FredKorat: You make the situation sound hopeless (and it’s how I often feel about it too)
I take solace from the fact that at least one side is prepared to submit itself to elections, and that in itself offers some small glimmer of hope that things may slowly improve over time.
I cannot really imagine that you are in favor of summary execution, Samson… although the government of the United States is and has been for nearly a decade as was made clear by Dennis Blair before the US Senate.
So it is not just the Thai military and Royal Thai Police who are enthusiasts of summary executions. I am equally sure that many Americans are enthusiasts of summary execution as well.
It may be argued that such the “justice system is too cumbersome” and that such sentiment is the result of citizen frustration.
The cure is for the people, not the cops, to literally take the law into their own hands via decentralization and participatory democracy, not executions.
Thanks for taking the time to read and post a comment! I do appreciate feedback. Just one point though, I don’t mean by any means that the police should act as judge, jury, and executioner. No one teaches that anywhere as far as I know. I do mean that there is some sentiment that the entire criminal justice system has become too cumbersome and that quick, sometimes harsh police action is warranted. The police’s heavy handed tactics in the war on drugs under Thaksin did find support in some circles after all.
#7
“Why don\’t yellows stop complaining about the \”people who accepts bribes for votes\” and get on with the business of buying those same votes so they ~the chosen party~ can finally win a national majority and install a government with electoral legitimacy /”
Laugh a minute stuff. But there is something worth thinking about here. David Brown has suggested that PAD is financed from some higher plane. I have no indication that he is wrong. In which case, one wonders why the full force of that infinite spending power isn’t really evident. Certainly the yellows were not underfunded, but they do not seem to be holding their own against a red group that always claims to be underfunded. It is difficult to fathom the full significance of this. Especially since I continue to find no indication that either side has a monopoly on good sense here. One could hardly call such a bloodstained chapter in Thai history a harmless exercise in voter motivation.
Indeed, it is the continually declared goodwill of both factions towards that higher plane that indicates to me that neither faction can be trusted. (The ultimate stereotype, as endorsed by both sides.) It is perhaps a pity we can no longer just accept their vote-motivation measures on the assumption that they are both basically harmless. Blood HAS now been spilled by both.
So I ask again. What policy? What charisma? What skill? And if those qualities do exist, why is it that they are (in all three cases) incapable of delivering a form of government that is broadly acceptable to both the haves and have-nots.
#14 “some perspective” “how do you think the PAD was funded in all its glory of weapons, razor wire, vehicles, logistics af all sorts, for how long….
just because Sondhi has hyped Thaksin doesnt mean you should ignore some basic facts”
Perspective? Ha! What a laugh! How do you propose that I finance such an expensive deadend investigation? Are you seriously suggesting that I can give you the full perspective on matters that have long been buried under an avalanche ofdosh from both of the succession factions. (Or is it just that you DB have the finances to get to the parts that other laagers cannot reach?)
It’s always been where the PAD gets its money from, and I am no happier about it than you. I DO realise the deeper ramifications of what happened in 1973 and 1976. And ever since.
“just because Sondhi has hyped Thaksin doesnt mean you should ignore some basic facts”
I see the PAD, Sondhi and their ‘financiers’ as an equal threat. Would you care to give me those basic facts? Had it ever occurred to you that the money of both sides has made it almost impossible to establish anything as a fact? I don’t realistically expect to get the inside on anything in this power-struggle. Which is precisely why I have come to believe that the onus is not on the likes of people like me to establish the guilt of either faction, but rather it should be entirely on those factions to prove to me that they are not collectively guilty. Indeed, that collective guilt extends to heights that this site cannot mention.
The Bangkok Post of Sunday, 27 June, has a front-page article about two drug suspects shot dead by the police just this week, both while handcuffed in custody. The police claimed the suspects were shot while trying to grab a police officer’s gun.
#14 “Whatever happened to reason, professionalism, and ethics these days? Would they not be good ingredients for the democratic reconstruction of Thailand? Or has democracy already become a thing of the past?”
The myth of Thai democracy again. I don’t doubt for one minute that those withdrawals were an attempt to oust the Abhiset regime.
Even when some minor degree of reason, professionalism and ethics have been present, the supposed ‘elite’ of this country has always demonstrated itself incapable of respecting those qualities. One might be prepared to cut the Thaksinites a bit of slack, if it weren’t for the absolutely-sitting truth that they are as completely devoid of reason, professionalism and ethics as those others in the ‘amaat’ who conspire against them. One might be prepared to see the various color-coded terrorists as committed political individuals, if it weren’t for the unsavory fact that they seem intent on upholding the time-honored backstabbing traditions of pooyai intrigue.
