If New Mandala said something like ‘this blog supports the UDD and Thaksin and anyone who doesn’t is not welcome’ – then I suppose you could call me a troll. As so far that has not happened I do not consider I’m trolling.
In fact recently it has been heartening to see that some of those who were most fervent in their support of the UDD are having second thoughts. Perhaps my warnings of the danger of supping with the devil are becoming more mainstream on New Mandala.
Frankly speaking, I was rather irritated about the fact that this post could make it onto the pages of New Mandala. I do not think that giving access to a foreign quasi-Leninist (“New leaders are needed to take the masses forward”), who wants to push for “regime change” in Thailand, properly acknowledges the complex political situation in Thailand (and of those who live in Thailand and participate in the various political discourses). Jim Taylor has many red web sites for making his partisan strategic political advice to the “progressive” segments of the red shirts known.
Whatever the merits or other of Jim and Nick’s respective points – incidentally I seem to recall when Jim Taylor many years ago was criticized for being non-poltical or apolitical by his detractors primarily because he was not considered to be a “politically engaged” anthropologist but now is subject to similar criticisms for being thus – at least both of them raise interesting and useful points.
Good Grief, hiding as s/he (inclined intuitively to think a “he”) behind the cloak of anonymity is pretty spineless. Perhaps s/he is afraid of being held to account by those of us who do not hide such a cloak!
Come on Good Grief emerge from the shadows and let people, epsecially Nick, know who you are. Otherwise the less well informed people of the world like myself, will despatch your “bleatings”to the boundary where perhaps they deserve to be despatched.
Thailand already has a Royalist party: The “Democrats!”
(Well it clearly was when it was founded and I think it still is.)
It’s equally ironic seeing what sort of ideologies the “New Politics” party founded by the so-called “People’s Alliance for Democracy” actually supports, and what kind of regime the “Thai-style democracy”, “Democracy with the King as the head of state” actually is.
No doubt Black Dog (Soonuk Dum) holds a disdaining view of democracy, since the Royalist party, the Fascist party, and the Aristocrats have poisoned it well enough that it became a meaningless political buzzword, and … ahem.. did someone just mention pseudo-democracy?
Obviously such democracy is not suitable anywhere, nor is it wanted. I agree with you, Soonuk Dum.
Whatever the election outcome, the Red Shirts will have still many points to rally on, not the least being the issue of the dead of 2010, and the slow judicial process concerning the dead.
In the past years there many times when one could get the impression that the Red Shirts would find it impossible to rally enough people, but so far things have always continued and grown beyond the expectations of many observers. The Red Shirts are a movement in constant development. The small stages are part of this development, but also the UDD develops. We will all have to wait and see what will go on with the Bonanza concert. There may well be a lack of sale of tickets, but i would not jump to the conclusion that this must be because of the lack of interest or confidence into the UDD. Do not forget the huge increase of prices for commodities, and that it is more and more difficult for ordinary Thais to make ends meet. A trip to Bonanza, including petrol, may cost each Red Shirt family several thousand Baht easily.
It is quite easy to say that a bloodbath cannot be avoided if push comes to shove, and that it would not worry the military machine who would initiate this.
First of all – the “military machine” is not a monolithic entity, these are also people with diverse views, who huge difficulties to handle the situation. I don’t know if you have done so already, but i would very much suggest that you also talk with members of the “military machine”, and incorporate their views into your analysis.
Secondly, if it would just be about campaigning against article 112, things would be easier. But i don’t think i need to tell you that on Daeng Siam stages many speakers go much further than this, and are with increasing openness moving into very sensitive territory. I also do not really see yet that the Daeng Siam stages attract now masses of people – i see around 100 to 500 people at those stages, at most 2000 to 3000 on very rare occasions. Small stages were part of the game since the military coup in 2006 (Sanam Luang Voice, etc), and the amount of attendants did not rise significantly until now. What changed is that speeches on these stages are increasingly radical.
