Hi everyone, I just wanted to clarify a few things about my article:
– Regarding Jim’s comment (#1), I’ll discuss the “stacking” of the Constitutional Court and other articles related to that institution in my next article.
– When I said “heavy discount,” I was trying to be coy with a euphemism (hence the quotes). The comments are correct in that the crux of the matter was the conflict of interest – allegedly, the price was suspiciously below market rates because of that conflict of interest.
– Regarding Simon’s comment (# 14), I agree that in the majority of cases, the Thai judiciary is still one of the strongest institutions in the country (the Asia Foundation poll I cited certainly suggests so). Also, I agree that the king’s 2006 speech could be read different ways. However, my larger points were 1) the speech was widely interpreted as an appeal to the judiciary to resolve the political crisis, but 2) the politicization of the judiciary, to the extent that it’s happened, did not simply begin after that speech (for instance, the latest International Crisis Group tries to draw a direct causal connection).
it is easy to comment the ruling Government with everything wrong that is done by them.
No one really look at the greater good .
Let us examine the Opposition – are they better of with them now running 5 states. How can people say that the Government is running crooked election or maybe people are blinded by rage until cannot see.
Selangor is a cartoon state now , with a lot of rubbish coming out from the state government.
Penang – maybe we can describe as a double faced government.
Kedah- tak apa state because GOD is great
Kelantan – always good because have suppose good leaders but with all the sins there is that what is good.
Perak – have a lot of Gila Talak YBs.
That is the reality of the matter
In liberal democracies in the West the merging of politics and business is a covert activity, often at complete odds with publicly expressed political platforms.
Under Thaksin it was almost fully open, backed up by such ideas as “rich people cannot be corrupted” and that country needs “capable” men in charge and that opposing them was unpatriotic.
There are great many definitions of fascism and quite often the label itself gets meaningless when attached to anything on the Internet but you’d be surprised how TRT rule fits into many of the definitions almost perfectly, especially in the late years when the supporters and the enemies were defined and visions of the future were laid out.
maybe you should talk to your fellow Thais who have worked it out
if Thailand is ruled by a democracy you dont need to be paralysed, because democracy gives a solution to a “bad” government
the solution is to work to make sure that the bad (in your view) government is voted out at the next election
whereas when you have a dictatorship, ruled by the amart/military hidden hands then you are right to be scared because their is no solution, you only can gripe and complain in private, like everyone is doing now
dont worry who wins the next election, as long as the royals/privy council/military are forbidden to interfere then the government can only last as long as it keeps performing to get enough votes from the people
as I am sure you must know but for some reason dont/wont say…
– the royals/privy council/military are in control
– they are the origin of the mythical “thainess” (meaning anything they agree with)
– they control what Abhisit and the government can do
– they control what the police can do
so state sponsored means whatever the royals/privy council/military want… it was the same in Thaksins day as now
and guess who cannot be called to account, prosecuted by the police and the judiciary?
now, were you just avoiding a minefield by not stating this or did you just want to keep some story going?
