[…] for any election. At the same time, there is growing indication that the administration is itself engaged in a campaign of terror designed to justify the continued recourse to emergency powers through a string of mysterious, […]
Thaksin had a debatable amount, and at one time was listed as the 14th richest man in the world. How much he had when he came to power was also alleged to have multiplied by two or three times during his premiership, depending on what you cite as a source. Sadly we are not privy to similar enriching experiences by the rest of the legion of corrupt who run the place. The only guys who know when and where who was paid what are either dead or badly misinformed – or paid off.
The Burma longevity is not merely from isolation. There have been many kingdoms in the past that were isolated but changed overnight. Burma’s situation is also because of not isolation but cooperation from greedy folks nearby and afar.
“What I want to know is how much money did he have when he came to power?”
When Thaksin took the office he was technically own close to none because he has transferred his asset to his children, maids, driver, and securities guard, so on paper Thaksin own nothing when he took office that is why he got charge for asset concealment but the court found him not guilty later on. Based on that legal process, Thaksin didn’t actually sale AIS, it was his children who sold the shares but the court later found that it is an act of nomination (which I almost sure that 50% of the major shareholders in SET are nominees). That is why I’m so disgusted with Thailand’s jurisdiction and justice system.
Thanks to Alan and Robert for the interesting comments on Thai tourism in Laos. There is a recent article by Olivier Evrard & Prasit Leepreecha on (domestic) tourism in Northern Thailand (in Critique of Anthropology 29/3, 2009), might be useful for comparison.
Roy’s observations call for more research on the perceptions of the present nation-building activities among both urban and rural people. Let’s see which ideas about Lao national identity the 450-year celebrations will disseminate and how they will be discussed (or not).
Thaksin had definitely more assets before his premiership than now after being stripped off most of his wealth.
He was already well know as a telecom billionaire. Most of his fortune then was stuffed in shares of SHIN and affilliate companies.
[…] The Thai government will have no trouble buying the military equipment it wants. The Royal Thai Army, after all, was just rewarded for the zeal with which it shielded the Abhisit administration from the terrifying prospect of an election with a vastly increased military budget – when measured as a percentage of GDP, now almost twice as large as it was during Thaksin Shinawatra’s tenure in office. […]
I agree with the comment from Frank, because I have seen it clearly in the villages. The Chinese are the mercentile class, dominating the stores selling “made in China” goods, and providing high interest loans. The sad thing is….it doesn’t seem all that different here in England. The banks are refusing to loan money and the shops are full of cheap stuff that was made in China.
Also, this seems consistent with the Maoist rise in Nepal. I was under the impression the massacre of the Royal family allowed them to gain some ground, partly because the King was planning to abdicate and hand over to a democratic system. His son was not of the same mind and shot his entire, extended family over a dinner…apparently he went to Eton. What do they teach there? The only Etonian I ever knew personally was suggesting that global warming was a conspiracy because oil was running out.
The other thing I wanted to add to my last comment was that the stability in Burma is largely due to the fact that the country has been cut off for so long. We care, but not on a personal level. There are not so many family ties between the country and the Western World. Think how long the scars of war take to heal. Think how deep the wounds are already.
Another question I had was about Thaksin. They accused him of corruption and seized 2.3 billion dollars (sorry if the figure is wrong), and he has been left with a mere 900 million. What I want to know is how much money did he have when he came to power?
1. Is their a difference in local elite to local farm boy?
There sure is now; but when Thaksin was growing up in San Kampang not so much. In 50 years the area hasn’t changed that much even with it’s proximity to Chiang Mai. It’s primarily rural and all the people from the area mix more readily than a few Km away in Chiang mai.
2. The successful self branding as a local boy .
And this is different than the Democrats branding Abhisit as an intellectual economist from Oxford/Eaton? It’s politics, push your good points and skim over your bad ones. A politician is a politician.
3. But then Thaksin has always been a divisive character with agressive, combative, bullying tactics being a highly successful strategy for him.