I see that vastly increasing numbers of Red Shirts may agree in principle with much that is said there, but who are more than reluctant to take part in those events, knowing that such a radical position is just too dangerous for them. Don’t forget – most ordinary Red Shirts also have families to feed, and have no intention to turn into underground fighters.
Thirdly, also the Red Shirts have some very violent factions. This has to be taken into account as well.
I am not in a position to give the UDD, or any other Red Shirt faction advise on their strategies. I understand that the situation is enormously complex, but my role is to document what happens. I have my own thoughts, sympathies and antipathies (and i have never really hidden all of those) – but i am not a protester.
There is much going on which is not yet in the public eye. Accusing UDD leaders to take the Red Shirts back several years because they may be in negotiations with the state is a fallacy. We don’t know what is said in these negotiations, but to give negotiations a chance it is only understandable that all sides have to take things slow now.
It is not just that only the leaders were released on bail. Also many (most?) ordinary and even hardcore Red Shirts have been released as well. I have spoken with some i was very surprised that they were allowed out.
I have been in the courtroom during the bail hearings of the UDD leaders. The DSI/prosecution was adamant on only allowing Dr. Weng and Korkaeow out. Sanan as a witness made a very strong statement why all leaders should be allowed out. One could get an inkling at how difficult it must have been for the state to come to this decision, and how much resistance the moderates of the state had (still have?) from the hardliners in their own quarters.
Go and have a look at the public hearings of the National Reconciliation Commission, and see how difficult some of them are. This is much more complex than a simple oppressed vs. oppressor situation. Many people of all sides here try to find solutions, which is very difficult.
Soonuk Dum #18: Allowing election results to stand, without outside interference, would be a good start.
(in other words, if the military & royalists want to play politics, let them form the Military Party and the Royalist Party and contest elections as such)
A few years ago I used to say on this site that I think Plato’s ‘Philosopher Kings’ concept looked interesting, but I now see that it has been tried in Thailand and failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
Now I agree with Winston Churchill:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.
Soonuk Dum, before demanding explanation from other people, you should list some factual points to support your allegations.
Basically, how do you support these three claims of yours?:
1. Democracy in the West is not working in the interest of the majority.
2. The current system in Thailand is already supporting the interest of the majority.
3. Thai have more Freedom that the West. (also please clarify what sort of freedom you’re referring to, and why it is important)
Pardon me. I just have heard enough of self-deluded proclamation. I hope you’re not another one.
“Unless and until the people look after their own interests they will see themselves continuously co-opted in service to the interests of those who do take the time to “look after the peoples’ interests”.
Isn’t the problem precisely that the schisms develop because ALL players are looking after their own interests and not the nations?
My point being any kind of society with an empathic interest in social welfare should be “other-oriented” not “self-oriented”
If we accept an altruistic/empathic society to be an indicator of an evolved society (as anthropologists do) there is a long way to go here.
The promotion of HM’s ideal of a sufficiency economy is an ideal that could be reached only by empathy and altruism at ALL levels. It only works if everyone at ALL levels signs up to it.
Interestingly I would suggest that Thailand has had the necessary climatic and resource requisites to develop such a society and a better chance at reaching it than most. The tenets of buddhism align toward this. However, somehow the truck has rolled up at the self-absorbed feudal impasse we see today.
As the hotel porter said to a dissolute George Best when he found him in bed with Miss World with money and champagne bottles scattered round the room – George, George where did it all go so wrong??
I think you missed my point, or perhaps I wasn’t clear.
Before trying to impose ‘democracy’ on an unsuspecting populace anywhere, please define what -you- mean by democracy.
And please don’t confuse ‘Freedom’ with democracy. They are not the same thing.
The current western powers that claim to be democratic are most certainly not. And the common people have in many ways less freedoms than are available here.
For true democracy to work, everyone must accept everyone else as equal. Sounds a lot like Communism doesn’t it?
And like Communism, democracy fails when scaled up. It is fine for a small group of like thinkers.