meanwhile at least we should respect that Jim is out in the field interviewing people, getting some real life stories… we are the ones pontificating about ultimate structures and hypothesing on reasons
Simon #14, not sure what you mean about the judicary actually working well? it really depends on the judges who are sitting in the various courts…It hs been stacked at all levels after the coup and bribes of extended tenure for another ten years (judges can now retire at seventy years of age); mostly chosen for as anti-Thaksinites all now firmly embedded in the system to ensure a continued flow of skewed decisions and control and regulation according to the anti-democratic 2007 Constitution. A key element of this was to protect coup-makers and these “independent bodies” from any future prosecution. Many of these bodies will be in power until 2013/2015 to make sure Thai Rak Tha (TRT) and Thaksin (who has no aspiration to return to politics anyway) will never reappear again on the political landscape. Here’s what the king said back in 25 April 06
[King’s speech to Supreme Court judges]. In relation to Article 7 (1997 Thai Constitution) [see Michael Connors 2008 “Artyicles of faith: the failure of royal liberalism in Thailand” – though I do not agree with all of this]. King said you cannot refer to this Article in relation to appointing PM. My trans.: “I’m always asked to appoint PM outside of the democratic regime, but I have difficulty to appoint PM under these conditions. In relation to article 7 this is a worrying reference: I’m sorry to have to say this is like governing as р╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕з (orgy/slipshod/perfunctory manner) following rules that are made up on the run. Thailand will be sunk in Ocean like a large ship- going down to the bottom of the sea; [we] need to act according to wisdom. Nation is not in need of “revitalisation” р╕Бр╕╣р╣Йр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ (as Sondhi Lim stated)! so why keep saying this! No need to revive the nation under good management; fight for fairness…It is irrational to refer to Article 7: you who are judging from the Supreme Court are smart, intelligent, thinkers, should consider about proper implementation. If not a full parliament it is not going to work (think about mechanisms to make things work/I think it р╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕з/ You can’t pass it to the king to act…It has to be the courts…If you follow the law we would not be able to work because we don’t have 500 (400?) members of parliament. You must look into how to make it work. (reference to boycott by opposition to election in April 2006, where 281 of 400 constituency seats having only a TRT candidate and TRT won close to 16 million votes) Look again at Article 7: The king cannot order this because it has no rule or regulation to support the Constitution. I always follow the constitution. This request (Article 7) does not appear in the constitution.” Those who know the boackground will see there is no ambiguity here about who is getting ticked off! http://tna.mcot.net/royal.php?clip_id=25172
GL, It’s me again. Culturally, most Malays’ worldview can be wrapped up in this nutshell: whatever you eat cannot be seen. I hope this explains their admission quota to higher education.Their last colonalist master gave them this albeit temporary headstart, Article 3/153. They were far-sighted bunch sent to govern Malaya. Their understanding of the Malays was precise, re: “Malay” entry in older Brittanica enclopd.. OMA , was not that a bit below the belt? I like to counter my Oxford/unabr dictionary for ‘durian’: smells like hell but tastes like heaven.
The British must have enough time to do strategic planning during the Jap Occupation in India. Gandhi in the name of ‘ahimsa’ had fasted every single time his supporters became violent. And more violence post Gandhi! Malayan Union gave non-Malay (those who arrived before 1946)a chance to become citizens. British’s way to punish the Sultans for being too nice to the Japanese? or something for something? Datuk Onn Jaffar (orange) and his mob would have come with their ‘parangs’ and you just could not hit heads as in Inia. They had that Allah-chosen mandate to cut down any infidels in their way. The colonalist masters might experienced some of these ferocious Malays.You see the idiom ‘to run amok’ would have been real as the Redshirts’ actions in the recent Thai incidence and probably be very bloody had the British not given in. The Karens were promised independence by the British and they were not around to be held responsible afterwards. My friend late Gen Bo Mya had often complained about this farang promise.Then Malayan Chinese Association might be more interested in the prospect of the gaining independence on the second try as the ‘smooth sailing party.’ The Alliance Party of Malaya.
Malay right in Art 3/153 has been a ‘no debate’ item even in the parliament. I believe everyone was considered equal under that constitution on Mederka Day Aug 31, 1957 and waiting for Art. 3/153 to phase out in 15 years. The Bristish wanted peaceful of different races and creeds. The sad lesson in the Subcontinent was still fresh in their memory.
The Malaysia idea to have Singapore in the equation was not well thought through. Malay leaders had been worried Malay population ratio. Post-war baby boom of the Chinese in rural areas was worrying factor for the Malay leader. With the additions of Sarawak and Sabah; the subtraction of Singapore, Malaysia was boosting its Malay population. The Malays are kampong folks thus their Early Expansion; Late Expansion; Low Stationary demographic transistions timings could differ from the non-Malays’. Most Chinese in Malaysia are pretty apolitical. Whatever they are deprived of they bought fom the Bumiputras. Chinese in Thailand are better off. Chuan Leepai, Chavalit Yongchaiyuth, Anupong Paochinda, Chartchai Choonawan were so e former PMs of Thailand with a Chinese surname in the family name. They are lucky because the King’s mother was a Chinese commoner.
The Malaysian Opposition DAP was the PAP’s Malaysian branch/legacy. Remember how Lee Kuan Yew gave the Malay leader a very very tough time. He had countered those Malay counterparts in Bahasa Melayu. Well he met his equal Mahathir, a backbencher then in some fiery Malaysian Malaysia issue. I always have the impression he shed crocodile tears in a nationally-televized speech after Singapore was booted out of Malaysia. To gain independence?
