"“Apparently, neoliberalism can now also mean an extension of the state.” This kind of derisive argumentation carries little weight, as Thavat never gets around to explaining how or why neoliberalism might be considered inimical to the state."
Perhaps she has been misled by the meaning and use of the term “Liberalism” since 1819 –or the broader political meaning of “Liberal” since 1800. Those terms did explicitly denote an ideology of what was called limited government –and of limited constitutional monarchy in countries that had monarchs. Thomas Hobbes, you’ll note, defines freedom as the silence of the laws: only areas that the state does not govern, and does not enjoin any law upon one way or another, are “free”. Thus, freedom of religion means that the government resolves to write no law whatsoever on religion, one way or the other. Sound familiar? This was an original idea, at one time (and you won’t find it in Plato). It is needless to say that contemporary figures like Tony Blair do not read (and have not been influenced by) historical figures like Hobbes (d. 1679), Mandeville (d. 1733) and Montesquieu (d. 1755). However, this is the pre-history that explains why so many people assume that neo-liberalism would suggest a principle of limited government, etc. (as did the term “liberalism” for over 200 years before it).
The contemporary usage and (de facto) meaning of neo-liberalism has arisen in direct contrast to neo-conservatism –and the continuity between these two terms is much stronger than the (difficult-to-discern) relationship between neo-liberalism and the “liberal” politics of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
The complaint that "...the unsophisticated understanding of neoliberalism that pervades in the mainstream media..." is invalid rather cuts against the human reality of how meaning arises and persists in contemporary language. Many of the political advocates of neo-liberalism are certainly guilty of making very pliant and pliable use of the meaning of the term (such as Tony Blair himself, in print, in The Stakeholder Society etc.).
Sure, questioning the compatibility of “neo-liberalism” with the extension of state power is a legitimate intellectual exercise (for Thavat or anyone else) –and it is precisely the implications of “…the unsophisticated understanding of neoliberalism…” used by the press and by politicians themselves that is worth contesting.
In terms of a “straw man argument”, nobody is contesting "that ‘neoliberalism’ itself is an abstraction".
I agree that this review is rather mean-spirited. Maylee appears to have legitimate questions about those elements of state and power relations that appear to contradict the major tenets of neoliberalism. You argue as if the debate is over, and that there is no question that neoliberalism/ization should be thought about this way or that.
Few will argue that neoliberalism has biopolitical power. The question Maylee seemed to be asking (and I doubt she would be the only one) was whether neoliberalism is an adequate way of framing Cambodian political economic realities or not. The point is to explain these realities. Is neoliberalism the right characterization of power/governmentality in explaining the Cambodian state?
Insisting on neoliberalism as a framing is a discursive/theoretical straitjacket in itself. The one size fits all problem here is not so much Maylee’s understanding of neoliberalism, but your insistence that neoliberalism explains every little twist. I doubt Castree, Gupta, Ferguson et al would defend a teleological perspective on neoliberalism. In fact, I find it rather offensive and ironic that you rally these critical anthropologists, who have fought to question the disciplinary (and colonizing) straitjacket of ethnography (in the anthropological sense), to your cause, one that insists that it’s neoliberalism or nothing.
It seems like you yourself have set up Maylee Thavat as your own strawman, instead of engaging with her points.
I couldn’t even bring myself to speed read this after struggling through the overlong first paragraph.
I wonder if it was interesting? Will never know now…
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.
Of course though that doesnt address the aspirations and desires of the people and will only be a short term fix as the people realise that whoever of the current political elite they elect, they get shafted. That though is a longer issue. In the meantime the only question is do we have an accommodation or at least a truce between the political elite? If not now it is likely the political elite will also attempt an accommodation again when the 111 get unfettered next year although as they are already represented by puppets and proxies this is really a faux moment than a real one.
Interesting especially on the discussion about Abhisit and whoever PT decides to put up front. However, it is likely after this election that CTP-BJT will deciding who gets to be PM and who gets to be in government/opposition. The new Purachai party may also fit in there somewhere with his funding coming from a similar background to BJTs it seems.
The question is would BJT and mates really want Abhisit back, and does that fit with how the elite view Abhisit. A Dem current coalition government is possible but with a different PM but probably leaving Korn at finance as he probably is the only relatively sane candidate. The interesting thing is that PT may also be viewing this scenario too and trying to adapt via a dinosaur leader to be an alternative to Dems with those who will chose. The chances of a PT-Dem government are very low. It really looks like the current mob with maybe a different PM or if PT does really well another Samak style darent do anything government.