And getting back to the point I am trying to make – your style of (pseudo) democracy is not suitable everywhere. And nor is it wanted. So why do you insist in trying to impose it?
Both useful comments. Asang is definitely from a different generation to Khamtai. Khamtai was a core member of the Party from 1947 on when he led Lao Issara exiles from Ubon to eastern Attapeu. He worked closely with Pham Van Dong and Vo Chi Cong while building up the revolutionary movement in southern Laos. In contrast, Asang was the protege of Maichantane Sengmany, the Communist Tai Lue patriarch of Phong Saly, who didn’t gain prominence in the Party until the 1960s. So we are looking at a solid decade’s difference between the two. Asang stepped down as Minister of the Interior but retained control of the Party’s Inspection Committee, so in reality he lost no significant power. His children hold major positions in the Public Security Ministry so it is the same strategy being applied by Khamtai and Samane through Sonexay and Nam. Yes, Mme Pany is a very capable official in her own right. However, being the daughter of Thao Tou and the relative of Faydang and Nhiaveu Lobliayao helped cement her prestige in the Party. Laos is closely following the Vietnamese model, that is seeking to build the National Assembly so as to ensure that institutional power remains in the hands of the Party. Obviously I don’t want to speculate about the Standing Deputy Prime Minister. His determination to industrialize and develop Laos rapidly has drawn mixed comments from various fields. The fall of Khamphouy Keoboualapha is a good point raised and I had been thinking about it since Bouasone’s resignation in December. Their families actually have a close connection being based in the Lao Ngam area of Salavan. Khamphouy promoted active engagement with Thai entrepreneurs and championed the new thinking of Kaysone’s NEM. However, once his patron died of cancer Khamphouy quickly fell from grace. With regards to face, it is the face of the Party and Bouasone’s patrons that I am referring to. The construction of an elaborate shrine for Angkorian era images at Wat Inpeng by Bouasone’s family served as a bad omen being such a public display of wealth as well as spiritual merit.
I went to a public meeting this week where one of the speakers was someone whom many view as a prominent Thai liberal. Here is a paraphrase of four points he made which which depress me:
1. Only when nature has taken its course will there be any fundamental change.
2. One reason for this is that things are not so bad here. Even 91 deaths pales in comparison to what is happening in Libya.
3. You will have a hard time pinning the elite down. They are very good at what they do, as evidenced by the expiry of the deadline for prosecuting the Democratic Party over corruption.
4. The youth of Thailand really don’t care about these issues. They are more likely to use Facebook to hunt down rebels than they are to encourage social change.
Soonuk Dum: Thank you for acknowledging what Thailand has is most definitely not a democracy.
Not sure that your overall conclusion can be supported when the three countries you listed are all much more stable than Thailand, however I do find your post refreshing for it’s honesty.
It is a pity that more of your military/royalist apologist companions didn’t admit they were fighting against democracy sooner, as it might have helped prevent much loss of life.
Nick’s#9: Phue Thai and UDD with the elites have made a new compact to accept the elections. Nick says: Nuttawut’s support for the elections is “one leg” to stand on, and that “regardless of the outcome – they will continue”. The problem is that by accepting the terms of the elections (dubiously orchestrated) completely undermines the credibility for any action the movement may wish to make afterwards, either a scenario of Phue Thai Party winning or losing. How can they henceforth rally the masses together and take to the streets again? They would be seen as spoilers or bad losers. The only possibility for mass action is if the masses/electorate see the elections or the outcome as clearly rigged. The second point Nick’s raises relates to UDD’s strategy vis-a-vis “radicalization” over 112: “Bloodshed”? We may not be able to avoid this if a push came to a shove: No one wants this. It does not worry the state’s military machine who would initiate this; it would not come from the masses. Everyone in a democratic country has the right to free speech. Many people have now come so far that to turn back would be not be acceptable to them. Likewise, to stifle the masses; to now tell them after five years of seeing anew what they can and cannot actually say openly on matters of democracy is tantamount to the same logic that UDD decry and criticise the amaat regime for! So what are UDD really afraid of? Rightly or wrongly, UDD core leaders were widely criticised for kowtowing and agreeing not to touch “certain matters” and in their open praise of the judiciary after their release. This may have been part of the “informal” conditions of their release though we don’t know that. As Tida (pers.comm, Imperial, Lad Prao, 8 December 2010), then leader of UDD said, Phue Thai and UDD are on the same side but she does not trust Phue Thai; UDD see Party as the tool for the people, but political parties see people as tools of the party; “politics is not the business of UDD – it is only as ‘mass [social] movement’”. But she did say that she support’s a “parliamentary mode of fighting” from UDD masses; though not in supporting political parties. Right now I think it is fair to say that people are confused and disappointed. the small stages are being set up and we will see more and more people going away from UDD. According to sources, UDD’s proposed Khaoyai “Bonanza” fundraising/celebration this weekend were unable to sell many tickets and have to give them away…I think there must be a time of reflection and correction among UDD leaders before it is too late. The “small stages” on matters such as 112 will work with the masses and take democracy forward.