Malay leaders in Malaysia have nothing too fear. MIC/Malaysian Indians are more political. They came up in force a few years ago and was put down quite easily. Even if the PKR, PAS, & DAP opposition bloc were to lead the country the Malay right in the Federal Constitution Art. 3/153 will ot lose its sanctity.
Hey Mike 10, can you email me at [email protected]. Would like to see if this is happening in other schools and perhaps do a stry if I can confirm. Thanks Robin
Dickie S #12 – my concurrence is concurrent with your concurrence re. Somsak & Sri. “Look at the evidence to date,” says Jim Taylor. Yes? I’m waiting… For quite some time now I’ve been flabbergasted by Taylor’s frequent unsubstantiated assertions. One expects academics to have rather more familiarity with the rules of debate than the ‘informed retirees’ one is alarmed to hear arguing on both sides in cafes in the provinces. Surely his credibility in his field relies on his ability to back up his information, or sit on it until further investigation has provided him with real evidence that can be shown. Simply barracking for one side like a football fan can be very harmful to that side, and confuses the issues enormously. I wouldn’t think that Aj. Somsak is a Yellow, but he does tend to back up his arguments with fact, & he, who of all Thai academics, must find it difficult at times to maintain his objectivity, earns a good deal of respect & credibility for his truthful approach.
Dickie S #13, I’ve noticed the same thing with quite a few middle-class Bangkok friends, some of them very hi-so. They are disgusted with the crackdown, cynical about the current proliferation of committees, and very worried about the various spy groups being set up by the govt, as well as the restrictions to free-speech. But they are also fearful of the Red leaders, & the possible backlash if (when?) the Reds get into govt again. I concur.
In Thailand, you will often hear politicians, officials, police, etc., use a phrase such as “I hesitate to name names,” or “I won’t bring up his exact name…” when they are criticizing or making implications.
This is not just a Thai trait but it does reflect somewhat on why the phrase is practiced in Thailand – people are only all too ready to sue for criminal defamation.
The absolute need to know who the accuser is is bound up in the democratic system of government and the justice system that it oversees. Anonymous allegations protect the accuser and intimidate more effectively and widely than accusations made by those who are identified.
The potential for abuse in anonymous accusations is huge and proven.
When a country enjoys a reasonable degree of unity, stable, “authoritarian” systems allow greater participation to the interested parties. They can even run meaningless elections like in Japan or Singapore.
In a polarized societies “democracy” shuts off the losing faction altogether so in Thailand, for example, TRT loses access to Democrat talent pool and vice versa.
For many it is probably easier to raise through the ranks in China or Thailand ten-twenty years ago than bet on a wrong horse and end with the losing party of Thailand these days.
The judiciary is the only branch of government that actually works well in Thailand. It’s a shame that it tends to be tarred with the same brush as the (deplorable) legislature and executive.
The statement about the King appealing to “resolve the political crisis” in 2006 is innacurate and misleading. In an audience with some judicial recruits he simply appealed for them to do their job responsibly and act with impartiality.
New recruits into the Australian public service get similar lectures as part of their ethics training. It’s hardly controversial advice.
It is interesting, most upper middle class people I know, just 2 months after the media termed “Red Rampage” are full of contempt for the Abhisit government in private. These people I know wear only yellow and save strong anti-Red words in public or amongst colleagues, but behind closed doors have heavy sympathies for the Red movements (less Thaksin) and are quite emotional given the slate of killings and the ignoramus government following.
There is nothing really being done to promote reconciliation. No real enforcement of laws that establish rule of law, rather selective enforcements of laws to showcase a rule by law for the victors.
There is scent that the winds of change are coming. Will the reds be able to call on a very vocal and a highly Royalist group within Bangkok to join sides or to publicly split with the government? The established judiciary is within (also a minority) this group.
These people are bored with the visible and hidden leaders of ‘both sides’, but side with Yellow because they are happy within the current establishments. Unless of course the Red revolution is only about beheading anyone who disagrees with them and/or just about Thaksin getting his money back. (before all the crazies reply: my point is that it is neither just these, so room for compromise is always available).
where is Senor Enrique Damanche? I miss his posts.
