I can’t respond to every comment because I simply don’t have enough time.
Athurson @73: “Perhaps those who are quick to engage in rudeness fear the fundamental weakness of their arguments.”
I agree, but it’s not just “apologists for the government” here. Found among us are “rednecks,” “disgusting moral retards,” “utterly grotesque” selfish people, “apologists,” and one “disgusting” sick and “grotesque” expat who supports massacres to protect his expat lifestyle. These comments come from Red Shirt supporters on this comment blog. Inevitably this sort of language appears on web boards just like we see it in bathroom stalls. Actually I found some of it amusing.
Regarding the Reporters Without Borders report:
Out of all the reporters mentioned in the Reporters Without Borders report two spoke of being targeted. Chandler Vandergrift offered contradictory testimony first saying that the grenade that hit him could not possibly have been directed only at him and then said that the international media were being targeted. Chaiwat Pumpuang believed he was targeted but he also said that he was shot at while approaching soldiers with about 50 demonstrators.
I agree with Pumpuang, he was targeted. He was walking where he was not supposed to, and it was abundantly clear that he was not supposed to be walking there and he did it anyway. Does he bear any responsibility for his actions?
The rest of the testimony corroborates my position that there was no vast government-military conspiracy to target journalists. More than one journalist mention things like not wearing bullet proof vests or helmets and that they were aware of the risks involved. Brad Cox admitted that Polenghi could have been mistaken for a MIB because he was wearing dark clothes. The Thai Journalists Association warned journalists to avoid certain areas. The Reuters editor-in-chief admitted that journalism can be dangerous. Nelson Rand’s testimony in particular supports my view that journalists should take responsibility for their actions as he repeated the fact that he was aware of the risks. A foreign bureau chief said that anyone in the Red Shirt zone risked being killed or wounded and also mentioned the fact that many of these journalists were not used to covering war zones.
Tarrin: My point is that this crackdown on protestors was not Tiananmen Square redux. I kept waiting for Armageddon and it simply never came.
Nick: Thanks for taking the time to contextualize this event. The best journalism about these protests in my opinion was the journalism that wasn’t sensationalized, but reporting more in depth providing background.
Do us all a favor when the next round of violent protests appear: Tell your colleagues that soldiers with weapons are dangerous.
No, the DSI has so far not questioned me. I was questioned by the police station responsible for the investigations in that area.
“Maratjp”:
It is a very complicated issue, especially the behavior of many of my colleagues. Personally, on the risk of taking a lot of shit, i believe that some of my colleagues have taken many unnecessary risks while covering this mess, some out of recklessness, some out of inexperience. There were many occasions where i have seen colleagues photographing and filming while bullets were flying around, where i decided to stay under cover.
That the military in many instances may have used far too severe violence, IMO, is one issue, but how we behave while covering this is a completely different issue. I believe that it is our main task to survive in order to tell the story. We are neither supposed to be “heroes” nor some sort of “fighters”.
We have to make on the spot decisions trying to minimize the risk, according to the danger, and according to our level of experience. There were many times where i have held back, but some of my my in combat situations more experienced colleagues haven’t.
I have several days teamed up with James Nachtway, of whom i was able to learn a lot. But i did not imitate him – i simply do not have his decades of experience in combat situations. He can do things i cannot, and i am aware of those limitations.
I do not want to politicize the death and injuries of my colleagues. Neither will i turn into an activist for any side. I just try to find out what happened, i try to collect facts and evidence, so i can put this into a proper context. That is all i can do, that is all i have done all along these past years, that is all i am supposed to do.
“tukkae”:
Yes, i do not talk about the bloodletting – i personally think that this was actually quite a fascinating protest action, on many levels. The Chula incursion was badly handled, and resulted in very bad PR, which should have been foreseen. And so were several other actions. Many actions, especially during the Pan Fa era, were brilliant, such as pushing out the military from schools and temples, or the very successful marches throughout Bangkok.
The maybe biggest mistake, IMO, of the Red Shirts were to occupy Rajprasong indefinitely, and to wall themselves in behind these barricades. The have lost the initiative, the have lost the mobility they had during the Pan Fa era, and things went downhill, leading to the inevitable end.
But, it always takes two to tango: the mistakes of the Red Shirts do not excuse the mistakes of the government and the military.
I am working hard on piecing the puzzle together. It will take some more time before i can write about all this. When i have collected enough facts and evidence, interviewed as many actors and witnesses as i can, and feel comfortable enough that i have a good enough account doing justice to these events, i will publish my results.
Thanks for explaining. I guess it’s not so strange that we see the students that came back from either the jungle or overseas have a variety of political beliefs or tactics to achieve what they believe. There’s nothing basically wrong in this as everyone has a right to their own beliefs and the amnesty was the correct thing to do.