I think Thaksin and the UDD leadership want democracy in Thailand, if you need to dig deeper then you find all the individuals have many shades of reasons.
Thaksin I suspect wants democracy because he believes its the modern way to organise a progressive and productive society and he and his family can thrive in that environment. He grew up intermingled in Chiang Mai society and has feelings for the people of the society.
UDD leaders range in idealism, pragmatics and ambition but by and large are dedicated to the cause of changing Thai society, they are very with the people, few keep themselves aloof and most seem driven to avoid killing and injury.
Many of us are frustrated because it seems the Thai amart/military are so strongly entrenched that real bloody revolution is the only way to change them.
However I have respect for the feelings and, hopefully, conscious strategy of the many varied UDD leaders to pressure and educate the amart/military and achieve a revolution from within.
Verwoed, Gorbachov seemed to see a light and bring their people forward so maybe can happen in Thailand.
Re: “These are delicate issues, given Thailand’s raw and rabid polarization between those with vested interests in the old order and those intent on putting an end to what they claim are neo-feudalistic privileges and entitlements. Unless good-faith efforts at compromise are shown by all sides, Thailand will not retake its rightful place among the world’s up-and-coming democracies.”
Rather basic but accurate summary of forces in conflict, but the issue of good faith is probably wishful thinking for Thailand. The degree of “I want it my way” here makes constructive compromise very difficult at best.
Actually Tarrin makes a very good point.
All sides claim to be for ‘Democracy’ (including most here on NM), but lets have a bit of a look at democracy today.
Where is it working? Certainly not in that bastion of the free the USA, nor in the UK or Australia. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Democracy’s intent was to govern based on the will and desires of the majority. In all current ‘democratic’ countries, we see the opposite. Laws are enacted daily for minority groups at the expense of the majority.
Why do so many on NM want to impose a failed system on Thailand (and the rest of the world?)
Thailand has, up until now managed quite well. The system may not meet your ideas of an ideal, but it does meet the needs of the majority here. And believe it or not, most people (the majority) don’t want to see major changes and upsets. They do not want demonstrations, they do not want civil war.
All they want is a fair standard of living.
You lot go on about freedom as if you really have it in the west.
Have a good think about what ‘freedoms’ you have compared to people in Thailand. For me, it’s Thailand any day.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
One man, the ABC and lese majeste
John Lilburne #1 :
“The Cat That Purred” ? Or “A Dog’s Dinner” ?
A watching game
Goodgrief: you mean item 13 above or something else?
A watching game
Goodgrief – 19
I guess if i endlessly trolled like Les Abbey…
If New Mandala said something like ‘this blog supports the UDD and Thaksin and anyone who doesn’t is not welcome’ – then I suppose you could call me a troll. As so far that has not happened I do not consider I’m trolling.
In fact recently it has been heartening to see that some of those who were most fervent in their support of the UDD are having second thoughts. Perhaps my warnings of the danger of supping with the devil are becoming more mainstream on New Mandala.
