the huff and puff it will – perhaps with some new faces – be back to business as usual.
Yes, we are now in uncharted waters quite different from the old pre-1962 parliamentary era. It portends choppy seas if not stormy ones ahead given the parallel power structures built in to the new constitution, and the military is from long habit very unlikely to bow to a civilian authority particularly in any curtailment of its licence to ‘eat’ a given region as the warlord. The bone of contention is likely to be just that – snouts in the trough.
Remember at one point the regional commanders Tun Kyi and his colleague next door threatened to split Burma north and south. Political power will continue to come from the barrel of a gun I reckon. Whoever controls the troops will hold sway when it comes to the crunch. This is already guaranteed in the constitution with power not only to appoint important ministerial positions but to dissolve parliament at will vested in the military, not least from Than Shwe’s own lips that the Tatmadaw will assert itself in politics as and when the need arises.
Sorry this might sound redundant from all the barrage response post to LesAbbey but I think there are several points that I think worth mentioning.
Probably not, but that doesn’t make the laws bad, only their application.
If the application is bad then the law is bad, no doubt.
Should there be laws against political corruption such as vote buying? Are those rules put into the last two constitutions a bad thing?
Now there are several types of corruption here eg. favoritism, inside info, tea money, so on and each need its own circumstances and action to be actually count as “corruption” so I will just discuss about vote buying here.
Now, do important point that we have to make before answering your question is how do we count which one is vote buying and which is not? does 2,000 bath give away by Abhisit consider as vote buying? if not then what’s the different between plain old money for vote and give away policy? say, we considered both different act just for argument sake, how do we punish the wrong doer? as of now, the whole party is responsible for an individual wrong doing, is that reasonable?
If we are looking at this as the “Sabanes-Oxley Act” for politician ( the most often heard argument that many elite use in attempt to protect the current law) but in the actual Sabanes-Oxley, if the executive (or anyone) was proven guilty of wrong doing, they don’t actually dissolve the whole company so where is the rule of law here?
I’m not arguing whether there should be law to punish on corruption or not because I think there should be, but the problem here is what was written on the constitutional now can be considered as a “bad law” and such, regarding to a quote from Edmund Burke; “bad law is the worst sort of tyranny”.
Les: A custodial sentenceof a 18 mths for the guilty person would be Ok if applied consistently (and much more appropriate than disbanding parties or banning executives).
In addition, in the by election in the particular seat I think the offending political party should not be able to contest it, so that would put the onus on the party to try to discourage the practice.
Overall, I don’t really think ‘vote buying has had much of an effect on election results in Thailand for several years now, but think if it is perceived as a concern then international election observers should be called in to help oversee the election procedures (and if someone doesn’t welcome international monitors then they shouldn’t complain about vote buying being a problem)
Sorry Ross, it refers to your comment being the tenth one – just a way of showing what comment I’m referring to.
Nganadeeleg – 18
I’ve got no problem with having rules against vote buying provided the penalty matches the crime, and the laws are applied consistently.
I can understand your disquiet about the application of these laws, but what penalty would you consider matches the crime. In the UK a number of MPs have been given custodial sentences for abuse of the expense system. I think, although I may be wrong, that the longest has been 18 months so far.
Don’t forget the role played by the Election Commission, which is quite happy giving red and yellow cards to any pro-Thaksin parties but very lenient to the Democrats. However, people in general are smarter and know this tendency, which explained why the lady commissioner recently wanted to quit.
The present setup of the parliamentary government and that of the armed forces or army in short is not clear cut as evidenced by the appointment and position of the Commander in Chief (C i C) vis-a-vis the President (P). C i C is not appointed by the President and is not under him, but the Minister for Defence (MD) is. Will the troops obey the MD or CiC in case of any conflict between the Cabinet and C i C? And will a regional commander (Tainghmu) obey the local Prime Minister (Chief Minister of a political Region) or not as he (Tainghmu) is under the CiC and Defence Minister. I see troubles ahead!
Excellent rejoinder Simon! Neo-liberalism is nothing if not a mode of governmentality: that is, a mentality and means of rule outside and below the state but what about governing life, the self and Cambodian-Khmer forms of subjectivity?
Les: I’ve got no problem with having rules against vote buying provided the penalty matches the crime, and the laws are applied consistently.