One problem is that people in general want the country to move forward and get over the conflict and if the politicians keep being caught in a continuance of the conflict they open acceptance for other forms of government, but how do the politicians avoid this when they are fighting other agendas that are mutually exclusive and even when they try to create wriggle room their own shadows prevent it?
I find this to be quite an ill-tempered response to what are legitimate questions with Springer’s reading of Cambodia’s political economy.
Simon: why not engage with with Maylee’s reaction to your work on the empirical issue of political-economic transition in Cambodia, instead of citing a bunch of other scholars on the definition of neoliberalisation?
Also, not sure that berating other (senior) researchers for not citing your work is such a great strategy.
“other countries try to regulate the abuses of the system by using the courts to punish the wrongdoers. Yet with Thailand, people who would consider themselves progressive complain about just such rules being added to the constitution and also in them being used”
Les: Would the Democrat Party still in existence if those laws were applied consistently, without fear or favour?
Even if the electorate don’t always do their duty, 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.
Just as some people tend to overestimate the effectiveness of the sanctions, there are others who seem to overestimate the influence of Burmese lobbyists in the US and elsewhere. I have seen little or no evidence of any foreign or immigrant lobby making a significant impact on US foreign policy except perhaps Israel.
What the US does care about is its own influence, control of resources and market share anywhere on the planet. For one thing it would dearly love to counter and dilute Chinese influence on Burma, and above all grab a piece of the action for itself.
Having said that it remains politically untenable for the West to extend the olive branch to the uniquely intransigent Burmese generals so it can make way for US and EU business to gain a foothold. Their own electorates won’t have it given the relentless repression and complete lack of tangible political progress they witness vis-a-vis the ethnic minorities as well as the mainstream Burmese in the Age of the Internet. And that’s not down to the lobbyists or exile dissident media.
Interesting point Leslie Hayden made about international election monitors, but I reckon it was some wishful thinking on her part that the regime would be so willing particularly as she believed the sanctions were ineffective, and we all know why they are not in the conspicuous absence of Burma’s neighbours and also Russia, and both Koreas, in the club, quite on the contrary.
Ultimately it is less about Burma and its people, more about geopolitical considerations, and the bottom line is business and profits, however you dress up Western foreign policy, from the days of the Honourable East India Company. Chevron typically provided the stock argument of capitalist competition that if you don’t Jones will.
Yes, the economy is crucial, and the Burmese, both the rulers and the ruled, would love to do business with both East and West, but here we should pause and remind ourselves what determines economic policy. At its most fundamental level, it’s the political will, stupid!
I’d have thought that a secret ballot was an essential feature of a “fair election”. A Thai explained to me recently how it is possible in the current system to identify the choices made by an individual voter. While this may not be an important factor in large urban areas the consequences of defying the will of the local big man in rural Thailand are very serious and in my mind make it highly unlikely that any Thai election could be considered “fair”. Of course you would actually have to confirm that it is possible to identify what choices a voter made before making this claim. Two young Thai post-graduates (educated partly in Australia) from a rural part of the South have since told me why, after their first experience of the non secret nature of the vote, they decided to stop voting. Does anyone on this site have evidence that might support their assertions?
Frankly, if its true then its not surprise that some parties are confident of retaining their vote in core areas. If the vote is not genuinely anonymous then I would think that the ability of a voter to vote freely and not be intimidated are very low.
Many thanks for throwing some light on the parliamentary proceedings so far. Hardly surprising the questions and proposals do not tend to come from the military members or the USDP. They are trained to obey, not to think.
I would expect a dichotomy, evolving between those in uniform and those who are not, in parliament. Likewise between those not in parliament and their own parliamentary contingent. We may see some cliques and alliances forming even across the floor as it were.
People have no truck with any of this because it is too soon for one thing with nothing interesting to them developing yet. Was it Alexis de Tocqueville who said a reforming government is at its most vulnerable?
I was always convinced that in this strange nightlife of Bangkok are some truly great works of art to be made – the human condition is just way beyond sex and money.