Are there some who still believe that a revolutionary situation can come out of a severe political crisis? I’m sure there are and there were some that saw the red/yellow shirt movements as an opportunity.
And yes, we see the returnees in both sides of the recent clash, we can probably find them in government, business and media jobs. Chavalit has certainly been associated with them for a long time. Then again they were probably the best and brightest of their generation.
Maoist and Trotskyism are two very different sociolist ideologies. Sometime you were mentioning Maoism, Leninism or Trotskyism quite randomly so I was wondering whether you really understand the implication of each socialism theory, sorry I didn’t mean the insult you or anything, I’m just curious.
First I’m going to apologise for being long-winded, but I think the answer should be more than a one liner. I have to admit I do understand quite a lot about various theories of revolutionary socialism, although much, thankfully, is forgotten now. As a youth I grew up immersed in Marxist-Leninism. The Maoists had made their break with Russia but not Stalinism and the old European communist parties were still quite strong although Hungary in 56 had damaged them. It was Czechoslovakia in the 60s that did the real damage to them in the West.
I do get angry with the Trotskyist academics. Trotskyism was a path that led so many of us down a dead end. The theories sounded so reasonable. We could say that the Russian revolution would have worked if it just hadn’t had one man, Stalin, get control of it. Yet the problem always was with the practice of democratic centralism that all versions of Marxist-Leninism were built on. It allowed strong leaders to dictate to the party members. Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism all have a common thread and that is Leninism. Find socialism without the input of Leninism and we may find out what comes next in our social evolution.
People need to step back from the Abhisit this and Abhisit that analysis. He is not a leader in terms of having people listen to him and do things. He is more of a balancer, trying to balance different factions, groups, power cliques and players while trying to keep another set of the same off balance. That he has survived so long shows he is quite adept at that job. However, most decisions being made are not his although no doubt he has slipped his own few through at times and even stood up to powers occasionally (police chief)
However, Abhisit is and remains a sacrifical lamb if need be for one side and a bete noir hate figure for the other as that is the nature of politics in this country, but to analyse in such terms misses what is really happening.
The good man/men thing works in Thailand as a figurehead to hide the reality underneath although most people know the reality. The idea of a good man struggling but ultimately failing to control the usual eviol behind the scenes is common in Thai poltics too -think of Chuan in particulalry but also Chavalit in army and just after days. And Thaksin was seenm as the archetypal good new man when he entered the scene which is often forgotten. Remember his early cabinets of technocrats and good men, and it has to be said he actually mostly placed the right person in the right job back then, who later were gradually repalced by the same old scheming provincial power brokers totally unsuited for any cabinet position. At least these days we dont await the knight on a white horse as in the past.
One interesting thing now is not just the loss of faith in polticians which os widespread but the palpable loss of faith in elders and a turn by many to see hope in the children and coming generations rather than blindly following what older people dictate. This will be positive for the future whatever way it goes and is soemthing that cant be rolled back now. Too many myths have been broken and exposed. Right now though all poltical movments remain rooted at elast to some extent in traditonal way and belief but this isnt going to remian that way for ever.
Hla Oo predictably plays fast and loose with facts in his attempt at rewriting history in support of his theory that the Burmese are inherently violent and now stupid and gullible to boot. They are beyond the pale, aren’t they? They deserve everything they get, for rejecting colonial rule (entirely benevolent and progressive of course), and for rejecting capitalism and free enterprise ( perhaps synonymous in his learned opinion with colonial rule).
a. Yangon Ba Swe, writer and Socialist from the group that Ne Win also belonged to, admitted he was the shooter in the assassination attempt on Galon U Saw. He boasted he missed deliberately just as a warning to U Saw who from the PVO uniforms decided Aung San was behind it.
b. Aung San left Bo Let Ya (Thakin Hla Pe) as chief of staff, not Bo Ne Win, when he decided to re-enter the political arena. Ne Win became Commander in Chief only in 1949 when Gen Smith Dun, a Karen national, was removed.
c. The British did develop Lower Burma attracting Burmese from the North to migrate. That’s what colonialists do – develop and extract. People did appreciate trade and business that flourished in a stable and peaceful environment after pacification which took several years and punishing entire village groups that supported resistance. There are always those who resist foreign rule/occupation and those who collaborate. The Burmese were no different from other races.
d. The street names Sitkè Maung Htaw Lay and Maung Khaing were changed by the current military junta along with the Burma to Myanmar and Rangoon to Yangon changes and a few others like York Road to Yaw Mingyi Road, and not by Ne Win or the Socialist governments before him.
e. ‘Extreme nationalism’ and chauvinism have been the hallmark of the military dictatorship since 1962 and not the left wing leaders who led the struggle for independence. Indian and Chinese communities were persecuted by Ne Win who stoked up xenophobia whenever he needed to get out of a crisis (his protégés today following in his footsteps), and Hla Oo typically overlooks the persecution of the ethnic minorities, the bloody civil wars against whom he was a youthful and willing instrument of, and unsurprisingly retains his Tatmadaw view of the union.
f. Thein Pe Myint, the third secretary general of the CPB (Aung San was the first), was sent to liaise with the exiled colonial government in Simla by Thakin Than Tun in preparation for overthrowing the Japanese. He later fell from grace for bringing in the revisionist line of Browderism, but after Thakin Soe’s splinter group of Red Flag Communists went underground, became prominent again as a leader of the Thein-Than Communists.