Thaksin may have even been more than you state but a couple of thing are undeniable. He got the country moving after the Asian Financial Crisis and became incredibly popular, and he ran the country like a CEO runs a company. I personally don’t have a problem with either of those tactics. Although you think it was a strategy to “maximize benefit to himself” all governments that have followed him and all the other minor parties have adopted and re-branded his TRT policies. This says much more about his ability to run the country than anything else ever could.
Elspeth: can you explain that again? The Western world is “urging Thailand towards a civil war” how exactly? By the Germans refusing to sell Thailand weapons and the Brits cracking down on pedophiles? I’m sorry, I just didn’t get it.
Simon: I don’t doubt that much of Thailand’s military equipment is ‘clapped out’ , especially if the GT200 purchase is typical of their purchasing methods 🙂
PS. I cannot see much point Thailand getting into an arms race with China – completely irrelevant to compare with that country, although I do think the inclusion of Malaysia, Cambodia and Laos in Graph#2 would be an improvement.
If the UXO clearance was presented as a development issue rather than war reparations, we might get somewhere. Table banging and finger pointing will never achieve anything.
Laos is the only country that is seriously underpopulated, and part of this is lack of access to good farmland, which reduces the wealth of farmers, as large swathes of potential agricultural land may contain UXO.
If we take Abhisit and Anapong at their word and they didn’t order troops to fire on civilians, WHO DID? In the end it doesn’t really matter, atrocities, or genocide, or fear, or loss of control ruled the day. Innocent people were in fact targeted and killed, there is no hiding that fact it’s on film thousands of meters of it. The two that are standing on the top rung of the podium are Abhisit and Anapong, head of the government and head of the military. Wrong was done and neither of these two have the courage to step forward and take responsibility for the actions that took place on their watch. They may not have pulled the trigger but they are still responsible for the actions. That’s cowardly and Thailand deserves more from it’s leaders than pointing fingers at others to divert the blame from themselves.
Ricefield radio’s thoughts on Thaksin being viewed as a “local” more than Abhisit is correct.
However, this gives rise to two thoughts:
1. Is their a difference in local elite to local farm boy? Thaksin came from the local elite and claims to having pulled himself up by his bootstraps are typical political spin. Local elites primary source of power is the patronage system, e.g. Granted concessions/monopolies, Insider deals, corruption from way back.
Truly local/rural men of the people have been and far between, most likely rising thru temple largesse, and royally sponsored higher education. Generally a lack of real opportunity reflecting lack of development. Few end up in politics.
2. The successful self branding as a local boy in the north seems counter productive and self defeating to a national leader needing to be inclusive and reconciliatory. Short term strategy.
3. But then Thaksin has always been a divisive character with agressive, combative, bullying tactics being a highly successful strategy for him. He has been masterful at mixed signals, public statements that are polar opposite to back room strategy. Control media, preemptively name/define the “issue”, manipulate, and divisively play people against
each other. The resulting dysfunction and lack of trust can then only be brought into line buy himself – and of course to the maximum benefit to himself.
Pretty much a small minded politician with massive ambitions manifesto. But then is that all thai society and institutional development is capable of at this point?
The details of the assassination using M16 by the Thai State ” р╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╕бр╕кр╣Мр╕Хр╕Бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕лр╕вр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕ер╣Ир╕▓ р╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Чр╕бр╕┤р╕м ” is available in any local news sources in the last few days.
You can see the photo of the 21 years old young man from the ThaiEnews on its today’s front page.
All interesting data and lots of conjecture on how much and why the Thai military is spending.
Note that two leading social commentators and critics – Giles Ungapakorn and ajarn Sulak Sivalaksa, have come out repeatedly to cite the Thai military as the major domino in failure of democracy to survive in the country. Of course both have extremist tendencies according to how you look at them, but when people like this stand up and speak, and suffer the consequences, you need to appreciate what it is they are speaking about and why it is important that they not be allowed to continue to speak.