I have put another night-subject somewhat on hold since i got drawn into politics (some of the images have been exhibited, and i will show a few more images in an exhibition in a few months here in Bangkok). I have already worked several years on it, and occasionally add a few images, when i have the time and peace of mind.
Anyhow, back to the topic. I was tonight at the opening. I have never seen yet Chris’ large acrylics, and i was stunned. They are simply outstanding. I have two of his watercolors (got them through a barter – a few of my B/W hand prints from my first book in exchange), and i love them a lot. His acrylics are in another world again – they are large, and somehow draw inspiration from expressionists, and Pop art, and capture that very special essence of the Bangkok nights. Very inspiring!
So is there anything happening in Cambodia’s political economy which is *not* an example of neoliberalisation / neoliberalism with Cambodian characteristics ?
There are even earlier novels depicting Thailand’s sordid scenery, such as Jack Reynolds’ ‘A Woman Of Bangkok’, first published in 1956, and credited as maybe the first of the genre of “sexpat novels”.
Quite right Nick, but its reputation for sex tourism probably did, as you say yourself, need GIs’ on R & R to get it started. If I was asked which SE Asian country had the biggest sex industry I would probably pick Indonesia over Thailand and the Philippines, but have to admit this is almost a solely domestic industry – yes I know about Bloc M in Jakarta, but this is miniscule compared to Bangkok and Pattaya.
As for the genre of “sexpat” novels, I suspect it’s really a genre that doesn’t exist in anything like the size people, and some publishers, imagine. Many that get put in this classification are just novels of various genre that happen to be based in a Thai location with expat characters. It’s a shame because good books can be missed this way. I will give you an example.
In 2001 Nanmee Books did a short run of a English language novel by Max Ediger called Friendships of Gold. This was before Nanmee had started the Thai translations of Harry Potter and was still relatively small. The book had been turned down by at least one of the bigger English language publishers that I know of, and probably a lot more. The MD of that publisher told me that although only a few pages had been looked at, it was dismissed as just another farang meets bargirl novel. What a shame as it was, in my view, a book hinting at greatness.
Well I couldn’t have been alone in my opinion as the Thai translation sold very well and was turned into a Thai TV soap.
If you accept that vote buying is a part of the process here you must also accept that people are cunning enough to take the money and run whichever way actually benefits. All democracies go through a corrupt and dubious period. American, English, Japanese, French, Canadian – whatever.
Ross what should be said is that other countries try to regulate the abuses of the system by using the courts to punish the wrongdoers. Yet with Thailand, people who would consider themselves progressive complain about just such rules being added to the constitution and also in them being used.
The Democrats tried to win last time under military rule and friendly media with the army ordering all troops to vote Democrat. Common sense dictates that they won’t allow for a real result again, they will rig the election, and whoever complains will just be swept away with an inquiry that will confirm the result 18 months later.
Why take chances? Lock it up, if the Reds complain just gun them down again like the dogs they are perceived to be, plenty of ammunition floating around. Think it will be like the US with their insidious banker bail outs, the corrupt government and agencies just don’t care anymore how fraudulent it looks. If the jokingly home of the free doesn’t care, why would the Thais? Welcome to real democracy, bought and paid for to serve whatever Elite.
Excellent article Ko Kyaw Kyaw. I wish this would be published in a mainstream news outlet (or an exiled Burmese paper, for that matter) for a more balanced perspective….
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
"“Apparently, neoliberalism can now also mean an extension of the state.” This kind of derisive argumentation carries little weight, as Thavat never gets around to explaining how or why neoliberalism might be considered inimical to the state."Perhaps she has been misled by the meaning and use of the term “Liberalism” since 1819 –or the broader political meaning of “Liberal” since 1800. Those terms did explicitly denote an ideology of what was called limited government –and of limited constitutional monarchy in countries that had monarchs. Thomas Hobbes, you’ll note, defines freedom as the silence of the laws: only areas that the state does not govern, and does not enjoin any law upon one way or another, are “free”. Thus, freedom of religion means that the government resolves to write no law whatsoever on religion, one way or the other. Sound familiar? This was an original idea, at one time (and you won’t find it in Plato). It is needless to say that contemporary figures like Tony Blair do not read (and have not been influenced by) historical figures like Hobbes (d. 1679), Mandeville (d. 1733) and Montesquieu (d. 1755). However, this is the pre-history that explains why so many people assume that neo-liberalism would suggest a principle of limited government, etc. (as did the term “liberalism” for over 200 years before it).