He did not join the Communist rebellion, but instead continued his established writing career, only to return to politics as a guru and cheerleader of the Burma Socialist Programme Party founded by the military dictatorship under Ne Win in a typical trajectory of an ex-communist.
g. Left wing ideology was very influential in the national liberation struggle like everywhere else in the colonised world at the time. In Burma the younger generation of student activists rejected the old politics that worked with the colonial administration, embraced the nationalist Dobama Association, and founded the Communist and the Socialist Parties.
h. Galon U Saw was far from being seen as insignificant by the Burmese. On the contrary his role in Burmese politics and history left an indelible mark, from the defense of Saya San, prominent politician through his premiership, his wartime internment by the British in Uganda for secretly liaising with the Japanese, and culminating in his infamous role in the assassination of Aung San along with his cabinet members that sent the country on the trajectory it has taken.
Hla Oo is a good storyteller and his fictionalised accounts of events definitely are a great read. Why he, instead of sticking to what he’s good at, indulges in pontificating and rewriting history passing it off as ‘original research’ but always with a moral, and not troubling himself with any sort of objectivity needs to be questioned.
Blurring the lines between the ruled and the rulers, between colonialism and economic development, between the nationalists and the Marxists, between the radical left and the right wing ‘left’, between Aung San’s army and Ne Win’s may be genuine confusion or by design on the part of Hla Oo.
Is he simply engaging in a bit of self-promotion with a view to a comfortable retirement? Is he on the payroll of the regime through the good office of his army connections, past and present? Is he ingratiating himself to them as he is to his foreign readers who undoubtedly find his work a different and refreshing departure from the mainstream Burmese? I for one do not find him very different in his very Burmese unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accounts with embellishments, bias and moralising even if he has great stories of his army life to tell. Tall tales and cock and bull stories are after all the stuff of our childhood.
Yes, Thaksin should be put on trial for his war on drugs. Also, it is important to recognise that many of the so-called ‘drug dealers’ killed on his orders were not actually involved with drugs at all. Many were political opponents of the present government in Lao PDR. Probably hundreds of them were killed during Thaksin’s reign, especially in the Thai provinces bordering Laos. They were supported and even encouraged to challenge the Lao government militarily during the late 1970s and in the 1980s, but when Thailand decided to improve their relations with Laos, they became obstacles, and so were murdered.
I’d like to state my personal opinion about Thaksin first.
I regard him as an unindicted murderer for his efforts in the war on drugs in which he was clearly a driving force.
But that’s just my opinion.
No legal process has been instituted to indict him for these crimes, I think, because too many others, many of whom are now in powerful positions would have to go down with him.
Instead he has been ousted by a coup and convicted of a very flimsy charge by a dubious process. This by people who are equally culpable.
But he was popular for the good and bad he did while in office and people continue to support him.
Are those people under his “spell” as you put it? Do we now have a situation where there is not “twisted leadership and tainted money”.? Is state power not being usurped?Is the Thai middle class the only class that matters as you suggest?
I’m not at all surprised that people continue to support him
I was hopeful for about a minute but was sadly disappointed by this charlatan. He has blood on his hands no doubt. Absolutely perfect front man for the regime though. Even completed his military service LOL.
The Washington Post, Letter to Editor, August 25, 2010 at page A18. See full text athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082406388.html
In his Aug. 21 op-ed, “Hold off on Burma,” David I. Steinberg argued that a United Nations commission of inquiry into war crimes in Burma will only salve Western consciences and do the Burmese people no good. He worries that an inquiry “will hinder negotiations and relations” with the “new government” that will be elected later this year, so the United States should instead “hold off.”
In fact, the government will not be new; the military will control 25 percent of legislative seats as well as key ministries. More ominously, the military will be constitutionally immune from civilian control and will have power to respond to threats to “national stability” however it wants. Recall that during the Saffron Revolution, the junta gunned down peacefully protesting monks as threats to national stability.
A commission of inquiry would hinder relations with the “new” government only if that government is controlled by those accused. Mr. Steinberg is really saying that we should not offend the authors of the atrocities because then they won’t talk to us. But they won’t talk to us now; the United States decided to support the inquiry only after the junta refused repeatedly to meet with senior diplomats to talk about reform.
