I recently finished a stint with a major NGO down there, to watch the Vietnamese logging companies roll out of the protected forests with seemingly endless convoys of “recently legal” cut timber (to be replaced by endless rubber plantations) was heartbreaking.
We were in a bit of a race to develop a planning framework to get some legal recognition for the villagers land rights before it was all snatched up, but with the government complicit in the dodgy harvest it did absolutely no good.
With all the villagers being forced off their land, their livelihoods stripped away along with their forests, and their later being given the “opportunity” to serve as cheap labour for the owners of the newly commodified land, it’s the Industrial Revolution all over again.
For every $1 an NGO throws at the Laos government to protect a forest or preserve a village, unsustainable FDI is throwing $10 at them, and the bigwigs were cashing in fast. And by fast, I mean I saw Porsche’s in one of the poorest provinces in the country.
In 2009 the Asia Foundation conducted an national survey on Constitutional Reform and Democracy in Thailand. It looked specifically at vote-buying behavior and found that while 58% thought other people might be influenced by money or gifts; just 7% felt they personally were under any moral obligation to vote for a candidate or party that provided money or gifts.
The survey is available in English and Thai on the TAF website, and a follow-up survey that includes a profile of red and yellow movement supporters should be available later this spring.
#4 “Here in Thailand, and on New Mandala, we have people who want the last constitution scrapped because it was far too hard on corrupt politicians and vote buying.
#7 “Where else in the world is a pro-democracy movement fighting to get a constitution changed because it’s too hard on political corruption?”
Leaving aside the first three words (after all, Thailand’s a big place and I imagine someone somewhere in it fits the bill), is there any chance of being shown even the slightest bit of substantiation for what are otherwise just dogmatic statements?
Dictionary.com defines ‘extremist’ as “a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical.” [by fanatical methods meaning violent methods]
I am of the opinion, from my reading the many posters from Les Abbey at New Mandala forum, that his well-articulated views are non-radical and non-extremist at all. I could safely therefore aver to anyone that Les Abbey won’t be totting or firing an M79 grenade launcher, or a a high-assault rifle, or carry out an arson burning-spree to make his point or out of spite.
I could not course say the same thing for myself. Hey . . . there could be moments that I could be tempted to resort to radical really extreme tactics . . . but those moments have yet to reveal themselves to me.
Thaksin had been judged, and had been judged harshly, by his peers, by Thai judges (‘guilty as charged’), by the people of Thailand (‘dangerous and vindictive’) and their judgement had been loudly declared to the world. Why else do you think Thaksin ran to save his hide at Montenegro?
Should I ‘Take U for a Fool’? Well you said so yourself, didn’t you?
Jon Russel: “Agree with thanr. I think, like many politicians, Thaksin’s initial adoption and one time high usage of Twitter came primarily from his team of advisers. His infrequent binges suggest that he is anything but a Twitter addict.” That’s why I think it is more likely Thaksin himself tweeting and not one of his team. Doesn’t seem like polished PR stuff, seems like exactly the sort of stuff Thaksin would say if he did tweet. So if it isn’t him, whoever it is did a good job of imitating what I think he’d write if it was.
Well Tarrin, it’s that little question I always ask. Where else in the world is a pro-democracy movement fighting to get a constitution changed because it’s too hard on political corruption? While I’m asking questions, where else in the world do we say that vote-buying is a good thing and let’s not worry about it, it’s just the national or regional culture?
I find it rather disparaging to the northeast when well-to-do middle-class Thais and farangs say “It’s OK for those Isaan people to take the politicians money. Isn’t it fun to watch them cheat the politicians? We wouldn’t do it ourselves, mind you, because we are well educated and for us it would be demeaning.”
To take the politician’s money is demeaning in the same way as a girl having to prostitute herself. To encourage the act is the same as pimping. To say that it is anything other than wrong is just showing how superior those who are encouraging it feel towards the peasants. Anything that attacks a man’s self-pride is bad and should only be done in the most dire circumstances.
Agree with thanr. I think, like many politicians, Thaksin’s initial adoption and one time high usage of Twitter came primarily from his team of advisers. His infrequent binges suggest that he is anything but a Twitter addict.
