The king strikes me as a kind and reasonably intelligent man who probably tried to do his best, but like most well-meaning foreigners (which he practically was back then) he became overwhelmed over time by the sheer inanity of Thailand.
My guess is he got worn down by the greed, selfishness and bloody-mindedness of it all – to the point where he simply doesn’t smile or say much anymore. There would be no point. I know of other long-term expats who are the same.
I suppose it might be worth hanging on for a bit, or slipping the nation the odd wink and a smile, if he had an enterprising young family to further the cause – but they’ve “gone local” as well.
He most likely spends his days staring out the window, remembering the good old days back home in Boston and Lausanne with his trumpet. His problem – like some of us – was that he stayed there too long.
Not the worst overview of the April/May 2010 events by a long way. The link in the article to Marshall’s blog is well worth following. I would disagree with him mainly on two points.
First the reaction by some to international reporting during the 2010 red shirt protest. I’m sure I was not alone in feeling that for many of the reporters the history of Thailand started in 2006 with anything else needed cut & pasted, (figuratively), out of Hanley’s book. (Not that the book isn’t a useful reference, just that reporters should use more than one source to stop getting a possible one-eyed view.) I think that was what upset many about Jonathan Head’s BBC reporting. There was a feeling that there had been an influx of ‘carpet baggers’, with no Graham Greenes or John Le Carres.
The above criticism can’t be pinned on Marshall himself. In fact it’s interesting in his blog that he picked up on what many were feeling in the early days of the Thaksin government, that Thaksin wasn’t that intelligent after all. (In a way we saw it during his days in the Phalang Dharma membership of the Chuan coalition.) The instant reaction from Thaksin’s government was to play the nationalist card whenever any foreigner did criticize him. (See, Sondhi got good training from his ex-friend;-)
Second is that Marshall’s five points are more to do with the symptoms, rather than the causes. I could almost accept his point 2;
2. DID THE MILITARY COVER UP THE KILLING OF RED SHIRT PROTESTERS IN BANGKOK IN APRIL 2009?
because it was the argument being made by the UDD leadership prior to the April/May events.
Let me throw in my five points in no particular order.
1. Who started the killing on the 10th. April 2010? Was it, as is now being claimed, disaffected military elements? Was it in Thaksin’s, and the UDD’s, interest that there should be violence at this time. If it was certain military elements, were they influenced or financed by Thaksin?
2. Prior to the 12th. May 2010, when Veera walked out of the protest site, what advice or orders did Thaksin give by telephone to cause the rejection of Abhisit’s November election offer? Why did Veera think this was wrong?
3. At what point did Anapong lose the command of the Thai army’s reaction to the protest? Was he in contact with both sides, Thaksin and Abhisit, before that?
4. How much finance from Thaksin was sloshing around in early 2010? Was there the talked about slush fund for the police? Were protesters being paid to be at the protest? Were boys from the Klong Toey slums really on the wages that the Catholic priest reported?
5. Did elements of the Thahan Phran join with the red shirt April/May 2010 protest, and if so when did they join and what weapons did they bring with them? Also if they did join were they being paid?
Of course none of the above stops the government and army giving an honest appraisal of there pretty awful crowd control tactics. That the army at times was poorly led and controlled can’t really be argued against.
#31
QUOTE c30 – are there really people who seriously maintain that Thaksin would have gone to New York if he was remotely concerned about the PAD protests unseating him? They didn’t – a military coup did. UNQUOTE
I really couldn’t care a toss whether one uniformed tyrrant showed bad judgement in his dealings with another set of uniformed tyrrants. In any case, it was a forgone conclusion that the military would have to do (the weak) PAD’s dirty work. The RTA could just as easily have swung behind General Chaiyasit Shinawatra, at that time. Indeed, it STILL could. Precisely where is the democracy in either side? Neither set of color-coded weasels is engaged in this power struggle for the greater good. It’s all about what faction gets to dip its fingers into the exchequer what when the (weak) succession occurs.
It must be the Khmer voodoo that NM discussed only a few days ago. The RTAF chief should have given talismans to his pilots in the same manner as the 2nd Army commander did.
SteveCM (#31) believes that Thaksin was NOT seriously concerned that the months long street protests of Y2006 would not unseat him. Tut tut . . . overconfidence and overreaching . . . that indeed was the Thaksin trait that was his undoing.
Why did Thaksin fly to New York while the streets of Bangkok was boiling with angry protesters who were unrelenting, unbowed and certainly very very determined? Perhaps Thaksin was very very scared?