The Thai military has been at the forefront of problems even before 1932, and seemingly does not intend to take any back steps to allow any release of power or migration to a democratic system. I am also a bit surprised at the lack of analysis regarding Thailand’s last 3-4 decade shift toward a communist China-style bureaucracy and accompanying teaching of Chinese language in government agencies, companies, etc. We are probably all in unison that the Chinese have gotten way past the foot in the door stage here, but how closely do we agree that the country is now in a near-total pro-China alignment – politically, militarily and culturally? If the ‘saturation’ is as deep as it seems, then Chinese-style militancy makes a lot of sense.
It appears to me that the Western World is urging Thailand towards a civil war. I don’t think the central powers in Bangkok realize how much Thailand has touched our European hearts. Germany is getting bold, with its refusal to sell weapons, and recent demands in Phuket for the police to clean up their act with regard to keeping the embassies informed. The British Embassy is working on busting a pedophile ring, apparently so important and demanding that it hampered their assistance to British citizens during the yellow shirt campaign at Bangkok airport late in 2008. I am not surprised the current government are arming themselves…they feel threatened. If it comes to civil war then they lose everything and face death. They aren’t smart enough to manage a tiger economy, so they look to the Burmese model. Let’s pray for a simple and elegant way out of this mess.
Nobody C20 on c18 – I think you have missed the big picture by not looking past the trees. As Abhisit in the end, according to the constitution, is in charge of the Police, the military, CRES and the country the responsibility its clearly on his shoulders. This isn’t Red propaganda it’s a fact and if he can’t reign in the authorities under his control it is his direct problem.
You also are convinced that the Reds propagandists, as you call them, “state anythign as fact without any evidence”. This is often correct but the Democrat/CRES propagandists, headed by Suthep, are just as active and just as controversial in the unsubstantiated and wild statements they come out with. It’s only fair to say both sides are in a propaganda war which is not one sided.
You site the Abhisit tape as “fake”, but is it. The government would not allow outside independent scrutiny of it, insisting that it be checked internally by parties aligned with the Government. That’s not independent analysis even if the tape was faked. CRES has come out with their own wild claims as well the hand drawn anti monarchy map and the assets freeze of Red funders who almost all were taken off the list after the damage was done.
Everyone has the right to their opinion but one must also be careful about looking independently at both sides or one becomes a part of the propaganda machine of one side or the other.
These are 2008 World Bank figures on % GDP spent on defence (Google ‘country name’ military spending to see the graphs of your choice):
Australia 1.78%
Bangladesh 1.13%
Cambodia 1.11 %
China 1.96%
India 2.45%
Indonesia 0.981%
Korea (DPR) ???
Korea (RO) 2.6%
Lao PDR 0.34%
Malaysia 1.96%
Myanmar 1.30 %
Nepal 1.47%
Pakistan 3.27%
Philippines 0.81%
Sri Lanka 3.02%
Thailand 1.51%
Vietnam 2.02%
Eyeballing these figures it seems (no surprises here) that countries spend a greater % of GDP on defence if i) they think have a significant security problem (Pakistan, India, formerly Nepal, RO Korea, Sri Lanka) and ii) as their development status improves (Australia, China, RO Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and debatably India).
Going back to graph no. 2, I am not sure that the three countries chosen for comparison are good choices in themselves. Looking more widely in the region, Thailand’s expenditure seems middle of the road given its development status. I would also hazard a guess that Vietnam and Thailand’s initial high levels of military expenditure in the graph are hangovers from the Vietnam war.
And as an aside, it’s worth considering the kind of hardware Thailand’s military has. It is genuinely clapped out. Most of the tanks and aircraft are museum pieces. Many of the firearms are also of ‘historical interest’.
In summary, it seems to me that Thailand’s % GDP expenditure on defence is not unreasonable.