It is also strange to see him talking directly to his kids on Twitter when he regularly speaks of trying to shield his family from the issues and spotlight associated with him.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Killer, New Mandala. New Mandala said: A question for Thaksin about Twitter: I confess that I only pay sporadic attention to Twitter. I expect this is … http://bit.ly/gdj1Co […]
Vichai N and Les Abbey are so completely disingenuous it would be cause for side-splitting satire in most sentient parts of the worlds.
Why did the Reds “fail”?
Oh, the 80+ dead, 2000+ wounded might have a little something to do with it.
The crackdown on them was as brutal as any state on earth has exerted on its civilians in recent history.
The Thai Army used SNIPERS…. let me repeat that SNIPERS… to execute unarmed civilians on the streets of Bangkok.
Now Vichai N and Les Abbey can cook up any mish-mash of tawdry, ill-fitting and frankly oddball political theories they want as to the reasons why the Red Shirts “failed” (aren’t the Red Shirts still around as a significant political movement?) but the reason why the April/May protests didn’t successfully remove Abhisit from power was because the Thai military murdered them. In their dozens. Shot them down like vermin (I am sure Vicha and Les were cheering as each bullet split open the skull of every Red Shirt, journalist and ambulance driver).
As for Vichai N’s pronouncements on Thaksin’s departure and the quiet on BKK streets. Well, he might not have yet noticed but BKK is only one small part of Thailand. I was in Bangkok at the time and also didn’t see one single flower given to one single soldier though I am sure the PAD staged a few photo ops.
And finally, what did Thaksin do when confronted with mass protests in 2006? He called an election which the Democrats, absolving themselves completely of any belief in democracy, knowing that they’d lose, boycotted. Pathetic.
The judgement on Thaksin came from the entire Thai electorate. He won. Repeatedly. The only failure here is Vichai N’s and Les Abbey’s rationale and their fervent belief in extremism and military rule.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kris, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Volunteering to protect Thailand’s “institution”: Thailand’s long list of security organisations just got longer… http://bit.ly/fEASEJ […]
“In the early history of Thai vote-buying, candidates thrust red notes into voters’ hands in order to create an obligation. Once a voter had accepted the candidate’s generosity, it would be bad manners not to repay that generosity when casting the vote. But this kind of naive transaction did not last long. By the mid-1990s, some voters would take money from every candidate, and then vote how they pleased. Others would only take from a candidate they had already decided to vote for, in order not to create an obligation.
Candidates still had to offer money. Not doing so would risk being branded as ‘ungenerous’ and thus not worth electing. This was particularly true of candidates known to be rich. Vote-buying has thus become a bit like a candidate’s deposit, distributed among the voters rather than paid to the authorities.”
Given that all parties hand out cash to voters and many voters take cash from more than one party, a basic question arises. Just how does a voter “sell” one vote to more than one party? The simplistic notion presented is that in return for a few hundred baht pressed into a voter’s hand, a candidate creates legions of voting robots who will dutifully turn up and vote for him/her. That canvassers for other candidates have handed over matching sums of money to the same voter doesn’t seem to count. I said simplistic, but it’s more accurate to say illogical – just as it’s more accurate to say “vote soliciting” rather than “vote buying”….. but, of course, it’s just not as catchy is it?
Chang Noi’s closing paragraphs echo the thoughts raised by Andrew…..
“So why the current panic about vote-buying? The upcountry electorate is richer, better educated, and more experienced at elections than ever before. In truth, the problem is not that upcountry voters don’t know how to use their vote, and that the result is distorted by patronage and vote-buying. The problem is that they have learnt to use the vote only too well. Over four national polls, they have chosen very consistently and very rationally.
And, of course, that may be the real problem. Back when many upcountry electors sold their votes, and as a result their weight in national politics was zero, nobody cared so much about vote-buying. But now the electors have got smart, they have to be stopped. The bleating about vote-buying and patronage politics is simply an attempt to undermine electoral democracy because it seems to be working.”