A commission of inquiry would help the people of Burma in several ways. First, it would cost the junta hard-liners some political support at home and abroad, making a transition to democracy more possible. Second, an inquiry into the conduct of higher-ranking officers would make lower-ranking officers think twice before committing atrocities themselves. Third, an inquiry might be the first step in bringing justice to the victims of the junta’s atrocities — victims who, sadly, make no appearance in Mr. Steinberg’s analysis.
David Clair Williams, Bloomington, Ind.
There’s nothing “good” about Abhisit Vejjajiva. The puppet PM only pretends to be a modern politician, but no sooner have his worthless proposals been rejected, he reverts to the hardline politician that he has always been.
Proof? Abhisit Vejjajiva never has a plan B. It’s either plan A or violence.
This good man/bad man dichotomy is something that I’ve noticed over the years as a dominant discourse in Thailand.
I recently saw a conference keynote speech at NIDA by Duncan McCargo who pointed out exactly the same thing as Andrew and Nich have. And also that the same good men keep getting appointed to sort out the problems. I can’t remember exactly what they were called on to sort out (perhaps the South) but McCargo pointed out that, like Abshisit with his reform committees, Thaksin had also called on Anand and Prawase . And they’d been appointed to similar roles in the 90s. The same old good men.
As archetypal good men, they came to the staggering conclusion that most people were good and that the the problem in the South was caused by a few bad men.
Eliminate the bad men and you’ve fixed the problem. The sort of thinking that led to the war on drugs. And the sort of thinking that encourages people to believe that the stupid uneducated yokels are essentially good-hearted in a simple way but misled by the baddest of the bad men in Thaksin.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote that the “line between good and evil runs straight through the human heart”. Meaning that under the right circumstances anyone can be a little bit corrupt or worse a little bit murderous or sadistic.
The “good men” theory prevents good institutions developing and that is the real problem.
Also very questionable is the thinking that goodness is somehow conferred on people by education and position.
Congratulations to you both for the excellent Forum piece.
It’s the best analysis I’ve seen on the most-up-to-date situation
by non-Thai writers.
Why has n’t this appeared in Australia’s print media ?
Actually Seni Pramoj was the first imported Thai PM from UK and his brother Kukrit was the 2nd. Like Abhisit, Seni was responsible for the 70 deaths for the Thamasart massacre. The UK imported PM had made quite a record in butchery throughout Thailand’s history ain’t they?
I am curious what your estimates would be of the percentage of Red Shirts still wanting Thaksin Shinawatra to continue as their real leader…
Thaksin first public comments after the Rajprasong arson and looting were to ‘speculate’ that the Red Shirt protests should continue underground, and after many weeks of keeping a defensive posture, these new bombings in the very same area just a day after Thaksin’s recent birthday celebrations seem more likely, to me at least, to be a signal from the birthday boy to begin a new offensive, albeit perhaps merely another pathetic ploy to keep his name in the news.
The Red Shirt movement needs to collectively awake from Thaksin’s spell and stop simply denying, complaining and blaming, find a credible leader able to present a coherent policy program alternative and make a public commitment that their protest methods will never again extend beyond civil disobedience into arson, looting and murder.
Of course, for that to happen, the Red Shirt movement would first have to reject Thaksin’s twisted leadership and tainted money as well as his long history of unbending efforts to usurp state power largely for his own ends. Indeed, the events of this year strongly suggest that credible leaders with a coherent vision of comprehensive state reform are probably the only way for the Red Shirts to convince the Thai middle class that there really is a ‘new deal’ out there and that it is therefore in their best interest to support the Red Shirts as a credible political alternative.
My own observation is that his eloquence is inconsistent with a PPE from Oxford. I’ve never heard him refer to Keynesian or Austrian economics, quote a philosopher or even refer to ideology.
I’d say he’s a great rote learner. Not that there aren’t fine intellects kicking around the kingdom. They’re just not appreciated.
Chris Beale: congrats on missing the point. I wasn’t talking about non-muslim countries, was I? I was talking about adapting to the rules of a muslim (or other) culture while living within that culture.
I don’t see LM threatening freedom of speech abroad to any great extent. Paul Handley’s book still came out, Giles can still say what he wants. They can’t re-enter Thailand (obviously), but abroad they can say whatever they like.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Sorry for taking so long to respond.
I can’t respond to every comment because I simply don’t have enough time.
Athurson @73: “Perhaps those who are quick to engage in rudeness fear the fundamental weakness of their arguments.”
I agree, but it’s not just “apologists for the government” here. Found among us are “rednecks,” “disgusting moral retards,” “utterly grotesque” selfish people, “apologists,” and one “disgusting” sick and “grotesque” expat who supports massacres to protect his expat lifestyle. These comments come from Red Shirt supporters on this comment blog. Inevitably this sort of language appears on web boards just like we see it in bathroom stalls. Actually I found some of it amusing.