Well, here’s some off the cuff figures on Chinese military spending. I’ll leave it for readers to decide how credible the sources are:
On Thursday 04 March 2010 Beijing published China’s 2010 defense budget. It totalled 532.115 billion yuan (about $77.9 billion at current exchange rates) or 7.5% more than last year. Chinese defense spending has increased by an average of 12.9% annually since 1989 when Beijing launched an ambitious army modernization program, and this wasonly the second year over that period in which annual growth was less than 10%.
In % GDP terms, Chinese spending has been relatively static at ~2% since around 1993; in absolute terms it has increased massively because of the spectacular growth of the Chinese economy.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
[…] for any election. At the same time, there is growing indication that the administration is itself engaged in a campaign of terror designed to justify the continued recourse to emergency powers through a string of mysterious, […]
Thailand’s hungry military
Thaksin had a debatable amount, and at one time was listed as the 14th richest man in the world. How much he had when he came to power was also alleged to have multiplied by two or three times during his premiership, depending on what you cite as a source. Sadly we are not privy to similar enriching experiences by the rest of the legion of corrupt who run the place. The only guys who know when and where who was paid what are either dead or badly misinformed – or paid off.
The Burma longevity is not merely from isolation. There have been many kingdoms in the past that were isolated but changed overnight. Burma’s situation is also because of not isolation but cooperation from greedy folks nearby and afar.
Thailand’s hungry military
Elspeth Sterling – 21
“What I want to know is how much money did he have when he came to power?”
When Thaksin took the office he was technically own close to none because he has transferred his asset to his children, maids, driver, and securities guard, so on paper Thaksin own nothing when he took office that is why he got charge for asset concealment but the court found him not guilty later on. Based on that legal process, Thaksin didn’t actually sale AIS, it was his children who sold the shares but the court later found that it is an act of nomination (which I almost sure that 50% of the major shareholders in SET are nominees). That is why I’m so disgusted with Thailand’s jurisdiction and justice system.
National celebrations and historiography in Laos
Thanks to Alan and Robert for the interesting comments on Thai tourism in Laos. There is a recent article by Olivier Evrard & Prasit Leepreecha on (domestic) tourism in Northern Thailand (in Critique of Anthropology 29/3, 2009), might be useful for comparison.
Roy’s observations call for more research on the perceptions of the present nation-building activities among both urban and rural people. Let’s see which ideas about Lao national identity the 450-year celebrations will disseminate and how they will be discussed (or not).
Thailand’s hungry military
Thaksin had definitely more assets before his premiership than now after being stripped off most of his wealth.
He was already well know as a telecom billionaire. Most of his fortune then was stuffed in shares of SHIN and affilliate companies.
Thailand’s hungry military
[…] The Thai government will have no trouble buying the military equipment it wants. The Royal Thai Army, after all, was just rewarded for the zeal with which it shielded the Abhisit administration from the terrifying prospect of an election with a vastly increased military budget – when measured as a percentage of GDP, now almost twice as large as it was during Thaksin Shinawatra’s tenure in office. […]
Thailand’s hungry military
I agree with the comment from Frank, because I have seen it clearly in the villages. The Chinese are the mercentile class, dominating the stores selling “made in China” goods, and providing high interest loans. The sad thing is….it doesn’t seem all that different here in England. The banks are refusing to loan money and the shops are full of cheap stuff that was made in China.
Also, this seems consistent with the Maoist rise in Nepal. I was under the impression the massacre of the Royal family allowed them to gain some ground, partly because the King was planning to abdicate and hand over to a democratic system. His son was not of the same mind and shot his entire, extended family over a dinner…apparently he went to Eton. What do they teach there? The only Etonian I ever knew personally was suggesting that global warming was a conspiracy because oil was running out.
The other thing I wanted to add to my last comment was that the stability in Burma is largely due to the fact that the country has been cut off for so long. We care, but not on a personal level. There are not so many family ties between the country and the Western World. Think how long the scars of war take to heal. Think how deep the wounds are already.
Another question I had was about Thaksin. They accused him of corruption and seized 2.3 billion dollars (sorry if the figure is wrong), and he has been left with a mere 900 million. What I want to know is how much money did he have when he came to power?