As the Lese Majeste debate/debacle continues onward, upward and expands into the entire range and scope of all present-day discourse on the Thailand situation, it has become more and more apparent that it is really a discussion/debate about one of the world’s most ubiquitous and successful Cults of Personality, which has been used to brainwash, dominate and keep down an ever more restive and globalized population.
North Korea, Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Turkmenistan, Egypt, Libya, many repressive regimes have made use of the Cult of Personality technique with endless photos, paintings, reverence ceremonies of various kinds, etc., but in no country has it been used so successfully and thoroughly as in Thailand.
However, there is always an endgame problem with Cults of Personality, no matter how successfully implemented, and that is what happens when the person whom the Cult of personality is based, becomes deceased and is no longer there?
I could appreciate that ‘superanonymous’ was being literally accurate when he said ‘that streets of Bangkok were more or less devoid of protesters that day’ Thaksin flew to NY. Literally accurate, that is.
Of course the ‘street protests’ that went on several months previous, the coup rumors fogging Bangkok’s air just days or weeks before Thaksin’s flight, (to cite a few tense issues in Y2006) were hardly ‘boiling’ and of no particular concern the day Thaksin bolted for safety at NY.
I think you missed the point of the Egypt revolution, they didn’t get rid of “corrupted” leader per se, they were getting rid of “dictatorship” system.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Rocking and rapping the Karen diaspora
Interesting. Been talking about Burmese Hip Hop for a while now. http://bit.ly/bVSsFF
The internal frontier: Chinese extraterritoriality in northern Laos?
I’d like to back Paul up re: southern Laos.
I recently finished a stint with a major NGO down there, to watch the Vietnamese logging companies roll out of the protected forests with seemingly endless convoys of “recently legal” cut timber (to be replaced by endless rubber plantations) was heartbreaking.
We were in a bit of a race to develop a planning framework to get some legal recognition for the villagers land rights before it was all snatched up, but with the government complicit in the dodgy harvest it did absolutely no good.
With all the villagers being forced off their land, their livelihoods stripped away along with their forests, and their later being given the “opportunity” to serve as cheap labour for the owners of the newly commodified land, it’s the Industrial Revolution all over again.
For every $1 an NGO throws at the Laos government to protect a forest or preserve a village, unsustainable FDI is throwing $10 at them, and the bigwigs were cashing in fast. And by fast, I mean I saw Porsche’s in one of the poorest provinces in the country.
Surely there has to be a better way.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
In 2009 the Asia Foundation conducted an national survey on Constitutional Reform and Democracy in Thailand. It looked specifically at vote-buying behavior and found that while 58% thought other people might be influenced by money or gifts; just 7% felt they personally were under any moral obligation to vote for a candidate or party that provided money or gifts.
The survey is available in English and Thai on the TAF website, and a follow-up survey that includes a profile of red and yellow movement supporters should be available later this spring.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
#4 “Here in Thailand, and on New Mandala, we have people who want the last constitution scrapped because it was far too hard on corrupt politicians and vote buying.
#7 “Where else in the world is a pro-democracy movement fighting to get a constitution changed because it’s too hard on political corruption?”
Leaving aside the first three words (after all, Thailand’s a big place and I imagine someone somewhere in it fits the bill), is there any chance of being shown even the slightest bit of substantiation for what are otherwise just dogmatic statements?
Coup talk in Thailand
Dictionary.com defines ‘extremist’ as “a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical.” [by fanatical methods meaning violent methods]
I am of the opinion, from my reading the many posters from Les Abbey at New Mandala forum, that his well-articulated views are non-radical and non-extremist at all. I could safely therefore aver to anyone that Les Abbey won’t be totting or firing an M79 grenade launcher, or a a high-assault rifle, or carry out an arson burning-spree to make his point or out of spite.
I could not course say the same thing for myself. Hey . . . there could be moments that I could be tempted to resort to radical really extreme tactics . . . but those moments have yet to reveal themselves to me.
Thaksin had been judged, and had been judged harshly, by his peers, by Thai judges (‘guilty as charged’), by the people of Thailand (‘dangerous and vindictive’) and their judgement had been loudly declared to the world. Why else do you think Thaksin ran to save his hide at Montenegro?