A watching game
Frankly speaking, I was rather irritated about the fact that this post could make it onto the pages of New Mandala. I do not think that giving access to a foreign quasi-Leninist (“New leaders are needed to take the masses forward”), who wants to push for “regime change” in Thailand, properly acknowledges the complex political situation in Thailand (and of those who live in Thailand and participate in the various political discourses). Jim Taylor has many red web sites for making his partisan strategic political advice to the “progressive” segments of the red shirts known.
A watching game
So what point is Good Grief trying to make?
Whatever the merits or other of Jim and Nick’s respective points – incidentally I seem to recall when Jim Taylor many years ago was criticized for being non-poltical or apolitical by his detractors primarily because he was not considered to be a “politically engaged” anthropologist but now is subject to similar criticisms for being thus – at least both of them raise interesting and useful points.
Good Grief, hiding as s/he (inclined intuitively to think a “he”) behind the cloak of anonymity is pretty spineless. Perhaps s/he is afraid of being held to account by those of us who do not hide such a cloak!
Come on Good Grief emerge from the shadows and let people, epsecially Nick, know who you are. Otherwise the less well informed people of the world like myself, will despatch your “bleatings”to the boundary where perhaps they deserve to be despatched.
Shane Tarr
Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon)
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
@Nganadeeleg
Thailand already has a Royalist party: The “Democrats!”
(Well it clearly was when it was founded and I think it still is.)
It’s equally ironic seeing what sort of ideologies the “New Politics” party founded by the so-called “People’s Alliance for Democracy” actually supports, and what kind of regime the “Thai-style democracy”, “Democracy with the King as the head of state” actually is.
No doubt Black Dog (Soonuk Dum) holds a disdaining view of democracy, since the Royalist party, the Fascist party, and the Aristocrats have poisoned it well enough that it became a meaningless political buzzword, and … ahem.. did someone just mention pseudo-democracy?
Obviously such democracy is not suitable anywhere, nor is it wanted. I agree with you, Soonuk Dum.
A watching game
Posted a very slightly critical comment of Nostitz – it wasn’t allowed.
I guess if i endlessly trolled like Les Abbey and Stan G that would be ok.
It’s your blog, do what you want with it, but you come off as disingenuous.
(And you have no basis to critique me for commenting anonymously as you publish fully anonymous blog posts ALL the time).
A watching game
“Jim Taylor”:
Whatever the election outcome, the Red Shirts will have still many points to rally on, not the least being the issue of the dead of 2010, and the slow judicial process concerning the dead.
In the past years there many times when one could get the impression that the Red Shirts would find it impossible to rally enough people, but so far things have always continued and grown beyond the expectations of many observers. The Red Shirts are a movement in constant development. The small stages are part of this development, but also the UDD develops. We will all have to wait and see what will go on with the Bonanza concert. There may well be a lack of sale of tickets, but i would not jump to the conclusion that this must be because of the lack of interest or confidence into the UDD. Do not forget the huge increase of prices for commodities, and that it is more and more difficult for ordinary Thais to make ends meet. A trip to Bonanza, including petrol, may cost each Red Shirt family several thousand Baht easily.
It is quite easy to say that a bloodbath cannot be avoided if push comes to shove, and that it would not worry the military machine who would initiate this.
First of all – the “military machine” is not a monolithic entity, these are also people with diverse views, who huge difficulties to handle the situation. I don’t know if you have done so already, but i would very much suggest that you also talk with members of the “military machine”, and incorporate their views into your analysis.
Secondly, if it would just be about campaigning against article 112, things would be easier. But i don’t think i need to tell you that on Daeng Siam stages many speakers go much further than this, and are with increasing openness moving into very sensitive territory. I also do not really see yet that the Daeng Siam stages attract now masses of people – i see around 100 to 500 people at those stages, at most 2000 to 3000 on very rare occasions. Small stages were part of the game since the military coup in 2006 (Sanam Luang Voice, etc), and the amount of attendants did not rise significantly until now. What changed is that speeches on these stages are increasingly radical.