Regarding the Reporters Without Borders report:
Out of all the reporters mentioned in the Reporters Without Borders report two spoke of being targeted. Chandler Vandergrift offered contradictory testimony first saying that the grenade that hit him could not possibly have been directed only at him and then said that the international media were being targeted. Chaiwat Pumpuang believed he was targeted but he also said that he was shot at while approaching soldiers with about 50 demonstrators.
I agree with Pumpuang, he was targeted. He was walking where he was not supposed to, and it was abundantly clear that he was not supposed to be walking there and he did it anyway. Does he bear any responsibility for his actions?
The rest of the testimony corroborates my position that there was no vast government-military conspiracy to target journalists. More than one journalist mention things like not wearing bullet proof vests or helmets and that they were aware of the risks involved. Brad Cox admitted that Polenghi could have been mistaken for a MIB because he was wearing dark clothes. The Thai Journalists Association warned journalists to avoid certain areas. The Reuters editor-in-chief admitted that journalism can be dangerous. Nelson Rand’s testimony in particular supports my view that journalists should take responsibility for their actions as he repeated the fact that he was aware of the risks. A foreign bureau chief said that anyone in the Red Shirt zone risked being killed or wounded and also mentioned the fact that many of these journalists were not used to covering war zones.
Tarrin: My point is that this crackdown on protestors was not Tiananmen Square redux. I kept waiting for Armageddon and it simply never came.
Nick: Thanks for taking the time to contextualize this event. The best journalism about these protests in my opinion was the journalism that wasn’t sensationalized, but reporting more in depth providing background.
Do us all a favor when the next round of violent protests appear: Tell your colleagues that soldiers with weapons are dangerous.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
“bibi”:
No, the DSI has so far not questioned me. I was questioned by the police station responsible for the investigations in that area.
“Maratjp”:
It is a very complicated issue, especially the behavior of many of my colleagues. Personally, on the risk of taking a lot of shit, i believe that some of my colleagues have taken many unnecessary risks while covering this mess, some out of recklessness, some out of inexperience. There were many occasions where i have seen colleagues photographing and filming while bullets were flying around, where i decided to stay under cover.
That the military in many instances may have used far too severe violence, IMO, is one issue, but how we behave while covering this is a completely different issue. I believe that it is our main task to survive in order to tell the story. We are neither supposed to be “heroes” nor some sort of “fighters”.
We have to make on the spot decisions trying to minimize the risk, according to the danger, and according to our level of experience. There were many times where i have held back, but some of my my in combat situations more experienced colleagues haven’t.
I have several days teamed up with James Nachtway, of whom i was able to learn a lot. But i did not imitate him – i simply do not have his decades of experience in combat situations. He can do things i cannot, and i am aware of those limitations.
I do not want to politicize the death and injuries of my colleagues. Neither will i turn into an activist for any side. I just try to find out what happened, i try to collect facts and evidence, so i can put this into a proper context. That is all i can do, that is all i have done all along these past years, that is all i am supposed to do.
“tukkae”:
Yes, i do not talk about the bloodletting – i personally think that this was actually quite a fascinating protest action, on many levels. The Chula incursion was badly handled, and resulted in very bad PR, which should have been foreseen. And so were several other actions. Many actions, especially during the Pan Fa era, were brilliant, such as pushing out the military from schools and temples, or the very successful marches throughout Bangkok.
The maybe biggest mistake, IMO, of the Red Shirts were to occupy Rajprasong indefinitely, and to wall themselves in behind these barricades. The have lost the initiative, the have lost the mobility they had during the Pan Fa era, and things went downhill, leading to the inevitable end.
But, it always takes two to tango: the mistakes of the Red Shirts do not excuse the mistakes of the government and the military.
I am working hard on piecing the puzzle together. It will take some more time before i can write about all this. When i have collected enough facts and evidence, interviewed as many actors and witnesses as i can, and feel comfortable enough that i have a good enough account doing justice to these events, i will publish my results.
Thailand’s royal disgrace
Today is the anniversary of the disgraceful sentence.
Spare a though for a brave lady, who so far has refused to crawl.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Tarrin – 42
Thanks for explaining. I guess it’s not so strange that we see the students that came back from either the jungle or overseas have a variety of political beliefs or tactics to achieve what they believe. There’s nothing basically wrong in this as everyone has a right to their own beliefs and the amnesty was the correct thing to do.
Are there some who still believe that a revolutionary situation can come out of a severe political crisis? I’m sure there are and there were some that saw the red/yellow shirt movements as an opportunity.
And yes, we see the returnees in both sides of the recent clash, we can probably find them in government, business and media jobs. Chavalit has certainly been associated with them for a long time. Then again they were probably the best and brightest of their generation.