The contemporary usage and (de facto) meaning of neo-liberalism has arisen in direct contrast to neo-conservatism –and the continuity between these two terms is much stronger than the (difficult-to-discern) relationship between neo-liberalism and the “liberal” politics of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
The complaint that
"...the unsophisticated understanding of neoliberalism that pervades in the mainstream media..."is invalid rather cuts against the human reality of how meaning arises and persists in contemporary language. Many of the political advocates of neo-liberalism are certainly guilty of making very pliant and pliable use of the meaning of the term (such as Tony Blair himself, in print, in The Stakeholder Society etc.).Sure, questioning the compatibility of “neo-liberalism” with the extension of state power is a legitimate intellectual exercise (for Thavat or anyone else) –and it is precisely the implications of “…the unsophisticated understanding of neoliberalism…” used by the press and by politicians themselves that is worth contesting.
In terms of a “straw man argument”, nobody is contesting
"that ‘neoliberalism’ itself is an abstraction".The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
I agree that this review is rather mean-spirited. Maylee appears to have legitimate questions about those elements of state and power relations that appear to contradict the major tenets of neoliberalism. You argue as if the debate is over, and that there is no question that neoliberalism/ization should be thought about this way or that.
Few will argue that neoliberalism has biopolitical power. The question Maylee seemed to be asking (and I doubt she would be the only one) was whether neoliberalism is an adequate way of framing Cambodian political economic realities or not. The point is to explain these realities. Is neoliberalism the right characterization of power/governmentality in explaining the Cambodian state?
Insisting on neoliberalism as a framing is a discursive/theoretical straitjacket in itself. The one size fits all problem here is not so much Maylee’s understanding of neoliberalism, but your insistence that neoliberalism explains every little twist. I doubt Castree, Gupta, Ferguson et al would defend a teleological perspective on neoliberalism. In fact, I find it rather offensive and ironic that you rally these critical anthropologists, who have fought to question the disciplinary (and colonizing) straitjacket of ethnography (in the anthropological sense), to your cause, one that insists that it’s neoliberalism or nothing.
It seems like you yourself have set up Maylee Thavat as your own strawman, instead of engaging with her points.
A beginners’ guide to Bangkok Noir
There is an interview with Chris Coles here: http://bangkok101.com/2011/04/qa-chris-coles/
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
I couldn’t even bring myself to speed read this after struggling through the overlong first paragraph.
I wonder if it was interesting? Will never know now…
Is an election the answer for Thailand?
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.
Of course though that doesnt address the aspirations and desires of the people and will only be a short term fix as the people realise that whoever of the current political elite they elect, they get shafted. That though is a longer issue. In the meantime the only question is do we have an accommodation or at least a truce between the political elite? If not now it is likely the political elite will also attempt an accommodation again when the 111 get unfettered next year although as they are already represented by puppets and proxies this is really a faux moment than a real one.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Interesting especially on the discussion about Abhisit and whoever PT decides to put up front. However, it is likely after this election that CTP-BJT will deciding who gets to be PM and who gets to be in government/opposition. The new Purachai party may also fit in there somewhere with his funding coming from a similar background to BJTs it seems.
The question is would BJT and mates really want Abhisit back, and does that fit with how the elite view Abhisit. A Dem current coalition government is possible but with a different PM but probably leaving Korn at finance as he probably is the only relatively sane candidate. The interesting thing is that PT may also be viewing this scenario too and trying to adapt via a dinosaur leader to be an alternative to Dems with those who will chose. The chances of a PT-Dem government are very low. It really looks like the current mob with maybe a different PM or if PT does really well another Samak style darent do anything government.
One problem is that people in general want the country to move forward and get over the conflict and if the politicians keep being caught in a continuance of the conflict they open acceptance for other forms of government, but how do the politicians avoid this when they are fighting other agendas that are mutually exclusive and even when they try to create wriggle room their own shadows prevent it?
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Hi:
I find this to be quite an ill-tempered response to what are legitimate questions with Springer’s reading of Cambodia’s political economy.
Simon: why not engage with with Maylee’s reaction to your work on the empirical issue of political-economic transition in Cambodia, instead of citing a bunch of other scholars on the definition of neoliberalisation?