I see that vastly increasing numbers of Red Shirts may agree in principle with much that is said there, but who are more than reluctant to take part in those events, knowing that such a radical position is just too dangerous for them. Don’t forget – most ordinary Red Shirts also have families to feed, and have no intention to turn into underground fighters.
Thirdly, also the Red Shirts have some very violent factions. This has to be taken into account as well.
I am not in a position to give the UDD, or any other Red Shirt faction advise on their strategies. I understand that the situation is enormously complex, but my role is to document what happens. I have my own thoughts, sympathies and antipathies (and i have never really hidden all of those) – but i am not a protester.
There is much going on which is not yet in the public eye. Accusing UDD leaders to take the Red Shirts back several years because they may be in negotiations with the state is a fallacy. We don’t know what is said in these negotiations, but to give negotiations a chance it is only understandable that all sides have to take things slow now.
It is not just that only the leaders were released on bail. Also many (most?) ordinary and even hardcore Red Shirts have been released as well. I have spoken with some i was very surprised that they were allowed out.
I have been in the courtroom during the bail hearings of the UDD leaders. The DSI/prosecution was adamant on only allowing Dr. Weng and Korkaeow out. Sanan as a witness made a very strong statement why all leaders should be allowed out. One could get an inkling at how difficult it must have been for the state to come to this decision, and how much resistance the moderates of the state had (still have?) from the hardliners in their own quarters.
Go and have a look at the public hearings of the National Reconciliation Commission, and see how difficult some of them are. This is much more complex than a simple oppressed vs. oppressor situation. Many people of all sides here try to find solutions, which is very difficult.
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
Soonuk Dum #18: Allowing election results to stand, without outside interference, would be a good start.
(in other words, if the military & royalists want to play politics, let them form the Military Party and the Royalist Party and contest elections as such)
A few years ago I used to say on this site that I think Plato’s ‘Philosopher Kings’ concept looked interesting, but I now see that it has been tried in Thailand and failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
Now I agree with Winston Churchill:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
Soonuk Dum, before demanding explanation from other people, you should list some factual points to support your allegations.
Basically, how do you support these three claims of yours?:
1. Democracy in the West is not working in the interest of the majority.
2. The current system in Thailand is already supporting the interest of the majority.
3. Thai have more Freedom that the West. (also please clarify what sort of freedom you’re referring to, and why it is important)
Pardon me. I just have heard enough of self-deluded proclamation. I hope you’re not another one.
A watching game
john francis lee 5
“Unless and until the people look after their own interests they will see themselves continuously co-opted in service to the interests of those who do take the time to “look after the peoples’ interests”.
Isn’t the problem precisely that the schisms develop because ALL players are looking after their own interests and not the nations?
My point being any kind of society with an empathic interest in social welfare should be “other-oriented” not “self-oriented”
If we accept an altruistic/empathic society to be an indicator of an evolved society (as anthropologists do) there is a long way to go here.
The promotion of HM’s ideal of a sufficiency economy is an ideal that could be reached only by empathy and altruism at ALL levels. It only works if everyone at ALL levels signs up to it.
Interestingly I would suggest that Thailand has had the necessary climatic and resource requisites to develop such a society and a better chance at reaching it than most. The tenets of buddhism align toward this. However, somehow the truck has rolled up at the self-absorbed feudal impasse we see today.
As the hotel porter said to a dissolute George Best when he found him in bed with Miss World with money and champagne bottles scattered round the room – George, George where did it all go so wrong??
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
Nganadeeleg – 17
I think you missed my point, or perhaps I wasn’t clear.
Before trying to impose ‘democracy’ on an unsuspecting populace anywhere, please define what -you- mean by democracy.
And please don’t confuse ‘Freedom’ with democracy. They are not the same thing.
The current western powers that claim to be democratic are most certainly not. And the common people have in many ways less freedoms than are available here.