Maoist and Trotskyism are two very different sociolist ideologies. Sometime you were mentioning Maoism, Leninism or Trotskyism quite randomly so I was wondering whether you really understand the implication of each socialism theory, sorry I didn’t mean the insult you or anything, I’m just curious.
First I’m going to apologise for being long-winded, but I think the answer should be more than a one liner. I have to admit I do understand quite a lot about various theories of revolutionary socialism, although much, thankfully, is forgotten now. As a youth I grew up immersed in Marxist-Leninism. The Maoists had made their break with Russia but not Stalinism and the old European communist parties were still quite strong although Hungary in 56 had damaged them. It was Czechoslovakia in the 60s that did the real damage to them in the West.
I do get angry with the Trotskyist academics. Trotskyism was a path that led so many of us down a dead end. The theories sounded so reasonable. We could say that the Russian revolution would have worked if it just hadn’t had one man, Stalin, get control of it. Yet the problem always was with the practice of democratic centralism that all versions of Marxist-Leninism were built on. It allowed strong leaders to dictate to the party members. Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism all have a common thread and that is Leninism. Find socialism without the input of Leninism and we may find out what comes next in our social evolution.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
People need to step back from the Abhisit this and Abhisit that analysis. He is not a leader in terms of having people listen to him and do things. He is more of a balancer, trying to balance different factions, groups, power cliques and players while trying to keep another set of the same off balance. That he has survived so long shows he is quite adept at that job. However, most decisions being made are not his although no doubt he has slipped his own few through at times and even stood up to powers occasionally (police chief)
However, Abhisit is and remains a sacrifical lamb if need be for one side and a bete noir hate figure for the other as that is the nature of politics in this country, but to analyse in such terms misses what is really happening.
The good man/men thing works in Thailand as a figurehead to hide the reality underneath although most people know the reality. The idea of a good man struggling but ultimately failing to control the usual eviol behind the scenes is common in Thai poltics too -think of Chuan in particulalry but also Chavalit in army and just after days. And Thaksin was seenm as the archetypal good new man when he entered the scene which is often forgotten. Remember his early cabinets of technocrats and good men, and it has to be said he actually mostly placed the right person in the right job back then, who later were gradually repalced by the same old scheming provincial power brokers totally unsuited for any cabinet position. At least these days we dont await the knight on a white horse as in the past.
One interesting thing now is not just the loss of faith in polticians which os widespread but the palpable loss of faith in elders and a turn by many to see hope in the children and coming generations rather than blindly following what older people dictate. This will be positive for the future whatever way it goes and is soemthing that cant be rolled back now. Too many myths have been broken and exposed. Right now though all poltical movments remain rooted at elast to some extent in traditonal way and belief but this isnt going to remian that way for ever.
Burma in Limbo, Part 2
Hla Oo predictably plays fast and loose with facts in his attempt at rewriting history in support of his theory that the Burmese are inherently violent and now stupid and gullible to boot. They are beyond the pale, aren’t they? They deserve everything they get, for rejecting colonial rule (entirely benevolent and progressive of course), and for rejecting capitalism and free enterprise ( perhaps synonymous in his learned opinion with colonial rule).
a. Yangon Ba Swe, writer and Socialist from the group that Ne Win also belonged to, admitted he was the shooter in the assassination attempt on Galon U Saw. He boasted he missed deliberately just as a warning to U Saw who from the PVO uniforms decided Aung San was behind it.
b. Aung San left Bo Let Ya (Thakin Hla Pe) as chief of staff, not Bo Ne Win, when he decided to re-enter the political arena. Ne Win became Commander in Chief only in 1949 when Gen Smith Dun, a Karen national, was removed.
c. The British did develop Lower Burma attracting Burmese from the North to migrate. That’s what colonialists do – develop and extract. People did appreciate trade and business that flourished in a stable and peaceful environment after pacification which took several years and punishing entire village groups that supported resistance. There are always those who resist foreign rule/occupation and those who collaborate. The Burmese were no different from other races.
d. The street names Sitkè Maung Htaw Lay and Maung Khaing were changed by the current military junta along with the Burma to Myanmar and Rangoon to Yangon changes and a few others like York Road to Yaw Mingyi Road, and not by Ne Win or the Socialist governments before him.
e. ‘Extreme nationalism’ and chauvinism have been the hallmark of the military dictatorship since 1962 and not the left wing leaders who led the struggle for independence. Indian and Chinese communities were persecuted by Ne Win who stoked up xenophobia whenever he needed to get out of a crisis (his protégés today following in his footsteps), and Hla Oo typically overlooks the persecution of the ethnic minorities, the bloody civil wars against whom he was a youthful and willing instrument of, and unsurprisingly retains his Tatmadaw view of the union.
f. Thein Pe Myint, the third secretary general of the CPB (Aung San was the first), was sent to liaise with the exiled colonial government in Simla by Thakin Than Tun in preparation for overthrowing the Japanese. He later fell from grace for bringing in the revisionist line of Browderism, but after Thakin Soe’s splinter group of Red Flag Communists went underground, became prominent again as a leader of the Thein-Than Communists.