I’m so not going to talk about spiritual aspect of Ghandi since the red doesn’t have that “spiritual leader” like that of Ghandi, Mao, Lenin, or Ho. Furthermore, there are so many interpretation to his action and no one can be sure of what the man is actually thinking. We can never know whether he develop the “non-corporation” over time or he think of that initially.
I think you are wrong: the case of non-violence cannot be easily tainted for someone like Gandhi.
I beg you read what happened in Kheda.
Anyhow, let me say again that I’m not selling Ghandi short, I respected his non-violence/non-corporation cause, but Thailand is more similar to France in 1789 than India in 1946. One main reason being that, in case of Thailand, it is a crash of the conservative and the progressive, no matter how much the red trying to spread their voice, they will never get all of the population to support them.
I see the Thai military having a malign effect on virtually everything in Thailand and particularly the Police.
The military, and the Border Patrol Police, a quasi military force, claim allegiance to the monarchy rather than the government or people and are able to act effectively without accountability.
This makes there relationship with the Police fraught with difficulty and wherever they appear together it appears soldiers can order the police around and on occasion actually place the police in direct danger.
For example during the recent red standoff there was a pitched battle with rifles and grenades between soldiers and police at the Sanam Luang police station. Also at one stage the police were forced to march ahead of soldiers under threat of being shot if they avoided confronting the protesters.
Peoples view of the police is formed through day to day interactions on the roads and of course the crime reenactments and reporting noted in the article.
The article also fails to mention that the overt rich in Thai society are able to ignore the police and only on rare occasions actually risk fines or arrest. Anyone driving a gold or black BMW or Mercedes with darkened windows can behave as they wish on the roads.
At a deeper and veery pervasive level the fact of military and rich peoples power to ignore the police causes people contempt for the police and results in low expectations of any worthwhile legal recourse especially if someone of the “rich” is involved..
The article is interesting for its historical glimpses but very shallow in its analysis.
Thank you Sam Deedes, I’ve downloaded and will read your report.
To me the most salient feature of Thai unions was the support of big, state unions for the Yellow PAD. That gave me the idea that unions were a management artifact, unconnected to workers at all.
The nation railroad unions failed to support their locals and members in Hat Yai, too, as I remember, when they refused to operate unsafe equipment there some several months back.
The garment workers in Thailand lost their fight with their exploiters and are now trying to do without outside management all together. I wish them the best of luck. I hope they can create a human “brand” of clothing that catches on with western yuppies. Unfortunately, price cuts conscience everytime.
Unions everywhere have been broken by globalization and the exploitation of the Chinese. It will have to be Chinese unions that reinstate union power world wide. I understand that is beginning to happen now.
In wars the victors write the history and the government of Thailand has always been at war with the people.
The fact that they never (see the military’s 2007 charter), ever explain what “national security” means and the fact that “national security” is always invoked to override any and every human right, including the right to life itself, demonstrates the contempt with which the amat holds the people of Thailand.
Historians are people. They are therefore contemptible.
A 1998 FEER report, for example, described a drug bust in Suphanburi intentionally conducted under “the gaze of scores of reporters and cameramen.” Despite the glare, the police felt no qualms about shooting (off-camera but within earshot) six suspects dead, all of whom were handcuffed. Sanoh Thienthong, then Minister of Interior, said afterwards that the suspects deserved to die.
RATCHABURI : A member of a drug gang who killed a policeman at a checkpoint was shot dead by police at his apartment hours later.
He is the second member of the gang to be killed by police since early May.
Manit Toommuang, alias Tong Donsai, 24, was killed at his apartment yesterday, after shooting dead an officer at a checkpoint hours before.
Police captured him after he broke through a police checkpoint in tambon Wang Yen in Bang Phae district of Ratchaburi.
They took him back to his apartment intending to search it, when he allegedly made a grab for an officer’s gun.
Shortly before Manit was shot, he was pictured on his couch. His hands were handcuffed behind his back.
Police say he nonetheless managed to make a grab for the gun, so they shot and killed him.
Still going strong, a la Thaksin.
Summary justice is, after all, still justice…
Please… rely upon the cops as judge, jury, and executioner? Is that what they teach you at Cornell?
To ‘fix’ this problem will require something beyond ‘professionalization’ and ‘transparency,’ for the police is in many ways already both.
And so with all the structural problems in Thailand.
I think a possible strategy is divide and conquer. Have an election, reinstate the 1997 Constitution, amend it as necessary, and then pay special attention to its provisions for decentralization… some detail is afforded here,Thailand: Decentralization, or What Next? (pdf).