For true democracy to work, everyone must accept everyone else as equal. Sounds a lot like Communism doesn’t it?
And like Communism, democracy fails when scaled up. It is fine for a small group of like thinkers.
And getting back to the point I am trying to make – your style of (pseudo) democracy is not suitable everywhere. And nor is it wanted. So why do you insist in trying to impose it?
Bouasone dumped from Lao Politburo
Both useful comments. Asang is definitely from a different generation to Khamtai. Khamtai was a core member of the Party from 1947 on when he led Lao Issara exiles from Ubon to eastern Attapeu. He worked closely with Pham Van Dong and Vo Chi Cong while building up the revolutionary movement in southern Laos. In contrast, Asang was the protege of Maichantane Sengmany, the Communist Tai Lue patriarch of Phong Saly, who didn’t gain prominence in the Party until the 1960s. So we are looking at a solid decade’s difference between the two. Asang stepped down as Minister of the Interior but retained control of the Party’s Inspection Committee, so in reality he lost no significant power. His children hold major positions in the Public Security Ministry so it is the same strategy being applied by Khamtai and Samane through Sonexay and Nam. Yes, Mme Pany is a very capable official in her own right. However, being the daughter of Thao Tou and the relative of Faydang and Nhiaveu Lobliayao helped cement her prestige in the Party. Laos is closely following the Vietnamese model, that is seeking to build the National Assembly so as to ensure that institutional power remains in the hands of the Party. Obviously I don’t want to speculate about the Standing Deputy Prime Minister. His determination to industrialize and develop Laos rapidly has drawn mixed comments from various fields. The fall of Khamphouy Keoboualapha is a good point raised and I had been thinking about it since Bouasone’s resignation in December. Their families actually have a close connection being based in the Lao Ngam area of Salavan. Khamphouy promoted active engagement with Thai entrepreneurs and championed the new thinking of Kaysone’s NEM. However, once his patron died of cancer Khamphouy quickly fell from grace. With regards to face, it is the face of the Party and Bouasone’s patrons that I am referring to. The construction of an elaborate shrine for Angkorian era images at Wat Inpeng by Bouasone’s family served as a bad omen being such a public display of wealth as well as spiritual merit.
A watching game
I went to a public meeting this week where one of the speakers was someone whom many view as a prominent Thai liberal. Here is a paraphrase of four points he made which which depress me:
1. Only when nature has taken its course will there be any fundamental change.
2. One reason for this is that things are not so bad here. Even 91 deaths pales in comparison to what is happening in Libya.
3. You will have a hard time pinning the elite down. They are very good at what they do, as evidenced by the expiry of the deadline for prosecuting the Democratic Party over corruption.
4. The youth of Thailand really don’t care about these issues. They are more likely to use Facebook to hunt down rebels than they are to encourage social change.
Are things really so bleak?
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
Soonuk Dum: Thank you for acknowledging what Thailand has is most definitely not a democracy.
Not sure that your overall conclusion can be supported when the three countries you listed are all much more stable than Thailand, however I do find your post refreshing for it’s honesty.
It is a pity that more of your military/royalist apologist companions didn’t admit they were fighting against democracy sooner, as it might have helped prevent much loss of life.