The red’s northern challenge
Question. Just a couple of things.
1. Is their a difference in local elite to local farm boy?
There sure is now; but when Thaksin was growing up in San Kampang not so much. In 50 years the area hasn’t changed that much even with it’s proximity to Chiang Mai. It’s primarily rural and all the people from the area mix more readily than a few Km away in Chiang mai.
2. The successful self branding as a local boy .
And this is different than the Democrats branding Abhisit as an intellectual economist from Oxford/Eaton? It’s politics, push your good points and skim over your bad ones. A politician is a politician.
3. But then Thaksin has always been a divisive character with agressive, combative, bullying tactics being a highly successful strategy for him.
Thaksin may have even been more than you state but a couple of thing are undeniable. He got the country moving after the Asian Financial Crisis and became incredibly popular, and he ran the country like a CEO runs a company. I personally don’t have a problem with either of those tactics. Although you think it was a strategy to “maximize benefit to himself” all governments that have followed him and all the other minor parties have adopted and re-branded his TRT policies. This says much more about his ability to run the country than anything else ever could.
Thailand’s hungry military
Elspeth: can you explain that again? The Western world is “urging Thailand towards a civil war” how exactly? By the Germans refusing to sell Thailand weapons and the Brits cracking down on pedophiles? I’m sorry, I just didn’t get it.
Thailand’s hungry military
Simon: I don’t doubt that much of Thailand’s military equipment is ‘clapped out’ , especially if the GT200 purchase is typical of their purchasing methods 🙂
PS. I cannot see much point Thailand getting into an arms race with China – completely irrelevant to compare with that country, although I do think the inclusion of Malaysia, Cambodia and Laos in Graph#2 would be an improvement.
Laos, please don’t mention the war
If the UXO clearance was presented as a development issue rather than war reparations, we might get somewhere. Table banging and finger pointing will never achieve anything.
Laos is the only country that is seriously underpopulated, and part of this is lack of access to good farmland, which reduces the wealth of farmers, as large swathes of potential agricultural land may contain UXO.
The red’s northern challenge
If we take Abhisit and Anapong at their word and they didn’t order troops to fire on civilians, WHO DID? In the end it doesn’t really matter, atrocities, or genocide, or fear, or loss of control ruled the day. Innocent people were in fact targeted and killed, there is no hiding that fact it’s on film thousands of meters of it. The two that are standing on the top rung of the podium are Abhisit and Anapong, head of the government and head of the military. Wrong was done and neither of these two have the courage to step forward and take responsibility for the actions that took place on their watch. They may not have pulled the trigger but they are still responsible for the actions. That’s cowardly and Thailand deserves more from it’s leaders than pointing fingers at others to divert the blame from themselves.
The red’s northern challenge
Ricefield radio’s thoughts on Thaksin being viewed as a “local” more than Abhisit is correct.
However, this gives rise to two thoughts:
1. Is their a difference in local elite to local farm boy? Thaksin came from the local elite and claims to having pulled himself up by his bootstraps are typical political spin. Local elites primary source of power is the patronage system, e.g. Granted concessions/monopolies, Insider deals, corruption from way back.
Truly local/rural men of the people have been and far between, most likely rising thru temple largesse, and royally sponsored higher education. Generally a lack of real opportunity reflecting lack of development. Few end up in politics.
2. The successful self branding as a local boy in the north seems counter productive and self defeating to a national leader needing to be inclusive and reconciliatory. Short term strategy.
3. But then Thaksin has always been a divisive character with agressive, combative, bullying tactics being a highly successful strategy for him. He has been masterful at mixed signals, public statements that are polar opposite to back room strategy. Control media, preemptively name/define the “issue”, manipulate, and divisively play people against
each other. The resulting dysfunction and lack of trust can then only be brought into line buy himself – and of course to the maximum benefit to himself.