Should I ‘Take U for a Fool’? Well you said so yourself, didn’t you?
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
Forgot: the PAD’s original intent on objection to the constitutional redraft was, I thought, hardly to do with stopping anti-corruption measures.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
Demeaning to you…not to the people selling or buying votes. They could not care less.
Pride is, as well, vanity.
A question for Thaksin about Twitter
Jon Russel: “Agree with thanr. I think, like many politicians, Thaksin’s initial adoption and one time high usage of Twitter came primarily from his team of advisers. His infrequent binges suggest that he is anything but a Twitter addict.” That’s why I think it is more likely Thaksin himself tweeting and not one of his team. Doesn’t seem like polished PR stuff, seems like exactly the sort of stuff Thaksin would say if he did tweet. So if it isn’t him, whoever it is did a good job of imitating what I think he’d write if it was.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
Tarrin – 5
Well Tarrin, it’s that little question I always ask. Where else in the world is a pro-democracy movement fighting to get a constitution changed because it’s too hard on political corruption? While I’m asking questions, where else in the world do we say that vote-buying is a good thing and let’s not worry about it, it’s just the national or regional culture?
I find it rather disparaging to the northeast when well-to-do middle-class Thais and farangs say “It’s OK for those Isaan people to take the politicians money. Isn’t it fun to watch them cheat the politicians? We wouldn’t do it ourselves, mind you, because we are well educated and for us it would be demeaning.”
To take the politician’s money is demeaning in the same way as a girl having to prostitute herself. To encourage the act is the same as pimping. To say that it is anything other than wrong is just showing how superior those who are encouraging it feel towards the peasants. Anything that attacks a man’s self-pride is bad and should only be done in the most dire circumstances.
A question for Thaksin about Twitter
Agree with thanr. I think, like many politicians, Thaksin’s initial adoption and one time high usage of Twitter came primarily from his team of advisers. His infrequent binges suggest that he is anything but a Twitter addict.
It is also strange to see him talking directly to his kids on Twitter when he regularly speaks of trying to shield his family from the issues and spotlight associated with him.
A question for Thaksin about Twitter
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Killer, New Mandala. New Mandala said: A question for Thaksin about Twitter: I confess that I only pay sporadic attention to Twitter. I expect this is … http://bit.ly/gdj1Co […]
A question for Thaksin about Twitter
Probably someone else tweeting.
Coup talk in Thailand
Vichai N and Les Abbey are so completely disingenuous it would be cause for side-splitting satire in most sentient parts of the worlds.
Why did the Reds “fail”?
Oh, the 80+ dead, 2000+ wounded might have a little something to do with it.
The crackdown on them was as brutal as any state on earth has exerted on its civilians in recent history.
The Thai Army used SNIPERS…. let me repeat that SNIPERS… to execute unarmed civilians on the streets of Bangkok.
Now Vichai N and Les Abbey can cook up any mish-mash of tawdry, ill-fitting and frankly oddball political theories they want as to the reasons why the Red Shirts “failed” (aren’t the Red Shirts still around as a significant political movement?) but the reason why the April/May protests didn’t successfully remove Abhisit from power was because the Thai military murdered them. In their dozens. Shot them down like vermin (I am sure Vicha and Les were cheering as each bullet split open the skull of every Red Shirt, journalist and ambulance driver).
As for Vichai N’s pronouncements on Thaksin’s departure and the quiet on BKK streets. Well, he might not have yet noticed but BKK is only one small part of Thailand. I was in Bangkok at the time and also didn’t see one single flower given to one single soldier though I am sure the PAD staged a few photo ops.
And finally, what did Thaksin do when confronted with mass protests in 2006? He called an election which the Democrats, absolving themselves completely of any belief in democracy, knowing that they’d lose, boycotted. Pathetic.
The judgement on Thaksin came from the entire Thai electorate. He won. Repeatedly. The only failure here is Vichai N’s and Les Abbey’s rationale and their fervent belief in extremism and military rule.
