So resident political genius StanG thinks that the Red Shirts are fascist? And his line of argument is basically built on velocity and volume and errrr…. that’s…. errrr…. it?
And while he accuses the UDD of fascism he resolutely ignores the PAD….
How…. weird….. is…. that??????
The PAD complete with their quasi-mysticism, violent cadre, the end of democracy as their preferred outcome (who does that sound like? hmmm), strategy of tension, links to entrenched big business (who want to destroy competition not increase it) and extremist anti-democratic factions in the military, violent nationalism, genocidal and hate speech, belief in constructed traditions all sounds to me like classic fascism.
Yet somehow StanG misses ALL OF THIS and thinks a couple of hundred thousand poor people asking for an election (and yes, I am perfectly aware of some of their backing but would say, quite rightly, so what?) is indicative of some neo-fascist super plot.
I just can’t get my head around StanG’s obvious and very transparent intellectual, moral and political failings.
No I did not confused book value with market value, even if we are talking in term of market value then the price wouldn’t be at 2 billion anyway. I’m just saying that if you are a well conscious and logical investor, which value would you take as book value 14 million or 2 billion? and at what price do you think is a fair value. The whole reason why I said using book value at 2 billion is wrong simply because just saying that FIDF acquire that land for 2 billion as a investor we wouldn’t take that as de facto book value since the fund was acquire under special condition so its fairer to put the book value at 14 million before the ERAWAN fund sell the land to FIDF.
What most Malaysians find uncomfortable about them is their commitment to an Islamic state.
This of course has changed in recent times as a new & powerful group has emerged within PAS that understands the idea of an Islamic state in a more compatible way with modern democracies.
I am very sure that they are not involved in any terrorist activities.
In fact, it has been the Malaysian government that have been accused historically, by both the Philippines and Thailand of supporting the insurgents in Southern Thailand and Mindanao.
“I can’t easily see how signing up members to TRT can be considered a political mobilization, especially when those signed up were seldom mobilized for any political purpose.”
“Seldom” as in major riots only once a year?
Red movement is the continuation of the same mobilizing effort, only the name has hanged.
#3
QUOTE Students in most government schools are still taught through the rote system that denies them the ability to question only follow blindly teachers and leaders who themselves have been through the same system. UNQUOTE
It’s not just the government schools.
But I do like the jist of the above. Why else would people blindly follow a man who has been through the system and learned its weaknesses for the purposes of his own wealth and fame?
There is, I suppose, the very remote hope that something different will eventually grow from the roots up. If so, it will probably need some plant species that self-fixes. (But I’m also not at all sure that such imported notions will ever work with such thin tropical topsoil.) The current system just overfertilises the rogue species with heavy dressings of artificials.
If FIDF bought the land from Erawan for Bt2 billion, that is the value in the balance sheet, i.e. its book value. The circumstances of the purchase does not change this. And this value will not change with time as land is not a depletable asset.
If Erawan bought the land for Bt14 million that was its previous book value.
It seems to me as you are confusing book value with market value.
#1
QUOTE Lanna, Isaan, Patani, Siam… all these regions, 22 provinces, are presently occupied by the military regime in Bangkok, need to make common cause, to throw off the yoke of subservience, to wrest the reins of government from out of the hands of the overlords in Bangkok and, federated, to govern themselves. UNQUOTE
One must be realistic. JFL has yet to realize that just about all of the current political options are already hard-wired to lead us mere wage-slaves back into the hands of …. some slightly different overlords. Sorry, intellectuals, you just don’t get it. There are no easy options and quick fixes here.
This conversation has strayed into interesting areas but could people take a new look at David’s initial comment No. 1:
“It seems that most of the current political turmoil is to ensure that the Privy Council and their military mates are securely in control of the Thai people when the King and Prem die.”
Does anybody have insights as to how Thai people can wrest power from the corrupt military and their mates?
Yes but ERAWAN book that piece of land at 14 million. The FIDF bought the land at such a high price to help shoring the fund so you can’t take that as book value since it was a rescue package so the best way to gauge the book value is to look at how much the ERAWAN bought that piece of land for.
this quote is from the same article you gave:
“An FIDF source said the fund had paid such a high price for the land plot so as to strengthen the company, which was facing liquidity problems. It was the cheapest way to keep the company afloat at the time. In addition, the market price at the time was high in keeping with a boom in the property sector.”