Pretty much a small minded politician with massive ambitions manifesto. But then is that all thai society and institutional development is capable of at this point?
The red’s northern challenge
Simon #24
Nothing in English yet- which is odd- but everyone is talking about this incident among Red Shirts;
see:
http://info.redshirtthailand.com/info_redshirtthailand/?p=2043
http://www.internetfreedom.us/showthread.php?tid=6295
http://thaienews.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post_8573.html
As an aside, on the (in-)discriminate shooting by army (English) see:
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/ordered-to-shoot-indiscriminately/
The red’s northern challenge
Simon,
The details of the assassination using M16 by the Thai State ” р╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╕бр╕кр╣Мр╕Хр╕Бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕лр╕вр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕ер╣Ир╕▓ р╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Чр╕бр╕┤р╕м ” is available in any local news sources in the last few days.
You can see the photo of the 21 years old young man from the ThaiEnews on its today’s front page.
р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Юр╕др╕лр╕▒р╕кр╕Ър╕Фр╕╡, р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╕Щ 09, 2010
ThaiEnews
***р╕Бр╕│р╕лр╕Щр╕Фр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕зр╕Фр╕нр╕ар╕┤р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕ир╕Ю р╕Щр╕▓р╕в р╕Бр╕др╕йр╕Фр╕▓ р╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕▓р╕Н (р╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╕бр╕кр╣М)
р╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕░ 20 р╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Др╕б 2532 – р╕бр╕гр╕Ур╕░ 4 р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╕Щ 2553
р╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╕бр╕кр╣М-р╕Бр╕др╕йр╕Ор╕▓ р╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕▓р╕Н р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Фр╕╡ р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в р╣Ар╕Кр╕┤р╕Нр╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕кр╕зр╕Фр╕ир╕Юр╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╕бр╕кр╣Мр╣Гр╕Щр╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓19.00р╕Щ. 7-11р╕Б.р╕в.р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕зр╕▒р╕Фр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕кр╕┤р╕Зр╕лр╣М р╣Ар╕Кр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╣Гр╕лр╕бр╣И 12р╕Б.р╕в.р╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓10.00р╕Щ.р╕Кр╕бр╕зр╕┤р╕Фр╕┤р╕Чр╕▒р╕ир╕Щр╣Мр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╕бр╕кр╣Мр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕Хр╕Бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕лр╕вр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕ер╣Ир╕▓ р╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Чр╕бр╕┤р╕м 16.00 р╕Щ.р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕╕р╕бр╣Ар╕Юр╕ер╕┤р╕З 13р╕Б.р╕в.р╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓09.00р╕Юр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╣Ар╕Бр╣Зр╕Ър╣Ар╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕╣р╕Б р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Цр╕зр╕▓р╕вр╕Ьр╣Йр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Зр╕кр╕╕р╕Бр╕╕р╕е
Thailand’s hungry military
All interesting data and lots of conjecture on how much and why the Thai military is spending.
Note that two leading social commentators and critics – Giles Ungapakorn and ajarn Sulak Sivalaksa, have come out repeatedly to cite the Thai military as the major domino in failure of democracy to survive in the country. Of course both have extremist tendencies according to how you look at them, but when people like this stand up and speak, and suffer the consequences, you need to appreciate what it is they are speaking about and why it is important that they not be allowed to continue to speak.
The Thai military has been at the forefront of problems even before 1932, and seemingly does not intend to take any back steps to allow any release of power or migration to a democratic system. I am also a bit surprised at the lack of analysis regarding Thailand’s last 3-4 decade shift toward a communist China-style bureaucracy and accompanying teaching of Chinese language in government agencies, companies, etc. We are probably all in unison that the Chinese have gotten way past the foot in the door stage here, but how closely do we agree that the country is now in a near-total pro-China alignment – politically, militarily and culturally? If the ‘saturation’ is as deep as it seems, then Chinese-style militancy makes a lot of sense.