I concur. It seems that Jim has dyed himself red in and out, he sees the world, and especially Thai politics through red-tinted glasses and is seemingly unable (or unwilling which then smacks of intellectual disonesty) to view the world outside of those glasses.
Granted the current killings are horrendous, but the net of suspicion can be wide and far reaching.
1. Simple revenge killings from other hua khanen or revenge killings of this nak leng by other nak leng types (easier given that the state will be more than happy to look the other way or drag their feet in the murder investigations). You could argue this is state-sponsored, but if you argue this way than the earlier “Jim Taylor” arguments for the killings of drug dealers during the war on drugs and that Thaksin is not responsible for much is moot.
2. These are state sponsored killings and Jim’s “sources” are 100% correct. Of course we know that Jim’s sources can never be doubted because they unearthed hundreds and hundreds of bodies that were killed and put into army trucks and driven out to be burned/buried/destroyed/fed to alligators/fed to pigs (just watched Snatch again last night) in Songkran of 2009.
3. That after taking over Rajprasong for 2-3 months, businesses in the area, and some lucrative street area/owners/gangsters/mafia, and all various reincarnations are enacting revenge killings for lost income. Some played nice, even giving ‘donations’ to the Reds and their leaders in hope that arson would be avoided (ie: protection money), but alas no avail. It is very possible these people have hired guns doing various jobs.
With too many possibilities its too damning to blame any 1 party to it except the media, and the police. Why are neither doing thorough and deep investigations to come down to the truth? I fear the answer is deep-rooted into “Thai-ness’…. wonder who’s in charge of that.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Hi everyone, I just wanted to clarify a few things about my article:
– Regarding Jim’s comment (#1), I’ll discuss the “stacking” of the Constitutional Court and other articles related to that institution in my next article.
– When I said “heavy discount,” I was trying to be coy with a euphemism (hence the quotes). The comments are correct in that the crux of the matter was the conflict of interest – allegedly, the price was suspiciously below market rates because of that conflict of interest.
– Regarding Simon’s comment (# 14), I agree that in the majority of cases, the Thai judiciary is still one of the strongest institutions in the country (the Asia Foundation poll I cited certainly suggests so). Also, I agree that the king’s 2006 speech could be read different ways. However, my larger points were 1) the speech was widely interpreted as an appeal to the judiciary to resolve the political crisis, but 2) the politicization of the judiciary, to the extent that it’s happened, did not simply begin after that speech (for instance, the latest International Crisis Group tries to draw a direct causal connection).
Thanks for your comments!
Enemies, foreign and domestic
Ozorro,(comment 76) I’m curious to know what Iapologized for and where I apologized.
The 13th General Election in Malaysia
it is easy to comment the ruling Government with everything wrong that is done by them.
No one really look at the greater good .
Let us examine the Opposition – are they better of with them now running 5 states. How can people say that the Government is running crooked election or maybe people are blinded by rage until cannot see.
Selangor is a cartoon state now , with a lot of rubbish coming out from the state government.
Penang – maybe we can describe as a double faced government.
Kedah- tak apa state because GOD is great
Kelantan – always good because have suppose good leaders but with all the sins there is that what is good.
Perak – have a lot of Gila Talak YBs.
That is the reality of the matter
Big questions for Thailand
In liberal democracies in the West the merging of politics and business is a covert activity, often at complete odds with publicly expressed political platforms.
Under Thaksin it was almost fully open, backed up by such ideas as “rich people cannot be corrupted” and that country needs “capable” men in charge and that opposing them was unpatriotic.
There are great many definitions of fascism and quite often the label itself gets meaningless when attached to anything on the Internet but you’d be surprised how TRT rule fits into many of the definitions almost perfectly, especially in the late years when the supporters and the enemies were defined and visions of the future were laid out.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Michael #16 (Dickie S #12, 13)
so, you are frightened, dont know what to do
maybe you should talk to your fellow Thais who have worked it out
if Thailand is ruled by a democracy you dont need to be paralysed, because democracy gives a solution to a “bad” government
the solution is to work to make sure that the bad (in your view) government is voted out at the next election
whereas when you have a dictatorship, ruled by the amart/military hidden hands then you are right to be scared because their is no solution, you only can gripe and complain in private, like everyone is doing now
dont worry who wins the next election, as long as the royals/privy council/military are forbidden to interfere then the government can only last as long as it keeps performing to get enough votes from the people
Thailand: A Battle Ground for the New Cold War?
chris beale #13
re Indonesia vs Thailand suggest check out:
2nd interview on
http://tinyurl.com/2bunr8t
and, all of the following, especially the penultimate paragraph
http://tinyurl.com/2ce9x5o
Thailand: A Battle Ground for the New Cold War?