What other country has just a national police force, answerable to itself, essentially. No. Provincial, Amphoe and Tambon police each answerable to an elected civilian review board. And pay them. No more “self-financing”.
Same with the courts and the military… with everything really. Decentralize, devolve power, divide, dismember, and conquer the colonial government in Bangkok.
Thailand will have to sort out it’s political problems before anyone can start trying to reform this corrupt, inept force that has the audacity to call itself ‘Royal Police.
Listening to privileged middle-aged men pontificate in TV studios about the virtues of non-violence makes for a deeply uncomfortable experience. It’s very easy for the economist – whose name I’ve forgotten – to criticize the reds for their occasional lapse into violence – though as usual, the case for non-violence is taken as completely self-evident – but when confronted by the full deployment of state repression, what exactly does he expect to happen? And why, in his 20 minutes, if he’s going to stray from the topic of economics, does he pick out the reds for criticism and ignore government assassination? That, coupled with his peculiar claims along the lines of ‘it’s easy to make people think that they’re being ripped off by the rich’ (if they’re not being ripped off, then say it and say why) hardly support his – presumed – claim to academic impartiality. He then goes on to criticize Thaksin for his monopolistic business practices and says that was an example of Thaksin exploiting his fellow countrymen. Well, Thaksin is a capitalist. Of course he exploited his fellow countrymen, that’s how they get their money, but because this guy is beholden to his own – undeclared – ideological interests, he makes the unstated claim that some kinds of exploitation are fine, but that pursued by Thaksin is in some mysterious way exceptionally egregious. Poor. And it put me off watching the second interviewee.
My understanding of the thrust of the paper is that the “abuse” of the Federal Constitution – e.g. Article 153 & 160) is legal.
Hence, what Malaysia needs is a mindset change among the Malays –as other Bumiputera communities e.g. in Sabah & Sarawak and the Orang Asli’s, do not have this problem — which can then lead to interpreting the Federal Constitution following international norms and providing justice to minorities in Malaysia.
p.s. Note that Malaysians (or more specifically non-Malays) do not question the special position of the Malays and its institutions but how this is translated into the socio-political & economic realm that has been troubling – e.g. definition of Bumiputera, affirmative action based on race and not needs, 30% equity, etc.
I realise this is also very similar problem to what is going on in Thailand in relation to the position of the Thai monarchy – which has a special position that is not consistent with a modern progressive democracy.
Australia still doesn’t consider itself part of Asia and still supports the concept of global US hegemony. So APC was nothing new, increase US influence under the banner of global security and Australia as “Americas deputy sheriff in Asia”. It was dead on the same day it was announced.
Diplomats by their very nature tend to be ultra conservatives and Rudd was no exception. Despite Asia’s central role in Australian economics for 40 years they are still just customers, the ever receding US and Europe are still considered family.
There’s an important distinction between handing out money to voters and buying votes. Andrew Walker made this distinction in a comment under a different post. He said:
“There is a big difference between (1) giving someone money in the hope that they will then do something in return and (2) actually buying something.”
The difference is between “vote buying” and “vote soliciting.” The practice of handing out cash that is often referred to in Thai politics is not vote buying, it is vote soliciting. It is fair to condemn the practice of vote soliciting, but don’t confuse it with vote buying.
Also recognize that vote soliciting takes many forms, from making campaign promises to enact particular policies, to busing voters to their polling places, to handing out cash to voters. These practices can be reasonably distinguished and placed along a range from better to worse. But none of them guarantees a vote by any particular voter. Indeed, many voters get cash from multiple candidates, and then vote for … whoever they want. All voters get nice promises from all the candidates and then vote for … whoever they want.
Vote buying guarantees a vote. In my opinion it is inherently wrong because it perverts the purpose of voting. Evidence of significant vote buying should be grounds for voiding an election result.
Evidence of vote solicitation, however, is not grounds for voiding an election, even if it’s the “bad” practice of handing out cash.
The government would like to confuse vote buying with vote solicitation — because it can call “solicitation” “buying” — when it doesn’t like the election result.
We should think more clearly than that, and call the Thai form of “vote buying” what it is: vote solicitation. And then discuss it more rationally.
If you mean that the course of non-violence took time to be achieved amongst a very large number of people, then perhaps yes, you’d be right. Mass agreement to non-violence is not instantaneous. Unfortunately, it is very very very very far from it. But if you’re arguing that, you’re altering the frame of reference of the effectiveness of “non-violence” (ahimsa) itself.