Thailand’s hungry military
It appears to me that the Western World is urging Thailand towards a civil war. I don’t think the central powers in Bangkok realize how much Thailand has touched our European hearts. Germany is getting bold, with its refusal to sell weapons, and recent demands in Phuket for the police to clean up their act with regard to keeping the embassies informed. The British Embassy is working on busting a pedophile ring, apparently so important and demanding that it hampered their assistance to British citizens during the yellow shirt campaign at Bangkok airport late in 2008. I am not surprised the current government are arming themselves…they feel threatened. If it comes to civil war then they lose everything and face death. They aren’t smart enough to manage a tiger economy, so they look to the Burmese model. Let’s pray for a simple and elegant way out of this mess.
The red’s northern challenge
Nobody C20 on c18 – I think you have missed the big picture by not looking past the trees. As Abhisit in the end, according to the constitution, is in charge of the Police, the military, CRES and the country the responsibility its clearly on his shoulders. This isn’t Red propaganda it’s a fact and if he can’t reign in the authorities under his control it is his direct problem.
You also are convinced that the Reds propagandists, as you call them, “state anythign as fact without any evidence”. This is often correct but the Democrat/CRES propagandists, headed by Suthep, are just as active and just as controversial in the unsubstantiated and wild statements they come out with. It’s only fair to say both sides are in a propaganda war which is not one sided.
You site the Abhisit tape as “fake”, but is it. The government would not allow outside independent scrutiny of it, insisting that it be checked internally by parties aligned with the Government. That’s not independent analysis even if the tape was faked. CRES has come out with their own wild claims as well the hand drawn anti monarchy map and the assets freeze of Red funders who almost all were taken off the list after the damage was done.
Everyone has the right to their opinion but one must also be careful about looking independently at both sides or one becomes a part of the propaganda machine of one side or the other.
Thailand’s hungry military
These are 2008 World Bank figures on % GDP spent on defence (Google ‘country name’ military spending to see the graphs of your choice):
Australia 1.78%
Bangladesh 1.13%
Cambodia 1.11 %
China 1.96%
India 2.45%
Indonesia 0.981%
Korea (DPR) ???
Korea (RO) 2.6%
Lao PDR 0.34%
Malaysia 1.96%
Myanmar 1.30 %
Nepal 1.47%
Pakistan 3.27%
Philippines 0.81%
Sri Lanka 3.02%
Thailand 1.51%
Vietnam 2.02%
Eyeballing these figures it seems (no surprises here) that countries spend a greater % of GDP on defence if i) they think have a significant security problem (Pakistan, India, formerly Nepal, RO Korea, Sri Lanka) and ii) as their development status improves (Australia, China, RO Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and debatably India).
Going back to graph no. 2, I am not sure that the three countries chosen for comparison are good choices in themselves. Looking more widely in the region, Thailand’s expenditure seems middle of the road given its development status. I would also hazard a guess that Vietnam and Thailand’s initial high levels of military expenditure in the graph are hangovers from the Vietnam war.
And as an aside, it’s worth considering the kind of hardware Thailand’s military has. It is genuinely clapped out. Most of the tanks and aircraft are museum pieces. Many of the firearms are also of ‘historical interest’.
In summary, it seems to me that Thailand’s % GDP expenditure on defence is not unreasonable.
Thailand’s hungry military
Well, here’s some off the cuff figures on Chinese military spending. I’ll leave it for readers to decide how credible the sources are:
On Thursday 04 March 2010 Beijing published China’s 2010 defense budget. It totalled 532.115 billion yuan (about $77.9 billion at current exchange rates) or 7.5% more than last year. Chinese defense spending has increased by an average of 12.9% annually since 1989 when Beijing launched an ambitious army modernization program, and this wasonly the second year over that period in which annual growth was less than 10%.
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm
Chinese military expenditure as a percentage of GDP (graph of World Bank data):
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+military+spending
In % GDP terms, Chinese spending has been relatively static at ~2% since around 1993; in absolute terms it has increased massively because of the spectacular growth of the Chinese economy.