Christoffer Larsson #18
[email protected] should do the trick… thank you
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Dickie Simpkins #13
as I am sure you must know but for some reason dont/wont say…
– the royals/privy council/military are in control
– they are the origin of the mythical “thainess” (meaning anything they agree with)
– they control what Abhisit and the government can do
– they control what the police can do
so state sponsored means whatever the royals/privy council/military want… it was the same in Thaksins day as now
and guess who cannot be called to account, prosecuted by the police and the judiciary?
now, were you just avoiding a minefield by not stating this or did you just want to keep some story going?
meanwhile at least we should respect that Jim is out in the field interviewing people, getting some real life stories… we are the ones pontificating about ultimate structures and hypothesing on reasons
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Simon #14, not sure what you mean about the judicary actually working well? it really depends on the judges who are sitting in the various courts…It hs been stacked at all levels after the coup and bribes of extended tenure for another ten years (judges can now retire at seventy years of age); mostly chosen for as anti-Thaksinites all now firmly embedded in the system to ensure a continued flow of skewed decisions and control and regulation according to the anti-democratic 2007 Constitution. A key element of this was to protect coup-makers and these “independent bodies” from any future prosecution. Many of these bodies will be in power until 2013/2015 to make sure Thai Rak Tha (TRT) and Thaksin (who has no aspiration to return to politics anyway) will never reappear again on the political landscape. Here’s what the king said back in 25 April 06
[King’s speech to Supreme Court judges]. In relation to Article 7 (1997 Thai Constitution) [see Michael Connors 2008 “Artyicles of faith: the failure of royal liberalism in Thailand” – though I do not agree with all of this]. King said you cannot refer to this Article in relation to appointing PM. My trans.: “I’m always asked to appoint PM outside of the democratic regime, but I have difficulty to appoint PM under these conditions. In relation to article 7 this is a worrying reference: I’m sorry to have to say this is like governing as р╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕з (orgy/slipshod/perfunctory manner) following rules that are made up on the run. Thailand will be sunk in Ocean like a large ship- going down to the bottom of the sea; [we] need to act according to wisdom. Nation is not in need of “revitalisation” р╕Бр╕╣р╣Йр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ (as Sondhi Lim stated)! so why keep saying this! No need to revive the nation under good management; fight for fairness…It is irrational to refer to Article 7: you who are judging from the Supreme Court are smart, intelligent, thinkers, should consider about proper implementation. If not a full parliament it is not going to work (think about mechanisms to make things work/I think it р╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕з/ You can’t pass it to the king to act…It has to be the courts…If you follow the law we would not be able to work because we don’t have 500 (400?) members of parliament. You must look into how to make it work. (reference to boycott by opposition to election in April 2006, where 281 of 400 constituency seats having only a TRT candidate and TRT won close to 16 million votes) Look again at Article 7: The king cannot order this because it has no rule or regulation to support the Constitution. I always follow the constitution. This request (Article 7) does not appear in the constitution.” Those who know the boackground will see there is no ambiguity here about who is getting ticked off!
http://tna.mcot.net/royal.php?clip_id=25172
Malays should not fear!
GL, It’s me again. Culturally, most Malays’ worldview can be wrapped up in this nutshell: whatever you eat cannot be seen. I hope this explains their admission quota to higher education.Their last colonalist master gave them this albeit temporary headstart, Article 3/153. They were far-sighted bunch sent to govern Malaya. Their understanding of the Malays was precise, re: “Malay” entry in older Brittanica enclopd.. OMA , was not that a bit below the belt? I like to counter my Oxford/unabr dictionary for ‘durian’: smells like hell but tastes like heaven.