From Village Scouts to Cyber Scouts
How long before they start looking like the Mutaween (Saudi religious police)?
They’ll be above and separate from the law. A magnet for hypocrticial, i-love-the-king-more-than-thou, meddlers.
Volunteering to protect Thailand’s “institution”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kris, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Volunteering to protect Thailand’s “institution”: Thailand’s long list of security organisations just got longer… http://bit.ly/fEASEJ […]
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
For a useful perspective, I recommend a 2008 Chang Noi article [ http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/01/opinion/opinion_30082102.php ] – worth reading in full but, to give a flavour, I’ll quote this section:
“In the early history of Thai vote-buying, candidates thrust red notes into voters’ hands in order to create an obligation. Once a voter had accepted the candidate’s generosity, it would be bad manners not to repay that generosity when casting the vote. But this kind of naive transaction did not last long. By the mid-1990s, some voters would take money from every candidate, and then vote how they pleased. Others would only take from a candidate they had already decided to vote for, in order not to create an obligation.
Candidates still had to offer money. Not doing so would risk being branded as ‘ungenerous’ and thus not worth electing. This was particularly true of candidates known to be rich. Vote-buying has thus become a bit like a candidate’s deposit, distributed among the voters rather than paid to the authorities.”
Given that all parties hand out cash to voters and many voters take cash from more than one party, a basic question arises. Just how does a voter “sell” one vote to more than one party? The simplistic notion presented is that in return for a few hundred baht pressed into a voter’s hand, a candidate creates legions of voting robots who will dutifully turn up and vote for him/her. That canvassers for other candidates have handed over matching sums of money to the same voter doesn’t seem to count. I said simplistic, but it’s more accurate to say illogical – just as it’s more accurate to say “vote soliciting” rather than “vote buying”….. but, of course, it’s just not as catchy is it?
Chang Noi’s closing paragraphs echo the thoughts raised by Andrew…..
“So why the current panic about vote-buying? The upcountry electorate is richer, better educated, and more experienced at elections than ever before. In truth, the problem is not that upcountry voters don’t know how to use their vote, and that the result is distorted by patronage and vote-buying. The problem is that they have learnt to use the vote only too well. Over four national polls, they have chosen very consistently and very rationally.
And, of course, that may be the real problem. Back when many upcountry electors sold their votes, and as a result their weight in national politics was zero, nobody cared so much about vote-buying. But now the electors have got smart, they have to be stopped. The bleating about vote-buying and patronage politics is simply an attempt to undermine electoral democracy because it seems to be working.”
Volunteering to protect Thailand’s “institution”
As the Lese Majeste debate/debacle continues onward, upward and expands into the entire range and scope of all present-day discourse on the Thailand situation, it has become more and more apparent that it is really a discussion/debate about one of the world’s most ubiquitous and successful Cults of Personality, which has been used to brainwash, dominate and keep down an ever more restive and globalized population.
North Korea, Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Turkmenistan, Egypt, Libya, many repressive regimes have made use of the Cult of Personality technique with endless photos, paintings, reverence ceremonies of various kinds, etc., but in no country has it been used so successfully and thoroughly as in Thailand.
However, there is always an endgame problem with Cults of Personality, no matter how successfully implemented, and that is what happens when the person whom the Cult of personality is based, becomes deceased and is no longer there?
Coup talk in Thailand
I could appreciate that ‘superanonymous’ was being literally accurate when he said ‘that streets of Bangkok were more or less devoid of protesters that day’ Thaksin flew to NY. Literally accurate, that is.
Of course the ‘street protests’ that went on several months previous, the coup rumors fogging Bangkok’s air just days or weeks before Thaksin’s flight, (to cite a few tense issues in Y2006) were hardly ‘boiling’ and of no particular concern the day Thaksin bolted for safety at NY.
Preparing the vote-buying bogeyman
LesAbbey – 4
I think you missed the point of the Egypt revolution, they didn’t get rid of “corrupted” leader per se, they were getting rid of “dictatorship” system.
Volunteering to protect Thailand’s “institution”
Isn’t this sound like the Hitler Youth in some sense??