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nut Prachapiwat, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Understanding Bangkok’s bloody April-May 2010: Andrew Marshall (the veteran Reuters correspondent) has written a… http://bit.ly/gjXQwG […]
The Thai legal system is an absolute disgrace. Trial lawyers on both sides know how long a trial should take and how long they need to prepare for trial. Having heard both sides the court ought to set aside a block of consecutive days – weekends and public holidays excepted. It should not nominate a day here and a day there, Witnesses should be at the court’s beck and call, not their own. Anyone who doesn’t turn up as a witness is either excluded or held in contempt of court.
Maybe the RTAF made a big mistake a few days ago to send a bunch of their F 16 fighter jets on a thunderous “Show of force” too close to the Cambodian border.
The old fearsome Khmer “bird curse” seems to work even in modern times and has taken its toll today… twice.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by nwasin, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Foo Foo and the international press: Thailand’s most famous poodle has featured prominently the Sydney Morning H… http://bit.ly/fTNvUN […]
Further to my earlier post, are there really people who seriously maintain that Thaksin would have gone to New York if he was remotely concerned about the PAD protests unseating him? They didn’t – a military coup did.
M.D.,
I would just point out that the article opens by asking the question, "Is northern Laos turning into Chinese territory?" –and while your conclusion does not refer back to it, your answer is, in effect, a resounding "No".
I agree with you, and I find that most English-language writing on the subject is predicated upon a none-too-subtle Sino-phobia.
For anyone sincerely concerned with the dysphoria of development projects in Northern Laos, the Chinese should not be compared to an ideal, but instead should be contrasted to the grim reality of (e.g.) French and German development agencies –and, moreover, the Chinese should be contrasted to purely for-profit undertakings from other quarters (e.g., the South Koreans planting eucalyptus in Laos have no pretense of being a humanitarian charity!)
I have spoken directly to the Germans (DED/GTZ) promoting rubber plantations in Northern Laos, and I assume that the proceedings of the international conference they held to promote this industry in Vientiane (i.e., inviting speakers from Malaysia and other developed rubber economies) are available on paper somewhere; it is astounding to me that the industrialization of the landscape, and hastening of Lao deforestation, is a cause that the German taxpayer supports, but this seems to be the case. A spectacular failure of French “agricultural intervention” in Northern Laos is documented in a chapter of Bourdier’s book, finally in print, Development and Dominion, and is instructive as to the broader attitudes of AFD, etc., toward everything from road-building to rubber-planting.
E.M.
#26 I guess you are referring to the fact that Mubarak took 18 days to step down so he could consolidate his ill-gotten gains. Yes, that does sound remarkably like Thaksin. If this current shower of a government seems intent on emulating Thaksin’s arrogance and greed, it should really be no surprise. This is how the local political game has panned out for decades. Thaksin came up (uncomplainingly) through a lousy system, heavily exploited that lousy system and is now miffed because the lousy system has kicked him out. That is ALL that traditional Thai political parties and their color-coded goon squads are capable of doing for this country.
We really don’t need the neo-con likes of Ross to dictate to us how to subsist. I already subsist quite adequately. Ross and his apologists just play at it in the spare time they have from whooping it up at our expense.
she must be more appealing to the unaligned (which the red shirts need to win over) than Jatuporn and Thaksin, right… or is that a false assumption?
If she is just there to win the “unaligned” then she better not be there at all, what’s the point of being leader if she can’t even stick to the principle that the people (that she claim the be leading) really stand for?? we are not in a popular contest here.
the best red leaders are the ones on the margins like Sombat and Somyot, but I can’t see them commanding large crowds of people. But then do they really have to do that?
Sombat was one of Thida’s close circle, I’m not sure what his intention really is. I actually have more fate with people like Somyot and Sunai. Furthermore, you don’t need people to be able to command the mass, you need people who can translate the principle and ideology to the mass. Sadly I dont think Thida or Jatuporn got any of that.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Foo Foo and the international press
The king strikes me as a kind and reasonably intelligent man who probably tried to do his best, but like most well-meaning foreigners (which he practically was back then) he became overwhelmed over time by the sheer inanity of Thailand.
My guess is he got worn down by the greed, selfishness and bloody-mindedness of it all – to the point where he simply doesn’t smile or say much anymore. There would be no point. I know of other long-term expats who are the same.
I suppose it might be worth hanging on for a bit, or slipping the nation the odd wink and a smile, if he had an enterprising young family to further the cause – but they’ve “gone local” as well.
He most likely spends his days staring out the window, remembering the good old days back home in Boston and Lausanne with his trumpet. His problem – like some of us – was that he stayed there too long.