The British must have enough time to do strategic planning during the Jap Occupation in India. Gandhi in the name of ‘ahimsa’ had fasted every single time his supporters became violent. And more violence post Gandhi! Malayan Union gave non-Malay (those who arrived before 1946)a chance to become citizens. British’s way to punish the Sultans for being too nice to the Japanese? or something for something? Datuk Onn Jaffar (orange) and his mob would have come with their ‘parangs’ and you just could not hit heads as in Inia. They had that Allah-chosen mandate to cut down any infidels in their way. The colonalist masters might experienced some of these ferocious Malays.You see the idiom ‘to run amok’ would have been real as the Redshirts’ actions in the recent Thai incidence and probably be very bloody had the British not given in. The Karens were promised independence by the British and they were not around to be held responsible afterwards. My friend late Gen Bo Mya had often complained about this farang promise.Then Malayan Chinese Association might be more interested in the prospect of the gaining independence on the second try as the ‘smooth sailing party.’ The Alliance Party of Malaya.
Malay right in Art 3/153 has been a ‘no debate’ item even in the parliament. I believe everyone was considered equal under that constitution on Mederka Day Aug 31, 1957 and waiting for Art. 3/153 to phase out in 15 years. The Bristish wanted peaceful of different races and creeds. The sad lesson in the Subcontinent was still fresh in their memory.
The Malaysia idea to have Singapore in the equation was not well thought through. Malay leaders had been worried Malay population ratio. Post-war baby boom of the Chinese in rural areas was worrying factor for the Malay leader. With the additions of Sarawak and Sabah; the subtraction of Singapore, Malaysia was boosting its Malay population. The Malays are kampong folks thus their Early Expansion; Late Expansion; Low Stationary demographic transistions timings could differ from the non-Malays’. Most Chinese in Malaysia are pretty apolitical. Whatever they are deprived of they bought fom the Bumiputras. Chinese in Thailand are better off. Chuan Leepai, Chavalit Yongchaiyuth, Anupong Paochinda, Chartchai Choonawan were so e former PMs of Thailand with a Chinese surname in the family name. They are lucky because the King’s mother was a Chinese commoner.
The Malaysian Opposition DAP was the PAP’s Malaysian branch/legacy. Remember how Lee Kuan Yew gave the Malay leader a very very tough time. He had countered those Malay counterparts in Bahasa Melayu. Well he met his equal Mahathir, a backbencher then in some fiery Malaysian Malaysia issue. I always have the impression he shed crocodile tears in a nationally-televized speech after Singapore was booted out of Malaysia. To gain independence?
Malay leaders in Malaysia have nothing too fear. MIC/Malaysian Indians are more political. They came up in force a few years ago and was put down quite easily. Even if the PKR, PAS, & DAP opposition bloc were to lead the country the Malay right in the Federal Constitution Art. 3/153 will ot lose its sanctity.
Enemies, foreign and domestic
Hey Mike 10, can you email me at [email protected]. Would like to see if this is happening in other schools and perhaps do a stry if I can confirm. Thanks Robin
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Dickie S #12 – my concurrence is concurrent with your concurrence re. Somsak & Sri. “Look at the evidence to date,” says Jim Taylor. Yes? I’m waiting… For quite some time now I’ve been flabbergasted by Taylor’s frequent unsubstantiated assertions. One expects academics to have rather more familiarity with the rules of debate than the ‘informed retirees’ one is alarmed to hear arguing on both sides in cafes in the provinces. Surely his credibility in his field relies on his ability to back up his information, or sit on it until further investigation has provided him with real evidence that can be shown. Simply barracking for one side like a football fan can be very harmful to that side, and confuses the issues enormously. I wouldn’t think that Aj. Somsak is a Yellow, but he does tend to back up his arguments with fact, & he, who of all Thai academics, must find it difficult at times to maintain his objectivity, earns a good deal of respect & credibility for his truthful approach.
Dickie S #13, I’ve noticed the same thing with quite a few middle-class Bangkok friends, some of them very hi-so. They are disgusted with the crackdown, cynical about the current proliferation of committees, and very worried about the various spy groups being set up by the govt, as well as the restrictions to free-speech. But they are also fearful of the Red leaders, & the possible backlash if (when?) the Reds get into govt again. I concur.
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
In Thailand, you will often hear politicians, officials, police, etc., use a phrase such as “I hesitate to name names,” or “I won’t bring up his exact name…” when they are criticizing or making implications.
