Comments

@ John: entirely agree, and quite glad you quoted Pira Sudham. However, if you live in Bangkok, please pay a visit to a Kinokuniya store and look for Sudham’s latest book (forgot the title, sorry). If you browse through it a little, you will see that, as usual, he signed every copy and even added some printed sheets with information about the events that occurred during the last couple of years. Among this, an article written by Thanong Kanong (!!!) and other stuff heavily influenced by PAD’s “philosophy”. Apparently, after years of total silence in criticizing Thaksin, he now jumped on the anti-Thaksin bandwagon, except he did that at a morally wrong – yet very convenient – time. I also quite dislike his acting like some kind of guru who doesn’t show his face in public, doesn’t speak clearly and only presents us with some cryptic comments every 2 or 3 years. Proving that he is right when he writes “You and I have been subjected to authoritative teaching and rote learning meant to induce obedience, subservience and mindlessness.”. This brainwashing certainly worked on him too, in the long run.

Mike,

Thank you for such a thoughtful and interesting piece concerning the issue of extraterritoriality in northern Laos. One of the important contributions that you have made is to problematize the notion of extraterritoriality. In contrast to EM’s comment, I don’t find you to be arguing that there is no issue of Lao sovereignty in relation to the spread of Chinese rubber growing contracts. I think the point you are trying to make is that extraterritoriality is a complex issue and in certain circumstances, what might appear to be the Lao government’s loss of sovereignty is actually part of a strategy to secure control over particular territories by creating a permanently settled agricultural population.

What is clear from this essay is that governments attempt to use foreign capital in complex ways to achieve a variety of different goals that do not play out into simple understandings of sovereignty and extraterritoriality. However, it is important to realize that these strategies and tactics may be succeeding in some ways and failing in others. While a landscape dominated by contracted rubber farms hardly characterizes a case of neo-imperialism, when combined with the casino SEZs, the recently completed transnational highway, and the future railroad, along with a host of other Chinese investments in resources throughout the country, there is clearly reason to fear a heavy Chinese dominance in the future with a significant neo-colonial aura.

In regard to the South, I am going to have to disagree somewhat with Paul and Justin’s comments. The imposition of Vietnamese capital certainly poses a threat to Lao territoriality in the South, but it is important not to overstate their position. The ability of Vietnamese corporations to rent large tracts of land, illegally log the forests, and set up a host of other investments does not necessarily mean that southern Laos is becoming incorporated as a province of Vietnam. It is important to keep in mind the authoritarian nature of the Lao state and the degree of control which the government is able to exercise over its land. Investors can rent but not purchase land and the Lao government remains the ultimate owner of all land within the country.

In the end, perhaps our concerns should be less with the imperialistic nature of Laos’ neighbors and more with the way in which investments from those countries are structuring the social relations of land-based resource production. As Justin aptly argues, millions of dollars are flowing into country’s land, displacing peasants and turning them into semi-proletariat wage labor on the plantations as the investors are making huge profits off the land that was swept from beneath their feet. Essentially, Laos is quickly turning into a country composed of a rent-seeking governmental elite, a rural proletariat, and a foreign capital-owning class. If the vast resources of Laos are to be developed in any sort of equitable way, this is certainly not it.

Miles

Andrew Walker -13
From Beyond – 15

Political parties’ main aim is to gain power and hang on to it. I don’t blame the Dems for doing this. But attempting to dress them up as holding some “democratic legitimacy” is just complete bollocks. They took power, as a party, without having an election, relying on their people in the courts, in the PAD and in the army. It is not democracy. To call it such is a fallacy and a lie.

I know how annoying the parliamentary system can be. I’m very annoyed that we have a Conservative-Liberal coalition in the UK. I’m so annoyed that if extra-parliamentary opposition caused the downfall of that government before they completed their term I wouldn’t be that unhappy. (That of course is a very undemocratic thought;-)

That the 2006 coup was undemocratic there can be no doubt. That the Democrat’s boycott of the previous poll, or Newin’s backstabbing of the Thaksinites was also undemocratic doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Neither does Gillard’s wooing of the independents or Brown not going to the electorate after replacing Blair. The parliamentary system follows what the majority of elected MPs want. That’s it – full stop. (That shows the danger in the UK where the government wants to introduce fixed-term parliaments that will need far more than a majority of MPs to call a new election.)