Khmer voodoo at the frontlines
A good way to get rid of outmoded planes.
Foo Foo and the international press
Foo Foo is a proof that Thai royalty is far from being divine, no matter how much some people try to maker it be.
Understanding Bangkok’s bloody April-May 2010
Not the worst overview of the April/May 2010 events by a long way. The link in the article to Marshall’s blog is well worth following. I would disagree with him mainly on two points.
First the reaction by some to international reporting during the 2010 red shirt protest. I’m sure I was not alone in feeling that for many of the reporters the history of Thailand started in 2006 with anything else needed cut & pasted, (figuratively), out of Hanley’s book. (Not that the book isn’t a useful reference, just that reporters should use more than one source to stop getting a possible one-eyed view.) I think that was what upset many about Jonathan Head’s BBC reporting. There was a feeling that there had been an influx of ‘carpet baggers’, with no Graham Greenes or John Le Carres.
The above criticism can’t be pinned on Marshall himself. In fact it’s interesting in his blog that he picked up on what many were feeling in the early days of the Thaksin government, that Thaksin wasn’t that intelligent after all. (In a way we saw it during his days in the Phalang Dharma membership of the Chuan coalition.) The instant reaction from Thaksin’s government was to play the nationalist card whenever any foreigner did criticize him. (See, Sondhi got good training from his ex-friend;-)
Second is that Marshall’s five points are more to do with the symptoms, rather than the causes. I could almost accept his point 2;
2. DID THE MILITARY COVER UP THE KILLING OF RED SHIRT PROTESTERS IN BANGKOK IN APRIL 2009?
because it was the argument being made by the UDD leadership prior to the April/May events.
Let me throw in my five points in no particular order.
1. Who started the killing on the 10th. April 2010? Was it, as is now being claimed, disaffected military elements? Was it in Thaksin’s, and the UDD’s, interest that there should be violence at this time. If it was certain military elements, were they influenced or financed by Thaksin?
2. Prior to the 12th. May 2010, when Veera walked out of the protest site, what advice or orders did Thaksin give by telephone to cause the rejection of Abhisit’s November election offer? Why did Veera think this was wrong?
3. At what point did Anapong lose the command of the Thai army’s reaction to the protest? Was he in contact with both sides, Thaksin and Abhisit, before that?
4. How much finance from Thaksin was sloshing around in early 2010? Was there the talked about slush fund for the police? Were protesters being paid to be at the protest? Were boys from the Klong Toey slums really on the wages that the Catholic priest reported?
5. Did elements of the Thahan Phran join with the red shirt April/May 2010 protest, and if so when did they join and what weapons did they bring with them? Also if they did join were they being paid?
Of course none of the above stops the government and army giving an honest appraisal of there pretty awful crowd control tactics. That the army at times was poorly led and controlled can’t really be argued against.
Coup talk in Thailand
#31
QUOTE c30 – are there really people who seriously maintain that Thaksin would have gone to New York if he was remotely concerned about the PAD protests unseating him? They didn’t – a military coup did. UNQUOTE
I really couldn’t care a toss whether one uniformed tyrrant showed bad judgement in his dealings with another set of uniformed tyrrants. In any case, it was a forgone conclusion that the military would have to do (the weak) PAD’s dirty work. The RTA could just as easily have swung behind General Chaiyasit Shinawatra, at that time. Indeed, it STILL could. Precisely where is the democracy in either side? Neither set of color-coded weasels is engaged in this power struggle for the greater good. It’s all about what faction gets to dip its fingers into the exchequer what when the (weak) succession occurs.
Khmer voodoo at the frontlines
It must be the Khmer voodoo that NM discussed only a few days ago. The RTAF chief should have given talismans to his pilots in the same manner as the 2nd Army commander did.
Coup talk in Thailand
SteveCM (#31) believes that Thaksin was NOT seriously concerned that the months long street protests of Y2006 would not unseat him. Tut tut . . . overconfidence and overreaching . . . that indeed was the Thaksin trait that was his undoing.
Why did Thaksin fly to New York while the streets of Bangkok was boiling with angry protesters who were unrelenting, unbowed and certainly very very determined? Perhaps Thaksin was very very scared?
Understanding Bangkok’s bloody April-May 2010
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nut Prachapiwat, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Understanding Bangkok’s bloody April-May 2010: Andrew Marshall (the veteran Reuters correspondent) has written a… http://bit.ly/gjXQwG […]
Chiranuch trial delay
The Thai legal system is an absolute disgrace. Trial lawyers on both sides know how long a trial should take and how long they need to prepare for trial. Having heard both sides the court ought to set aside a block of consecutive days – weekends and public holidays excepted. It should not nominate a day here and a day there, Witnesses should be at the court’s beck and call, not their own. Anyone who doesn’t turn up as a witness is either excluded or held in contempt of court.