He did not join the Communist rebellion, but instead continued his established writing career, only to return to politics as a guru and cheerleader of the Burma Socialist Programme Party founded by the military dictatorship under Ne Win in a typical trajectory of an ex-communist.
g. Left wing ideology was very influential in the national liberation struggle like everywhere else in the colonised world at the time. In Burma the younger generation of student activists rejected the old politics that worked with the colonial administration, embraced the nationalist Dobama Association, and founded the Communist and the Socialist Parties.
h. Galon U Saw was far from being seen as insignificant by the Burmese. On the contrary his role in Burmese politics and history left an indelible mark, from the defense of Saya San, prominent politician through his premiership, his wartime internment by the British in Uganda for secretly liaising with the Japanese, and culminating in his infamous role in the assassination of Aung San along with his cabinet members that sent the country on the trajectory it has taken.
Hla Oo is a good storyteller and his fictionalised accounts of events definitely are a great read. Why he, instead of sticking to what he’s good at, indulges in pontificating and rewriting history passing it off as ‘original research’ but always with a moral, and not troubling himself with any sort of objectivity needs to be questioned.
Blurring the lines between the ruled and the rulers, between colonialism and economic development, between the nationalists and the Marxists, between the radical left and the right wing ‘left’, between Aung San’s army and Ne Win’s may be genuine confusion or by design on the part of Hla Oo.
Is he simply engaging in a bit of self-promotion with a view to a comfortable retirement? Is he on the payroll of the regime through the good office of his army connections, past and present? Is he ingratiating himself to them as he is to his foreign readers who undoubtedly find his work a different and refreshing departure from the mainstream Burmese? I for one do not find him very different in his very Burmese unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accounts with embellishments, bias and moralising even if he has great stories of his army life to tell. Tall tales and cock and bull stories are after all the stuff of our childhood.
Thai style reconciliation a recipe for further conflict
Yes, Thaksin should be put on trial for his war on drugs. Also, it is important to recognise that many of the so-called ‘drug dealers’ killed on his orders were not actually involved with drugs at all. Many were political opponents of the present government in Lao PDR. Probably hundreds of them were killed during Thaksin’s reign, especially in the Thai provinces bordering Laos. They were supported and even encouraged to challenge the Lao government militarily during the late 1970s and in the 1980s, but when Thailand decided to improve their relations with Laos, they became obstacles, and so were murdered.
Thai style reconciliation a recipe for further conflict
Cool Hand,
I’d like to state my personal opinion about Thaksin first.
I regard him as an unindicted murderer for his efforts in the war on drugs in which he was clearly a driving force.
But that’s just my opinion.
No legal process has been instituted to indict him for these crimes, I think, because too many others, many of whom are now in powerful positions would have to go down with him.
Instead he has been ousted by a coup and convicted of a very flimsy charge by a dubious process. This by people who are equally culpable.
But he was popular for the good and bad he did while in office and people continue to support him.
Are those people under his “spell” as you put it? Do we now have a situation where there is not “twisted leadership and tainted money”.? Is state power not being usurped?Is the Thai middle class the only class that matters as you suggest?
I’m not at all surprised that people continue to support him
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
I was hopeful for about a minute but was sadly disappointed by this charlatan. He has blood on his hands no doubt. Absolutely perfect front man for the regime though. Even completed his military service LOL.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Nick, Have you been questionned by the DSI about the events you reported and the pictures you took?
Concept + Process = ?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28609314/19Mar10-MythsVsRealities
Concept + Process = ?
The Washington Post, Letter to Editor, August 25, 2010 at page A18. See full text athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082406388.html
In his Aug. 21 op-ed, “Hold off on Burma,” David I. Steinberg argued that a United Nations commission of inquiry into war crimes in Burma will only salve Western consciences and do the Burmese people no good. He worries that an inquiry “will hinder negotiations and relations” with the “new government” that will be elected later this year, so the United States should instead “hold off.”
In fact, the government will not be new; the military will control 25 percent of legislative seats as well as key ministries. More ominously, the military will be constitutionally immune from civilian control and will have power to respond to threats to “national stability” however it wants. Recall that during the Saffron Revolution, the junta gunned down peacefully protesting monks as threats to national stability.
A commission of inquiry would hinder relations with the “new” government only if that government is controlled by those accused. Mr. Steinberg is really saying that we should not offend the authors of the atrocities because then they won’t talk to us. But they won’t talk to us now; the United States decided to support the inquiry only after the junta refused repeatedly to meet with senior diplomats to talk about reform.