(but an apparent occasional independence of the judiciary from government doesn’t give me much encouragement because I have grave doubts about their independence from a certain ideology prevalent in Thailand)
I should have mentioned that there is also the possibility of tension arising between chief ministers of the states and regions and the regional commanders. The latter is a position that under the SPDC system was quite financially lucrative, as far as I can tell. Whether that continues or not remains to be seen.
These posts mostly overlap geographically but I’m not sure about where power will lie in practice. In Yangon, for example, Myint Swe, the former Yangon Region Commander, is the chief minister, and presumably more senior than his successor.
There is a goodly amount of evidence that the courts in Thailand are used to prosecute abuses of the system, albeit selectively. The issue is not particularly that progressives say hypocritical things but, as Andrew pointed out, that all political parties make a mockery of the system and erode it through equally hypocritical accusations of vote buying.
I’d be interested in knowing why I get “-10”. You’re comment doesn’t really address what I was trying to say about the nature of Democratic systems and their histories.
Could not help wondering under which disciplinary rationalities Simon’s subjectivation took place, and what truth claims he has been memorizing ever since, thereby creating the rules of conduct for writing this kind of response…
How is it not important to actually understand the term under debate here? If you’re trying to say something “does” or “does not” work as a theoretical frame, how can one get by without a sophisticated understanding of that theory? I don’t see the harm in clarifying the misrepresentations that were made of my work. In terms of the empirical content, it’s in my published work, and I’ve recently written an even more fine-grained analysis, which should be published soon.
Also, I shared my work on neoliberalism in Cambodia with Hughes as early as 2005 in the form of my MA thesis and even discussed doing my PhD under her, so it strikes me as odd that I was not cited in this case. Nonetheless, I think there is a very wide gulf between being curious about something and “berating” someone. That’s not even a fair statement.
Concerned…
Again, you’re misrepresenting what I have to say. I make no “insistence that neoliberalism explains every little twist”, nor do I suggest it’s “neoliberalism or nothing”. Instead, I suggest that neoliberalism is able to account for many of the issues that currently exist in contemporary Cambodian society, and it is impetuous to throw the baby out with the bathwater when there is a great deal of explanatory power behind the concept. There is nothing “teleological” about that.
Not that simple! I have, of course, meticulously compared the Thai to the English only to find…nothing missing! Which means that the 16 were unique to the Thai edition.
Maybe the missing 16 were so radical the students thought better of distributing them. Or perhaps some moral crusader took the high ground. Or perhaps a printer said, no way.
The missing 16 add to the mystery surrounding this book from its beginnings.
Les: Would the Democrat Party still in existence if those laws were applied consistently, without fear or favour?
Probably not, but that doesn’t make the laws bad, only their application.
…you will no doubt have observed the fact that since being asked to sort things out, the good men in the Thai judiciary have a knack for being able to produce the desired result for any particular point in time.
Does that make you wonder at all?
No, not really. That there is corruption in the judiciary is well known and has been there for a long time. Of course we have to add, ‘just as there is in the politicians’. What is encouraging is that at times we have seen some independence in the courts from the government. As I have often pointed out, most Western democracy do have centres points of power that tend to balance against a too authoritarian central government. The judiciary should be one of these alternative centres in my view.
So Nganadeeleg having answered your questions maybe you could answer two of mine. Should there be laws against political corruption such as vote buying? Are those rules put into the last two constitutions a bad thing? I know you can make an argument about their application and use, but I’m asking about the rules themselves.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Somsak # 113 :
re –
“For legal, political and cultural reasons (cultural because no one dared to think thus)”
I have to disagree against your statement “no one dared to think this”. I’ve visited Thailand since 1963, and have found many Thais willing to indicate this – although very quietly indeed.
Burma VJ and “docudrama”
Nicholas, what do you mean by “the murky waters of Burma reportage”?
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Whether the elections are “fair” or not will not matter so much, if as Snoth Thienthong is now predicting, Peua Thai wins a landslide :
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/02/national/Snoh-joins-hands-with-Pheu-Thai-30152357.html
Is an election the answer for Thailand?
#9 “To answer the question posed, you would need to know if there had been an arrangement or accommodation made between the various leaders of the various parties and and the more shadowy characters behind them. If there has then we revert to game as per normal as we knew before with maybe a few minor changes. ”
Did we ever deviate from the ‘normal’ script? I’ve seen this farce umpteen times before. The denouement is a foregone conclusion. The usual wedding-day hotel reception massacre followed by the belated arrival of the ‘men’ in tight trews.