Khmer voodoo at the frontlines
It was the Cambodian Air Force….
http://goo.gl/oiCVk
Khmer voodoo at the frontlines
Maybe the RTAF made a big mistake a few days ago to send a bunch of their F 16 fighter jets on a thunderous “Show of force” too close to the Cambodian border.
The old fearsome Khmer “bird curse” seems to work even in modern times and has taken its toll today… twice.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/221523/air-force-probes-f16s-crash
Foo Foo and the international press
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by nwasin, New Mandala. New Mandala said: Foo Foo and the international press: Thailand’s most famous poodle has featured prominently the Sydney Morning H… http://bit.ly/fTNvUN […]
On messages to Senior General Than Shwe
Some tea shop of sulay don’t accept 500 note of recently Myanmar currency today.Are Myanmar unbelievable now?
Coup talk in Thailand
c30 – You guess wrong.
Further to my earlier post, are there really people who seriously maintain that Thaksin would have gone to New York if he was remotely concerned about the PAD protests unseating him? They didn’t – a military coup did.
Khmer voodoo at the frontlines
Forget amulets, they need to get some of the surplus GT 2000 devices up there pronto and install the cards that detect Cambodia spies……..
Land reform proposal a blast from the past
Luecha Na Malai – 14
Two rai per family would be more reasonable, considering the needs of an average Thai family.
I take it you would be prepared to give us a demonstration. Did you have an idea of the family size living of this 3,200 square metres?
The internal frontier: Chinese extraterritoriality in northern Laos?
M.D.,
I would just point out that the article opens by asking the question,
"Is northern Laos turning into Chinese territory?"–and while your conclusion does not refer back to it, your answer is, in effect, a resounding"No".I agree with you, and I find that most English-language writing on the subject is predicated upon a none-too-subtle Sino-phobia.
For anyone sincerely concerned with the dysphoria of development projects in Northern Laos, the Chinese should not be compared to an ideal, but instead should be contrasted to the grim reality of (e.g.) French and German development agencies –and, moreover, the Chinese should be contrasted to purely for-profit undertakings from other quarters (e.g., the South Koreans planting eucalyptus in Laos have no pretense of being a humanitarian charity!)
I have spoken directly to the Germans (DED/GTZ) promoting rubber plantations in Northern Laos, and I assume that the proceedings of the international conference they held to promote this industry in Vientiane (i.e., inviting speakers from Malaysia and other developed rubber economies) are available on paper somewhere; it is astounding to me that the industrialization of the landscape, and hastening of Lao deforestation, is a cause that the German taxpayer supports, but this seems to be the case. A spectacular failure of French “agricultural intervention” in Northern Laos is documented in a chapter of Bourdier’s book, finally in print, Development and Dominion, and is instructive as to the broader attitudes of AFD, etc., toward everything from road-building to rubber-planting.
E.M.
Coup talk in Thailand
#26 I guess you are referring to the fact that Mubarak took 18 days to step down so he could consolidate his ill-gotten gains. Yes, that does sound remarkably like Thaksin. If this current shower of a government seems intent on emulating Thaksin’s arrogance and greed, it should really be no surprise. This is how the local political game has panned out for decades. Thaksin came up (uncomplainingly) through a lousy system, heavily exploited that lousy system and is now miffed because the lousy system has kicked him out. That is ALL that traditional Thai political parties and their color-coded goon squads are capable of doing for this country.
Job at The Myanmar Times
We really don’t need the neo-con likes of Ross to dictate to us how to subsist. I already subsist quite adequately. Ross and his apologists just play at it in the spare time they have from whooping it up at our expense.
Coup talk in Thailand
James Alex – 28
she must be more appealing to the unaligned (which the red shirts need to win over) than Jatuporn and Thaksin, right… or is that a false assumption?
If she is just there to win the “unaligned” then she better not be there at all, what’s the point of being leader if she can’t even stick to the principle that the people (that she claim the be leading) really stand for?? we are not in a popular contest here.
the best red leaders are the ones on the margins like Sombat and Somyot, but I can’t see them commanding large crowds of people. But then do they really have to do that?
Sombat was one of Thida’s close circle, I’m not sure what his intention really is. I actually have more fate with people like Somyot and Sunai. Furthermore, you don’t need people to be able to command the mass, you need people who can translate the principle and ideology to the mass. Sadly I dont think Thida or Jatuporn got any of that.