A commission of inquiry would help the people of Burma in several ways. First, it would cost the junta hard-liners some political support at home and abroad, making a transition to democracy more possible. Second, an inquiry into the conduct of higher-ranking officers would make lower-ranking officers think twice before committing atrocities themselves. Third, an inquiry might be the first step in bringing justice to the victims of the junta’s atrocities — victims who, sadly, make no appearance in Mr. Steinberg’s analysis.
David Clair Williams, Bloomington, Ind.
The writer is executive director of the Center for Constitutional Democracy at Indiana University.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36505288/Military-Reshuffle-Names
Burma 1.country ruled by civilian Dictatorship
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
There’s nothing “good” about Abhisit Vejjajiva. The puppet PM only pretends to be a modern politician, but no sooner have his worthless proposals been rejected, he reverts to the hardline politician that he has always been.
Proof? Abhisit Vejjajiva never has a plan B. It’s either plan A or violence.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Cool Hand,
Yes, all sorts of claims and counter claims can be made about the death of Seh Daeng and others.
But if the forensic information which the DSI possesses was released then these claims could be tested.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
This good man/bad man dichotomy is something that I’ve noticed over the years as a dominant discourse in Thailand.
I recently saw a conference keynote speech at NIDA by Duncan McCargo who pointed out exactly the same thing as Andrew and Nich have. And also that the same good men keep getting appointed to sort out the problems. I can’t remember exactly what they were called on to sort out (perhaps the South) but McCargo pointed out that, like Abshisit with his reform committees, Thaksin had also called on Anand and Prawase . And they’d been appointed to similar roles in the 90s. The same old good men.
As archetypal good men, they came to the staggering conclusion that most people were good and that the the problem in the South was caused by a few bad men.
Eliminate the bad men and you’ve fixed the problem. The sort of thinking that led to the war on drugs. And the sort of thinking that encourages people to believe that the stupid uneducated yokels are essentially good-hearted in a simple way but misled by the baddest of the bad men in Thaksin.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote that the “line between good and evil runs straight through the human heart”. Meaning that under the right circumstances anyone can be a little bit corrupt or worse a little bit murderous or sadistic.
The “good men” theory prevents good institutions developing and that is the real problem.
Also very questionable is the thinking that goodness is somehow conferred on people by education and position.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
Congratulations to you both for the excellent Forum piece.
It’s the best analysis I’ve seen on the most-up-to-date situation
by non-Thai writers.
Why has n’t this appeared in Australia’s print media ?
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
Thaisides – 8
Actually Seni Pramoj was the first imported Thai PM from UK and his brother Kukrit was the 2nd. Like Abhisit, Seni was responsible for the 70 deaths for the Thamasart massacre. The UK imported PM had made quite a record in butchery throughout Thailand’s history ain’t they?
Thai style reconciliation a recipe for further conflict
To all of the above posts:
I am curious what your estimates would be of the percentage of Red Shirts still wanting Thaksin Shinawatra to continue as their real leader…
Thaksin first public comments after the Rajprasong arson and looting were to ‘speculate’ that the Red Shirt protests should continue underground, and after many weeks of keeping a defensive posture, these new bombings in the very same area just a day after Thaksin’s recent birthday celebrations seem more likely, to me at least, to be a signal from the birthday boy to begin a new offensive, albeit perhaps merely another pathetic ploy to keep his name in the news.
The Red Shirt movement needs to collectively awake from Thaksin’s spell and stop simply denying, complaining and blaming, find a credible leader able to present a coherent policy program alternative and make a public commitment that their protest methods will never again extend beyond civil disobedience into arson, looting and murder.
Of course, for that to happen, the Red Shirt movement would first have to reject Thaksin’s twisted leadership and tainted money as well as his long history of unbending efforts to usurp state power largely for his own ends. Indeed, the events of this year strongly suggest that credible leaders with a coherent vision of comprehensive state reform are probably the only way for the Red Shirts to convince the Thai middle class that there really is a ‘new deal’ out there and that it is therefore in their best interest to support the Red Shirts as a credible political alternative.
So how about those opinions ?
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
My own observation is that his eloquence is inconsistent with a PPE from Oxford. I’ve never heard him refer to Keynesian or Austrian economics, quote a philosopher or even refer to ideology.
I’d say he’s a great rote learner. Not that there aren’t fine intellects kicking around the kingdom. They’re just not appreciated.
“Life in a Bangkok prison”
Chris Beale: congrats on missing the point. I wasn’t talking about non-muslim countries, was I? I was talking about adapting to the rules of a muslim (or other) culture while living within that culture.
I don’t see LM threatening freedom of speech abroad to any great extent. Paul Handley’s book still came out, Giles can still say what he wants. They can’t re-enter Thailand (obviously), but abroad they can say whatever they like.