Also, not sure that berating other (senior) researchers for not citing your work is such a great strategy.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
“other countries try to regulate the abuses of the system by using the courts to punish the wrongdoers. Yet with Thailand, people who would consider themselves progressive complain about just such rules being added to the constitution and also in them being used”
Les: Would the Democrat Party still in existence if those laws were applied consistently, without fear or favour?
Even if the electorate don’t always do their duty, 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?
Sanctioning Burma’s prospects
Just as some people tend to overestimate the effectiveness of the sanctions, there are others who seem to overestimate the influence of Burmese lobbyists in the US and elsewhere. I have seen little or no evidence of any foreign or immigrant lobby making a significant impact on US foreign policy except perhaps Israel.
What the US does care about is its own influence, control of resources and market share anywhere on the planet. For one thing it would dearly love to counter and dilute Chinese influence on Burma, and above all grab a piece of the action for itself.
Having said that it remains politically untenable for the West to extend the olive branch to the uniquely intransigent Burmese generals so it can make way for US and EU business to gain a foothold. Their own electorates won’t have it given the relentless repression and complete lack of tangible political progress they witness vis-a-vis the ethnic minorities as well as the mainstream Burmese in the Age of the Internet. And that’s not down to the lobbyists or exile dissident media.
Interesting point Leslie Hayden made about international election monitors, but I reckon it was some wishful thinking on her part that the regime would be so willing particularly as she believed the sanctions were ineffective, and we all know why they are not in the conspicuous absence of Burma’s neighbours and also Russia, and both Koreas, in the club, quite on the contrary.
Ultimately it is less about Burma and its people, more about geopolitical considerations, and the bottom line is business and profits, however you dress up Western foreign policy, from the days of the Honourable East India Company. Chevron typically provided the stock argument of capitalist competition that if you don’t Jones will.
Yes, the economy is crucial, and the Burmese, both the rulers and the ruled, would love to do business with both East and West, but here we should pause and remind ourselves what determines economic policy. At its most fundamental level, it’s the political will, stupid!
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
I’d have thought that a secret ballot was an essential feature of a “fair election”. A Thai explained to me recently how it is possible in the current system to identify the choices made by an individual voter. While this may not be an important factor in large urban areas the consequences of defying the will of the local big man in rural Thailand are very serious and in my mind make it highly unlikely that any Thai election could be considered “fair”. Of course you would actually have to confirm that it is possible to identify what choices a voter made before making this claim. Two young Thai post-graduates (educated partly in Australia) from a rural part of the South have since told me why, after their first experience of the non secret nature of the vote, they decided to stop voting. Does anyone on this site have evidence that might support their assertions?
Frankly, if its true then its not surprise that some parties are confident of retaining their vote in core areas. If the vote is not genuinely anonymous then I would think that the ability of a voter to vote freely and not be intimidated are very low.
Burma’s parliamentary system explained
Many thanks for throwing some light on the parliamentary proceedings so far. Hardly surprising the questions and proposals do not tend to come from the military members or the USDP. They are trained to obey, not to think.
I would expect a dichotomy, evolving between those in uniform and those who are not, in parliament. Likewise between those not in parliament and their own parliamentary contingent. We may see some cliques and alliances forming even across the floor as it were.
People have no truck with any of this because it is too soon for one thing with nothing interesting to them developing yet. Was it Alexis de Tocqueville who said a reforming government is at its most vulnerable?
I’m sure we do live in interesting times.
A beginners’ guide to Bangkok Noir
“LesAbbey”:
I was always convinced that in this strange nightlife of Bangkok are some truly great works of art to be made – the human condition is just way beyond sex and money.
I have put another night-subject somewhat on hold since i got drawn into politics (some of the images have been exhibited, and i will show a few more images in an exhibition in a few months here in Bangkok). I have already worked several years on it, and occasionally add a few images, when i have the time and peace of mind.
Anyhow, back to the topic. I was tonight at the opening. I have never seen yet Chris’ large acrylics, and i was stunned. They are simply outstanding. I have two of his watercolors (got them through a barter – a few of my B/W hand prints from my first book in exchange), and i love them a lot. His acrylics are in another world again – they are large, and somehow draw inspiration from expressionists, and Pop art, and capture that very special essence of the Bangkok nights. Very inspiring!
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
So is there anything happening in Cambodia’s political economy which is *not* an example of neoliberalisation / neoliberalism with Cambodian characteristics ?