Chris: I read Liddle’s paper but can’t recall the details now. Sustained mobilization in Indonesia wasn’t there, although there were periods of mobilization. Rather, the aim of the Suharto regime seemed to be repression and the prevention of political mobilization outside state-sanctioned structures. That seems to me to have more to do with Fascism than mobilization per se. Hence, in the Thailand case, I can’t easily see how signing up members to TRT can be considered a political mobilization, especially when those signed up were seldom mobilized for any political purpose.
We can gloss the main issues of a failed democracy and parliamentary system right now but we can only do this if we can reflect on what took place 2001-2006; constituencies around the countryside interviewed this month felt that under Thaksin’s Govt they actually tasted political inclusion and empowerment of electoral process for the first time. This was swiftly taken away and ancien régime reinstated as current opposition gets imprisoned or killed. It is good to see the Washington Post editorial Thursday 15 July express this unambiguously for the first time in a US broadsheet: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405048.html
It is time that we question the source and the motives of the massive propaganda and hate campaign against Thaksin generated by the amaat regime in alliance with civil society (especially media) in the past four years and ask ourselves whether there is actually any credible evidence…The parliamentary process has been stymied since the last not-good coup for a reason: It is this, in my view, that we should start to question.
So much emphasis is placed on political reform in order to bring about reconciliation yet educational and social reforms are stalled in some sort of time warp.
Thailand imports so much from the west yet they only seem to see the surface of what they wear and consume.
Students in most government schools are still taught through the rote system that denies them the ability to question only follow blindly teachers and leaders who themselves have been through the same system.
Only the few get to see what is outside of the nationalistic bubble which not only insulates the masses from what is happening in the real world but has the majority believing that the system they have is the best in the world.
Many argue the feudal system still exists in the country and at a closer look its vestiges are very apparent. yet the majority of Bangkok Thais will still insist that everyone one is equal when in truth they are not it is all just another exercise in that ambiguous social trait of building ‘face’.
If only the people could be given the opportunity to really see and understand who and what is controlling their destiny. This will take a social revolution and I doubt it will change anytime soon as the whole nation is indoctrinated into believing that the CentralThai way is the only way.
No stupid foreigner as we are often referred to could understand a culture that I believe doesn’t really understand itself as it hides behind so much that is obviously distorted.
First, elite forces continue to see themselves as above the democratic order, and compete with it.
This breath-taking arrogance on the part of the “elite” certainly seems to be the root of all evil in Thai politics.
“Democracy” in Thailand is seen by those in power as a game, a diversion for the little people, and like Olympians they stand aside and outside, occasionally manipulating, occasionally overturning the “democratic” order.
They see this as their “right”, to be defended by whatever means necessary. Massacres of the little people are not at all proscribed, and in fact are seen to be necessary over the course of time in order to remind the little of their place in creation.
The ruling class, the Siamese, see themselves not as Thai but as a class of conquerors, of overlords to the Thais, a la the Ramakien. All very bizarre and picaresque but for its reality in their own minds and the horrible, oppressive results for the people of Thailand.
Too much intellectualizing. Giving them too much credit for integrity and character. Has anyone checked up on Rakesh Saxena? What are they feeding him? Why has his story gone dark? Last we saw they were wheeling him off to jail in a wheelchair. Take a look. He’s got more to say about the way it is than anyone. Where is he?
Also let’s not forget the system of local governors being appointed from Bangkok. In some larger provincial cities the municipal (thesabal) officials are locally elected, but they have to follow the dictates set down by the provincial-level (jangwat) officials. In medium-sized and smaller towns, there’s not even this, just the village kamnan!
If the judiciary decides to dissolve the Democrat Party, it is making a pretty clear statement. Any government that it does not view favorably upon will be dissolved.
The expanded powers that were given to the judiciary by the military junta has to be reversed.
StanG (comment #36) – From my understanding, retrospective application of the law is an issue the Democrats have already raised. That’ll probably be the crux of the case. I can’t predict how the Constitutional Court will rule though!
jonfernquest (comment #34) – One of the problems with any type of article like this is it’s length. Generally, they run at 800-1,000 words, which is simply too short to cover everything – much less include citations (I sympathize, as I generally cite to everything, but that’s simply not feasible here). Because New Mandala’s audience seems interested in politics, I decided to focus on politically salient issues and not issues like the criminal justice system or land disputes, important as those are for everyday life. Besides, there are many other sources that discuss those issues, far better and in more depth than I could ever do.