The only way to break this vicious cycle is for the afflicted viewer to switch off the set and throw the damned thing out the window, since the following evening will inevitably see the beginning of yet another slight rehash of the same old turgid plot. (An impossibility for folks who are to all intents and purposes permanently attached to those devices which churn out the endless propaganda of whoever is currently paying the highest price (to acheive the best long-term yield).
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
The question whether the elections will be fair or not is important in a formal western understanding of democracy. However, none of the social, economic or philosophical parameters that underpin the idea of “fair elections” are accepted or understood in Thailand. Neither by the electorate nor by the disposers.
Patronage is the name of the ecosystem and as long as the top dogs – no matter what positions they hold or if they are Amaat or not – adhere to it and military holds its unconstitutional ground (!), all “operational equality” and fairness in the electoral process are at best temporary make up. After all the huff and puff it will – perhaps with some new faces – be back to business as usual.
A beginners’ guide to Bangkok Noir
Sex for sale now literally a lottery in Thailand :
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/229911/police-probe-sex-lottery
Burma’s parliamentary system explained
Yes, we are now in uncharted waters quite different from the old pre-1962 parliamentary era. It portends choppy seas if not stormy ones ahead given the parallel power structures built in to the new constitution, and the military is from long habit very unlikely to bow to a civilian authority particularly in any curtailment of its licence to ‘eat’ a given region as the warlord. The bone of contention is likely to be just that – snouts in the trough.
Remember at one point the regional commanders Tun Kyi and his colleague next door threatened to split Burma north and south. Political power will continue to come from the barrel of a gun I reckon. Whoever controls the troops will hold sway when it comes to the crunch. This is already guaranteed in the constitution with power not only to appoint important ministerial positions but to dissolve parliament at will vested in the military, not least from Than Shwe’s own lips that the Tatmadaw will assert itself in politics as and when the need arises.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Sorry this might sound redundant from all the barrage response post to LesAbbey but I think there are several points that I think worth mentioning.
Probably not, but that doesn’t make the laws bad, only their application.
If the application is bad then the law is bad, no doubt.
Should there be laws against political corruption such as vote buying? Are those rules put into the last two constitutions a bad thing?
Now there are several types of corruption here eg. favoritism, inside info, tea money, so on and each need its own circumstances and action to be actually count as “corruption” so I will just discuss about vote buying here.
Now, do important point that we have to make before answering your question is how do we count which one is vote buying and which is not? does 2,000 bath give away by Abhisit consider as vote buying? if not then what’s the different between plain old money for vote and give away policy? say, we considered both different act just for argument sake, how do we punish the wrong doer? as of now, the whole party is responsible for an individual wrong doing, is that reasonable?
If we are looking at this as the “Sabanes-Oxley Act” for politician ( the most often heard argument that many elite use in attempt to protect the current law) but in the actual Sabanes-Oxley, if the executive (or anyone) was proven guilty of wrong doing, they don’t actually dissolve the whole company so where is the rule of law here?
I’m not arguing whether there should be law to punish on corruption or not because I think there should be, but the problem here is what was written on the constitutional now can be considered as a “bad law” and such, regarding to a quote from Edmund Burke; “bad law is the worst sort of tyranny”.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Les: A custodial sentenceof a 18 mths for the guilty person would be Ok if applied consistently (and much more appropriate than disbanding parties or banning executives).
In addition, in the by election in the particular seat I think the offending political party should not be able to contest it, so that would put the onus on the party to try to discourage the practice.
Overall, I don’t really think ‘vote buying has had much of an effect on election results in Thailand for several years now, but think if it is perceived as a concern then international election observers should be called in to help oversee the election procedures (and if someone doesn’t welcome international monitors then they shouldn’t complain about vote buying being a problem)
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Ross Walker – 17
I’d be interested in knowing why I get “-10тА│.
Sorry Ross, it refers to your comment being the tenth one – just a way of showing what comment I’m referring to.
Nganadeeleg – 18
I’ve got no problem with having rules against vote buying provided the penalty matches the crime, and the laws are applied consistently.
I can understand your disquiet about the application of these laws, but what penalty would you consider matches the crime. In the UK a number of MPs have been given custodial sentences for abuse of the expense system. I think, although I may be wrong, that the longest has been 18 months so far.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Don’t forget the role played by the Election Commission, which is quite happy giving red and yellow cards to any pro-Thaksin parties but very lenient to the Democrats. However, people in general are smarter and know this tendency, which explained why the lady commissioner recently wanted to quit.