A case of theoretical mission creep?
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
CJ (re comment 145): I assume you asked Prudence Leith (Rayne Kruger’s widow) if she has those missing 16 pages?
A beginners’ guide to Bangkok Noir
Nick Nostitz – 10
There are even earlier novels depicting Thailand’s sordid scenery, such as Jack Reynolds’ ‘A Woman Of Bangkok’, first published in 1956, and credited as maybe the first of the genre of “sexpat novels”.
Quite right Nick, but its reputation for sex tourism probably did, as you say yourself, need GIs’ on R & R to get it started. If I was asked which SE Asian country had the biggest sex industry I would probably pick Indonesia over Thailand and the Philippines, but have to admit this is almost a solely domestic industry – yes I know about Bloc M in Jakarta, but this is miniscule compared to Bangkok and Pattaya.
As for the genre of “sexpat” novels, I suspect it’s really a genre that doesn’t exist in anything like the size people, and some publishers, imagine. Many that get put in this classification are just novels of various genre that happen to be based in a Thai location with expat characters. It’s a shame because good books can be missed this way. I will give you an example.
In 2001 Nanmee Books did a short run of a English language novel by Max Ediger called Friendships of Gold. This was before Nanmee had started the Thai translations of Harry Potter and was still relatively small. The book had been turned down by at least one of the bigger English language publishers that I know of, and probably a lot more. The MD of that publisher told me that although only a few pages had been looked at, it was dismissed as just another farang meets bargirl novel. What a shame as it was, in my view, a book hinting at greatness.
Well I couldn’t have been alone in my opinion as the Thai translation sold very well and was turned into a Thai TV soap.
Amnesty’s silence on lese majeste
[…] “р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕кр╕╢р╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕│р╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕кр╕▓р╕Шр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╕░ р╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕░р╕кр╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Фр╕│р╣Ар╕Щр╕┤р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ор╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕вр╕лр╕бр╕┤р╣Ир╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕гр╕б р╣Ар╕Фр╕Кр╕▓р╕Щр╕╕р╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╣Гр╕Щр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Ир╕Ир╕╕р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щ; р╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Кр╕▒р╕Фр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Ор╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕вр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕нр╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╣Др╕лр╕з [р╣Бр╕ер╕░] р╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕лр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕кр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕кр╕│р╕Др╕▒р╕Н; р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕гр╕Бр╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣Ар╕кр╕гр╕╡р╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕кр╕Фр╕Зр╕нр╕нр╕Б р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕бр╕╡р╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Ър╕Чр╕Ър╕▓р╕Чр╕кр╕│р╕Др╕▒р╕Нр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Бр╕Ыр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╕бр╕Щр╕╕р╕йр╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╣Др╕Чр╕в р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Гр╕Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╣Гр╕Фр╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ир╕│р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕Бр╕Ыр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣М” […]
The injustice of a closed trial
[…] р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕┤р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╕▓р╕Др╕Фр╕╡р╕ер╕▒р╕Ъ […]
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
Ross Walker – 10
If you accept that vote buying is a part of the process here you must also accept that people are cunning enough to take the money and run whichever way actually benefits. All democracies go through a corrupt and dubious period. American, English, Japanese, French, Canadian – whatever.
Ross what should be said is that other countries try to regulate the abuses of the system by using the courts to punish the wrongdoers. Yet with Thailand, people who would consider themselves progressive complain about just such rules being added to the constitution and also in them being used.
Will Thailand’s elections be fair?
The Democrats tried to win last time under military rule and friendly media with the army ordering all troops to vote Democrat. Common sense dictates that they won’t allow for a real result again, they will rig the election, and whoever complains will just be swept away with an inquiry that will confirm the result 18 months later.
Why take chances? Lock it up, if the Reds complain just gun them down again like the dogs they are perceived to be, plenty of ammunition floating around. Think it will be like the US with their insidious banker bail outs, the corrupt government and agencies just don’t care anymore how fraudulent it looks. If the jokingly home of the free doesn’t care, why would the Thais? Welcome to real democracy, bought and paid for to serve whatever Elite.
Burma’s parliamentary system explained
Excellent article Ko Kyaw Kyaw. I wish this would be published in a mainstream news outlet (or an exiled Burmese paper, for that matter) for a more balanced perspective….