I thought it would be more helpful to discuss how structural and historical forces have shaped the current judiciary. Really the point was to suggest that the judiciary did not simply mindlessly turn against Thaksin after the king’s 2006 speech, as many seem to suggest (including the recent International Crisis Group report). Rather, by highlighting historical issues, I hope I made a deeper takeaway point. I hope this didn’t come across as a polemic! There are certainly courts around the world that have done far, far worse (Lisa Hilbink has written about how Chile’s judges never challenged Pinochet because they sympathized with the right-wing military).
The 2001 Thaksin case was a CONSTITUTIONAL COURT case, which I’ll be discussing in my next post.
You make a fair point to raise those cases, and I had almost included Ma Ta Phut in my article, but I’m somewhat reluctant to put Map Ta Phut definitively as a case of the Administrative Court acting in a “populist manner,” as you seem to suggest. In fact, the Thaksin administration was criticized by many environmentalists for big development projects (and the ChiangMai night safari), while the king has been notably vocal in his support for environmental protections. The 2007 Constitution has stronger environmental provisions than its predecessor. You make a fair point to raise those cases, and I had almost included Ma Ta Phut in my article, but I
You are probably right about the bidders. I was too lazy to look them up again. But my memory on numbers are better.
“The fund sold the land plot located at Rama IX Road to deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s wife Pojaman for Bt772 million in 2003, higher than the appraisal price of about Bt700 million.
The AEC claims the fund lost money in the deal, because it had bought the land from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities for Bt2 billion in 1995.”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Big questions for Thailand
So resident political genius StanG thinks that the Red Shirts are fascist? And his line of argument is basically built on velocity and volume and errrr…. that’s…. errrr…. it?
And while he accuses the UDD of fascism he resolutely ignores the PAD….
How…. weird….. is…. that??????
The PAD complete with their quasi-mysticism, violent cadre, the end of democracy as their preferred outcome (who does that sound like? hmmm), strategy of tension, links to entrenched big business (who want to destroy competition not increase it) and extremist anti-democratic factions in the military, violent nationalism, genocidal and hate speech, belief in constructed traditions all sounds to me like classic fascism.
Yet somehow StanG misses ALL OF THIS and thinks a couple of hundred thousand poor people asking for an election (and yes, I am perfectly aware of some of their backing but would say, quite rightly, so what?) is indicative of some neo-fascist super plot.
I just can’t get my head around StanG’s obvious and very transparent intellectual, moral and political failings.
Outrageous restrictions on free campaigning
If only he could enjoy the high security provided to his main opponent
Cannot get anymore sarcastic than that.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Christoffer Larsson – 44
No I did not confused book value with market value, even if we are talking in term of market value then the price wouldn’t be at 2 billion anyway. I’m just saying that if you are a well conscious and logical investor, which value would you take as book value 14 million or 2 billion? and at what price do you think is a fair value. The whole reason why I said using book value at 2 billion is wrong simply because just saying that FIDF acquire that land for 2 billion as a investor we wouldn’t take that as de facto book value since the fund was acquire under special condition so its fairer to put the book value at 14 million before the ERAWAN fund sell the land to FIDF.
Malays should not fear!
PAS is actually a decent party.
What most Malaysians find uncomfortable about them is their commitment to an Islamic state.
This of course has changed in recent times as a new & powerful group has emerged within PAS that understands the idea of an Islamic state in a more compatible way with modern democracies.
I am very sure that they are not involved in any terrorist activities.
In fact, it has been the Malaysian government that have been accused historically, by both the Philippines and Thailand of supporting the insurgents in Southern Thailand and Mindanao.
Big questions for Thailand
Ralph,
“I can’t easily see how signing up members to TRT can be considered a political mobilization, especially when those signed up were seldom mobilized for any political purpose.”
“Seldom” as in major riots only once a year?
Red movement is the continuation of the same mobilizing effort, only the name has hanged.
From the archives: Louis E. Lomax
#3
QUOTE Students in most government schools are still taught through the rote system that denies them the ability to question only follow blindly teachers and leaders who themselves have been through the same system. UNQUOTE
It’s not just the government schools.