Burma’s parliamentary system explained
The present setup of the parliamentary government and that of the armed forces or army in short is not clear cut as evidenced by the appointment and position of the Commander in Chief (C i C) vis-a-vis the President (P). C i C is not appointed by the President and is not under him, but the Minister for Defence (MD) is. Will the troops obey the MD or CiC in case of any conflict between the Cabinet and C i C? And will a regional commander (Tainghmu) obey the local Prime Minister (Chief Minister of a political Region) or not as he (Tainghmu) is under the CiC and Defence Minister. I see troubles ahead!
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Excellent rejoinder Simon! Neo-liberalism is nothing if not a mode of governmentality: that is, a mentality and means of rule outside and below the state but what about governing life, the self and Cambodian-Khmer forms of subjectivity?
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Les: I’ve got no problem with having rules against vote buying provided the penalty matches the crime, and the laws are applied consistently.
(but an apparent occasional independence of the judiciary from government doesn’t give me much encouragement because I have grave doubts about their independence from a certain ideology prevalent in Thailand)
Burma’s parliamentary system explained
I should have mentioned that there is also the possibility of tension arising between chief ministers of the states and regions and the regional commanders. The latter is a position that under the SPDC system was quite financially lucrative, as far as I can tell. Whether that continues or not remains to be seen.
These posts mostly overlap geographically but I’m not sure about where power will lie in practice. In Yangon, for example, Myint Swe, the former Yangon Region Commander, is the chief minister, and presumably more senior than his successor.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Les,
There is a goodly amount of evidence that the courts in Thailand are used to prosecute abuses of the system, albeit selectively. The issue is not particularly that progressives say hypocritical things but, as Andrew pointed out, that all political parties make a mockery of the system and erode it through equally hypocritical accusations of vote buying.
I’d be interested in knowing why I get “-10”. You’re comment doesn’t really address what I was trying to say about the nature of Democratic systems and their histories.
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Could not help wondering under which disciplinary rationalities Simon’s subjectivation took place, and what truth claims he has been memorizing ever since, thereby creating the rules of conduct for writing this kind of response…
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Keith…
How is it not important to actually understand the term under debate here? If you’re trying to say something “does” or “does not” work as a theoretical frame, how can one get by without a sophisticated understanding of that theory? I don’t see the harm in clarifying the misrepresentations that were made of my work. In terms of the empirical content, it’s in my published work, and I’ve recently written an even more fine-grained analysis, which should be published soon.
Also, I shared my work on neoliberalism in Cambodia with Hughes as early as 2005 in the form of my MA thesis and even discussed doing my PhD under her, so it strikes me as odd that I was not cited in this case. Nonetheless, I think there is a very wide gulf between being curious about something and “berating” someone. That’s not even a fair statement.
Concerned…
Again, you’re misrepresenting what I have to say. I make no “insistence that neoliberalism explains every little twist”, nor do I suggest it’s “neoliberalism or nothing”. Instead, I suggest that neoliberalism is able to account for many of the issues that currently exist in contemporary Cambodian society, and it is impetuous to throw the baby out with the bathwater when there is a great deal of explanatory power behind the concept. There is nothing “teleological” about that.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Not that simple! I have, of course, meticulously compared the Thai to the English only to find…nothing missing! Which means that the 16 were unique to the Thai edition.
Maybe the missing 16 were so radical the students thought better of distributing them. Or perhaps some moral crusader took the high ground. Or perhaps a printer said, no way.
The missing 16 add to the mystery surrounding this book from its beginnings.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Nganadeeleg – 14
Les: Would the Democrat Party still in existence if those laws were applied consistently, without fear or favour?
Probably not, but that doesn’t make the laws bad, only their application.
…you will no doubt have observed the fact that since being asked to sort things out, the good men in the Thai judiciary have a knack for being able to produce the desired result for any particular point in time.
Does that make you wonder at all?
No, not really. That there is corruption in the judiciary is well known and has been there for a long time. Of course we have to add, ‘just as there is in the politicians’. What is encouraging is that at times we have seen some independence in the courts from the government. As I have often pointed out, most Western democracy do have centres points of power that tend to balance against a too authoritarian central government. The judiciary should be one of these alternative centres in my view.
So Nganadeeleg having answered your questions maybe you could answer two of mine. Should there be laws against political corruption such as vote buying? Are those rules put into the last two constitutions a bad thing? I know you can make an argument about their application and use, but I’m asking about the rules themselves.