Now if it can be proved that Newin and his followers were forced into parliament on the end bayonets you can scream about undemocratic practices. If you can show he was bribed then you can say it was just corruption and ask the courts to look into it. Otherwise you do harm to your own arguments by repeating this nonsense. Far from it being my job to tell you your arguing points, but the one item you could always push is that the 2006 coup was undemocratic. That is extremely difficult to argue against.

From Beyond – In the UK in the unlikely event of the Liberals leaving the coalition and together with Labour, various nationalists and the Northern Irish parties formed a new government without having another election, that might be annoying but would be OK under the rules of the system. The same would hold true if Gillard’s independents went over to the Liberals and dumped her.

Oh, and if you want argue against the military sponsored referendum on the last constitution then do so. Point out its unfairness or whatever, but it’s a bit silly disputing the courts decisions relating to laws under that constitution without first getting the constitution overturned. The rule of law can go against the elected MPs in our Western democracies too, as can be seen with both the European Court of Human Rights and the English Supreme Court ruling against government policy in the UK just over the last couple of weeks.

re John # 2

‘You and I have been subjected to authoritative teaching and rote learning meant to induce obedience, subservience and mindlessness. We are supposed to become unthinking, silent and submissive so as to be governable, exploitable and harmless.’

Hmmm. Maybe this quote does capture something of the Thai mindset. But it sounds to me awfully like the way many people consider Thai (or ‘Asian’) women to be, and hence why many Western men marry them. As anyone who has married a Thai woman will testify, this is far from the case, which makes me wonder whether or not these kinds of generalisations really do capture the Thai mindset. And who is to say that ‘critical’, analytical thinking is ‘normative’, and an uncritical mind an abberation?

For what its worth, I dont think the idea that people should be intellectually engaged in the politics of their country is somehow a natural state of being. I think this is simply an Enlightenment way of thinking – and I dont think most people in Western countries live this way anyway. What’s more, I dont think Thais are mindless or unthinking, but rather that they prefer to direct their mental energies elsewhere – to matters of money, family and status.

Les Abbey and Soonuk Dum miss huge massive glaring planet-sized factors when comparing Gordon Brown to Abhisit.

1) No party in the UK parliament was dissolved prior to Brown being made PM. The UK parliament was entirely of the electorate’s choosing.

2) The Labour Party had a fairly large majority in the UK parliament when Brown took power and had won, outright, the previous 3 elections.

3) No party leadership or executive had been banned in the UK parliament.

4) There has never been a military coup in the UK and certainly not one 2years before Brown took office.

5) The head of the British military did not meet with MPs suggesting that they vote for Brown to be PM.

6) No MP was paid to vote for Brown.

7) A violent fascistic hate mob, backed by the British elite, had not stormed and then occupied Heathrow and Gatwick airports prior to Brown getting his job.

8) In the UK the results of the 1997, 2001, and 2005 elections were not subverted, overthrown or annulled by courts.

Political parties’ main aim is to gain power and hang on to it. I don’t blame the Dems for doing this. But attempting to dress them up as holding some “democratic legitimacy” is just complete bollocks. They took power, as a party, without having an election, relying on their people in the courts, in the PAD and in the army. It is not democracy. To call it such is a fallacy and a lie.

Should also add that while one solitary Red Shirt is incarcerated for their politics the entire movement remains in a prison of the amaart’s choosing….

If the Red Shirt leadership do not utterly condemn the arrest of Surachai then they are clearly cutting adrift the more radical leftwing element in favour of aligning with the more reactionary and rightwing parts of Pheua Thai.

To remain silent might make sense to the UDD leadership as a necessary short-term tactical decision but in terms of long term strategy it is an appalling misjudgement that quite clearly plays into the hands of the amaart.

Whatever anyone makes of Surachai’s personal politics is completely irrelevant. 112 is an abomination and should be opposed at every turn.

Stuart – 6

Julia Gillard and Gordon Brown were shafted by their OWN parties, a perfectly legitimate tactic as long as its followed up quickly with a general election. Both the Australian and British Labour (or Labor, in the case of Australia) parties did so – with mixed results. All fair and square.

Stuart, always worth checking the facts before speaking. Gillard may have gone to the electorate fairly swiftly, but Brown took almost three years to do so. There is of course no constitutional reason why he should have gone faster. That’s the parliamentary system for you. (Gillard probably chose to go quicker because of the example of Brown who didn’t have much success in dragging it out.)

For a moment, Andrew, I thought you’d lost your senses. Then I read your link…