But I do like the jist of the above. Why else would people blindly follow a man who has been through the system and learned its weaknesses for the purposes of his own wealth and fame?
There is, I suppose, the very remote hope that something different will eventually grow from the roots up. If so, it will probably need some plant species that self-fixes. (But I’m also not at all sure that such imported notions will ever work with such thin tropical topsoil.) The current system just overfertilises the rogue species with heavy dressings of artificials.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
@Tarrin #43
If FIDF bought the land from Erawan for Bt2 billion, that is the value in the balance sheet, i.e. its book value. The circumstances of the purchase does not change this. And this value will not change with time as land is not a depletable asset.
If Erawan bought the land for Bt14 million that was its previous book value.
It seems to me as you are confusing book value with market value.
From the archives: Louis E. Lomax
#1
QUOTE Lanna, Isaan, Patani, Siam… all these regions, 22 provinces, are presently occupied by the military regime in Bangkok, need to make common cause, to throw off the yoke of subservience, to wrest the reins of government from out of the hands of the overlords in Bangkok and, federated, to govern themselves. UNQUOTE
One must be realistic. JFL has yet to realize that just about all of the current political options are already hard-wired to lead us mere wage-slaves back into the hands of …. some slightly different overlords. Sorry, intellectuals, you just don’t get it. There are no easy options and quick fixes here.
Big questions for Thailand
This conversation has strayed into interesting areas but could people take a new look at David’s initial comment No. 1:
“It seems that most of the current political turmoil is to ensure that the Privy Council and their military mates are securely in control of the Thai people when the King and Prem die.”
Does anybody have insights as to how Thai people can wrest power from the corrupt military and their mates?
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Christoffer Larsson -39
Yes but ERAWAN book that piece of land at 14 million. The FIDF bought the land at such a high price to help shoring the fund so you can’t take that as book value since it was a rescue package so the best way to gauge the book value is to look at how much the ERAWAN bought that piece of land for.
this quote is from the same article you gave:
“An FIDF source said the fund had paid such a high price for the land plot so as to strengthen the company, which was facing liquidity problems. It was the cheapest way to keep the company afloat at the time. In addition, the market price at the time was high in keeping with a boom in the property sector.”
Big questions for Thailand
Chris: I read Liddle’s paper but can’t recall the details now. Sustained mobilization in Indonesia wasn’t there, although there were periods of mobilization. Rather, the aim of the Suharto regime seemed to be repression and the prevention of political mobilization outside state-sanctioned structures. That seems to me to have more to do with Fascism than mobilization per se. Hence, in the Thailand case, I can’t easily see how signing up members to TRT can be considered a political mobilization, especially when those signed up were seldom mobilized for any political purpose.
Big questions for Thailand
StanG you missed my “continuing” comment as well. It continues, maybe stronger than ever. It began back then.
Thai Institutions: Parliament
We can gloss the main issues of a failed democracy and parliamentary system right now but we can only do this if we can reflect on what took place 2001-2006; constituencies around the countryside interviewed this month felt that under Thaksin’s Govt they actually tasted political inclusion and empowerment of electoral process for the first time. This was swiftly taken away and ancien régime reinstated as current opposition gets imprisoned or killed. It is good to see the Washington Post editorial Thursday 15 July express this unambiguously for the first time in a US broadsheet:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405048.html
It is time that we question the source and the motives of the massive propaganda and hate campaign against Thaksin generated by the amaat regime in alliance with civil society (especially media) in the past four years and ask ourselves whether there is actually any credible evidence…The parliamentary process has been stymied since the last not-good coup for a reason: It is this, in my view, that we should start to question.
From the archives: Louis E. Lomax
So much emphasis is placed on political reform in order to bring about reconciliation yet educational and social reforms are stalled in some sort of time warp.
Thailand imports so much from the west yet they only seem to see the surface of what they wear and consume.
Students in most government schools are still taught through the rote system that denies them the ability to question only follow blindly teachers and leaders who themselves have been through the same system.
Only the few get to see what is outside of the nationalistic bubble which not only insulates the masses from what is happening in the real world but has the majority believing that the system they have is the best in the world.
Many argue the feudal system still exists in the country and at a closer look its vestiges are very apparent. yet the majority of Bangkok Thais will still insist that everyone one is equal when in truth they are not it is all just another exercise in that ambiguous social trait of building ‘face’.