A watching game
Nick’s#9: Phue Thai and UDD with the elites have made a new compact to accept the elections. Nick says: Nuttawut’s support for the elections is “one leg” to stand on, and that “regardless of the outcome – they will continue”. The problem is that by accepting the terms of the elections (dubiously orchestrated) completely undermines the credibility for any action the movement may wish to make afterwards, either a scenario of Phue Thai Party winning or losing. How can they henceforth rally the masses together and take to the streets again? They would be seen as spoilers or bad losers. The only possibility for mass action is if the masses/electorate see the elections or the outcome as clearly rigged. The second point Nick’s raises relates to UDD’s strategy vis-a-vis “radicalization” over 112: “Bloodshed”? We may not be able to avoid this if a push came to a shove: No one wants this. It does not worry the state’s military machine who would initiate this; it would not come from the masses. Everyone in a democratic country has the right to free speech. Many people have now come so far that to turn back would be not be acceptable to them. Likewise, to stifle the masses; to now tell them after five years of seeing anew what they can and cannot actually say openly on matters of democracy is tantamount to the same logic that UDD decry and criticise the amaat regime for! So what are UDD really afraid of? Rightly or wrongly, UDD core leaders were widely criticised for kowtowing and agreeing not to touch “certain matters” and in their open praise of the judiciary after their release. This may have been part of the “informal” conditions of their release though we don’t know that. As Tida (pers.comm, Imperial, Lad Prao, 8 December 2010), then leader of UDD said, Phue Thai and UDD are on the same side but she does not trust Phue Thai; UDD see Party as the tool for the people, but political parties see people as tools of the party; “politics is not the business of UDD – it is only as ‘mass [social] movement’”. But she did say that she support’s a “parliamentary mode of fighting” from UDD masses; though not in supporting political parties. Right now I think it is fair to say that people are confused and disappointed. the small stages are being set up and we will see more and more people going away from UDD. According to sources, UDD’s proposed Khaoyai “Bonanza” fundraising/celebration this weekend were unable to sell many tickets and have to give them away…I think there must be a time of reflection and correction among UDD leaders before it is too late. The “small stages” on matters such as 112 will work with the masses and take democracy forward.
A watching game
I think Thaksin and the UDD leadership want democracy in Thailand, if you need to dig deeper then you find all the individuals have many shades of reasons.
Thaksin I suspect wants democracy because he believes its the modern way to organise a progressive and productive society and he and his family can thrive in that environment. He grew up intermingled in Chiang Mai society and has feelings for the people of the society.
UDD leaders range in idealism, pragmatics and ambition but by and large are dedicated to the cause of changing Thai society, they are very with the people, few keep themselves aloof and most seem driven to avoid killing and injury.
Many of us are frustrated because it seems the Thai amart/military are so strongly entrenched that real bloody revolution is the only way to change them.
However I have respect for the feelings and, hopefully, conscious strategy of the many varied UDD leaders to pressure and educate the amart/military and achieve a revolution from within.
Verwoed, Gorbachov seemed to see a light and bring their people forward so maybe can happen in Thailand.
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
Re: “These are delicate issues, given Thailand’s raw and rabid polarization between those with vested interests in the old order and those intent on putting an end to what they claim are neo-feudalistic privileges and entitlements. Unless good-faith efforts at compromise are shown by all sides, Thailand will not retake its rightful place among the world’s up-and-coming democracies.”
Rather basic but accurate summary of forces in conflict, but the issue of good faith is probably wishful thinking for Thailand. The degree of “I want it my way” here makes constructive compromise very difficult at best.
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
c14
“The system may not meet your ideas of an ideal, but it does meet the needs of the majority here.”
“All they want is a fair standard of living.”
You don’t see a bit of a contradiction here?
Thitinan on Thailand’s long list
LesAbbey 13 and Tarrin 12
Actually Tarrin makes a very good point.
All sides claim to be for ‘Democracy’ (including most here on NM), but lets have a bit of a look at democracy today.
Where is it working? Certainly not in that bastion of the free the USA, nor in the UK or Australia. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Democracy’s intent was to govern based on the will and desires of the majority. In all current ‘democratic’ countries, we see the opposite. Laws are enacted daily for minority groups at the expense of the majority.
Why do so many on NM want to impose a failed system on Thailand (and the rest of the world?)
Thailand has, up until now managed quite well. The system may not meet your ideas of an ideal, but it does meet the needs of the majority here. And believe it or not, most people (the majority) don’t want to see major changes and upsets. They do not want demonstrations, they do not want civil war.
All they want is a fair standard of living.
You lot go on about freedom as if you really have it in the west.
Have a good think about what ‘freedoms’ you have compared to people in Thailand. For me, it’s Thailand any day.