This is not just a Thai trait but it does reflect somewhat on why the phrase is practiced in Thailand – people are only all too ready to sue for criminal defamation.
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
The absolute need to know who the accuser is is bound up in the democratic system of government and the justice system that it oversees. Anonymous allegations protect the accuser and intimidate more effectively and widely than accusations made by those who are identified.
The potential for abuse in anonymous accusations is huge and proven.
A new website for the study of ethnicity in Southeast Asia
i am actually writing an article for college on ethnicity in Southeast Asia and this was very helpful. Thank you
Thailand: A Battle Ground for the New Cold War?
When a country enjoys a reasonable degree of unity, stable, “authoritarian” systems allow greater participation to the interested parties. They can even run meaningless elections like in Japan or Singapore.
In a polarized societies “democracy” shuts off the losing faction altogether so in Thailand, for example, TRT loses access to Democrat talent pool and vice versa.
For many it is probably easier to raise through the ranks in China or Thailand ten-twenty years ago than bet on a wrong horse and end with the losing party of Thailand these days.
Just a thought.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
The judiciary is the only branch of government that actually works well in Thailand. It’s a shame that it tends to be tarred with the same brush as the (deplorable) legislature and executive.
The statement about the King appealing to “resolve the political crisis” in 2006 is innacurate and misleading. In an audience with some judicial recruits he simply appealed for them to do their job responsibly and act with impartiality.
New recruits into the Australian public service get similar lectures as part of their ethics training. It’s hardly controversial advice.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
It is interesting, most upper middle class people I know, just 2 months after the media termed “Red Rampage” are full of contempt for the Abhisit government in private. These people I know wear only yellow and save strong anti-Red words in public or amongst colleagues, but behind closed doors have heavy sympathies for the Red movements (less Thaksin) and are quite emotional given the slate of killings and the ignoramus government following.
There is nothing really being done to promote reconciliation. No real enforcement of laws that establish rule of law, rather selective enforcements of laws to showcase a rule by law for the victors.
There is scent that the winds of change are coming. Will the reds be able to call on a very vocal and a highly Royalist group within Bangkok to join sides or to publicly split with the government? The established judiciary is within (also a minority) this group.
These people are bored with the visible and hidden leaders of ‘both sides’, but side with Yellow because they are happy within the current establishments. Unless of course the Red revolution is only about beheading anyone who disagrees with them and/or just about Thaksin getting his money back. (before all the crazies reply: my point is that it is neither just these, so room for compromise is always available).
where is Senor Enrique Damanche? I miss his posts.
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
Very valid point in Thai context as well…
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Sri #11:
I concur. It seems that Jim has dyed himself red in and out, he sees the world, and especially Thai politics through red-tinted glasses and is seemingly unable (or unwilling which then smacks of intellectual disonesty) to view the world outside of those glasses.
Granted the current killings are horrendous, but the net of suspicion can be wide and far reaching.
1. Simple revenge killings from other hua khanen or revenge killings of this nak leng by other nak leng types (easier given that the state will be more than happy to look the other way or drag their feet in the murder investigations). You could argue this is state-sponsored, but if you argue this way than the earlier “Jim Taylor” arguments for the killings of drug dealers during the war on drugs and that Thaksin is not responsible for much is moot.
2. These are state sponsored killings and Jim’s “sources” are 100% correct. Of course we know that Jim’s sources can never be doubted because they unearthed hundreds and hundreds of bodies that were killed and put into army trucks and driven out to be burned/buried/destroyed/fed to alligators/fed to pigs (just watched Snatch again last night) in Songkran of 2009.
3. That after taking over Rajprasong for 2-3 months, businesses in the area, and some lucrative street area/owners/gangsters/mafia, and all various reincarnations are enacting revenge killings for lost income. Some played nice, even giving ‘donations’ to the Reds and their leaders in hope that arson would be avoided (ie: protection money), but alas no avail. It is very possible these people have hired guns doing various jobs.
With too many possibilities its too damning to blame any 1 party to it except the media, and the police. Why are neither doing thorough and deep investigations to come down to the truth? I fear the answer is deep-rooted into “Thai-ness’…. wonder who’s in charge of that.