If only the people could be given the opportunity to really see and understand who and what is controlling their destiny. This will take a social revolution and I doubt it will change anytime soon as the whole nation is indoctrinated into believing that the CentralThai way is the only way.
No stupid foreigner as we are often referred to could understand a culture that I believe doesn’t really understand itself as it hides behind so much that is obviously distorted.
Thai Institutions: Parliament
First, elite forces continue to see themselves as above the democratic order, and compete with it.
This breath-taking arrogance on the part of the “elite” certainly seems to be the root of all evil in Thai politics.
“Democracy” in Thailand is seen by those in power as a game, a diversion for the little people, and like Olympians they stand aside and outside, occasionally manipulating, occasionally overturning the “democratic” order.
They see this as their “right”, to be defended by whatever means necessary. Massacres of the little people are not at all proscribed, and in fact are seen to be necessary over the course of time in order to remind the little of their place in creation.
The ruling class, the Siamese, see themselves not as Thai but as a class of conquerors, of overlords to the Thais, a la the Ramakien. All very bizarre and picaresque but for its reality in their own minds and the horrible, oppressive results for the people of Thailand.
I think, I hope, its about to come to an end.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Too much intellectualizing. Giving them too much credit for integrity and character. Has anyone checked up on Rakesh Saxena? What are they feeding him? Why has his story gone dark? Last we saw they were wheeling him off to jail in a wheelchair. Take a look. He’s got more to say about the way it is than anyone. Where is he?
Jaco
From the archives: Louis E. Lomax
Also let’s not forget the system of local governors being appointed from Bangkok. In some larger provincial cities the municipal (thesabal) officials are locally elected, but they have to follow the dictates set down by the provincial-level (jangwat) officials. In medium-sized and smaller towns, there’s not even this, just the village kamnan!
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
@LesAbbey #31
If the judiciary decides to dissolve the Democrat Party, it is making a pretty clear statement. Any government that it does not view favorably upon will be dissolved.
The expanded powers that were given to the judiciary by the military junta has to be reversed.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
StanG (comment #36) – From my understanding, retrospective application of the law is an issue the Democrats have already raised. That’ll probably be the crux of the case. I can’t predict how the Constitutional Court will rule though!
jonfernquest (comment #34) – One of the problems with any type of article like this is it’s length. Generally, they run at 800-1,000 words, which is simply too short to cover everything – much less include citations (I sympathize, as I generally cite to everything, but that’s simply not feasible here). Because New Mandala’s audience seems interested in politics, I decided to focus on politically salient issues and not issues like the criminal justice system or land disputes, important as those are for everyday life. Besides, there are many other sources that discuss those issues, far better and in more depth than I could ever do.
I thought it would be more helpful to discuss how structural and historical forces have shaped the current judiciary. Really the point was to suggest that the judiciary did not simply mindlessly turn against Thaksin after the king’s 2006 speech, as many seem to suggest (including the recent International Crisis Group report). Rather, by highlighting historical issues, I hope I made a deeper takeaway point. I hope this didn’t come across as a polemic! There are certainly courts around the world that have done far, far worse (Lisa Hilbink has written about how Chile’s judges never challenged Pinochet because they sympathized with the right-wing military).
The 2001 Thaksin case was a CONSTITUTIONAL COURT case, which I’ll be discussing in my next post.
You make a fair point to raise those cases, and I had almost included Ma Ta Phut in my article, but I’m somewhat reluctant to put Map Ta Phut definitively as a case of the Administrative Court acting in a “populist manner,” as you seem to suggest. In fact, the Thaksin administration was criticized by many environmentalists for big development projects (and the ChiangMai night safari), while the king has been notably vocal in his support for environmental protections. The 2007 Constitution has stronger environmental provisions than its predecessor. You make a fair point to raise those cases, and I had almost included Ma Ta Phut in my article, but I
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
@Tarrin #38
You are probably right about the bidders. I was too lazy to look them up again. But my memory on numbers are better.
“The fund sold the land plot located at Rama IX Road to deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s wife Pojaman for Bt772 million in 2003, higher than the appraisal price of about Bt700 million.
The AEC claims the fund lost money in the deal, because it had bought the land from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities for Bt2 billion in 1995.”
The full article can be found here:
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/24/politics/politics_30024938.php