Non-violence (ahimsa) is not first and foremost a “mass movement”. It’s first and foremost “the strength of the soul”. That was Gandhi’s message. He was clear on it. If you disagree, then you can say so; not everyone believes like Gandhi in the soul, and not everyone who believes in the soul believes in it like Gandhi. But M.K. Gandhi said what he said, did what he did, and saw effects. That doesn’t change if we disagree with him.
You speak as if non-violence develops with time. If it can develop and spread with time, it does not develop if the (perceived) leadership compromises. That was Gandhi’s constant message. Time and again, that’s what he said. That’s why he fasted for the “sins” of his associates. He talked the talk. And he walked the walk. Non-violence is the strength of the soul. Start with one person saying a categorical no to violence. That’s the only way non-violence is “in charge”.
Again, that’s what Gandhi said. Given the historical results, I’m not in a position to argue with him.
Mass movement was not Gandhi’s focus from the beginning. As soon as Gandhi had figured out his methods, he did not compromise and he thus progressively got people not to compromise around him. I think you are wrong: the case of non-violence cannot be easily tainted for someone like Gandhi. It never was. If non-violence is “easily” tainted or “easily” perceived as tainted, where is the historical evidence in the case of M.K. Gandhi? He was persistent. He did not give up on suffering for his associates’ violence. It changed the people around him. No one ignores this.
You are selling Gandhi short. I’m sorry, but you are. I love Gandhi to bits. I am not like him. I am not like a saint. Sadly, I’m not. But I do know you aren’t focusing on the amazing thing about Gandhi. You’re selling his real significance short.
Like I said earlier, its was the fight between Indian and British, this is Thai against Thai how do you know who is with who?
Under these circumstances, maybe a real Gandhi would be suffering for “all” the wrongs, not sure which ones he has had some small part in, and thus making people turn a head. If the “sides” are less clear, then the suffering is probably deeper. Sadly.
What would have happened if Natthawut and Arisman spent days hard-headedly fasting and begging outside the PM’s house instead of encouraging people to pour human blood? We’ll never know for sure. Maybe the response could eventually have been one of equal shock. But we don’t know. Because they let themselves be compromised.
The point is, even legally innocent comments like “Red shirted people are easily scared…” are a genuine compromise. Instead of being horrified and suffering for potential violence, (segments of) the UDD leadership speak about potential violence with a loudspeaker. It’s a compromise. UDD is thus open to being seen as “not non-violent” (whatever that will mean in the ears of the listeners). It’s not “one mishap” that’s the problem. It’s inexplicitness in method.
None of this discredits anything the Red Shirts have asked, are asking, and will ask for. The legitimate grievances cannot be discredited. This just points out that any claims to unequivocal non-violence are ultimately shot down by their own compromises in method. Not by “one mishap” or by a media war.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sex, love and vote-buying
FredKorat: You make the situation sound hopeless (and it’s how I often feel about it too)
I take solace from the fact that at least one side is prepared to submit itself to elections, and that in itself offers some small glimmer of hope that things may slowly improve over time.
Thai institutions: Police
I cannot really imagine that you are in favor of summary execution, Samson… although the government of the United States is and has been for nearly a decade as was made clear by Dennis Blair before the US Senate.
It has since been revealed that Barack Obama has ordered the summary execution of a Muslim cleric, an American citizen, on “suspicion” of terrorism.
So it is not just the Thai military and Royal Thai Police who are enthusiasts of summary executions. I am equally sure that many Americans are enthusiasts of summary execution as well.
It may be argued that such the “justice system is too cumbersome” and that such sentiment is the result of citizen frustration.
The cure is for the people, not the cops, to literally take the law into their own hands via decentralization and participatory democracy, not executions.
Thai institutions: Police
Hi John,
Thanks for taking the time to read and post a comment! I do appreciate feedback. Just one point though, I don’t mean by any means that the police should act as judge, jury, and executioner. No one teaches that anywhere as far as I know. I do mean that there is some sentiment that the entire criminal justice system has become too cumbersome and that quick, sometimes harsh police action is warranted. The police’s heavy handed tactics in the war on drugs under Thaksin did find support in some circles after all.
Samson
The challenges for Thailand’s arch-royalist military
[…] Chambers had some useful comments on this at New Mandala not that long ago and they are worth citing in this […]
Sex, love and vote-buying
#7
“Why don\’t yellows stop complaining about the \”people who accepts bribes for votes\” and get on with the business of buying those same votes so they ~the chosen party~ can finally win a national majority and install a government with electoral legitimacy /”
Laugh a minute stuff. But there is something worth thinking about here. David Brown has suggested that PAD is financed from some higher plane. I have no indication that he is wrong. In which case, one wonders why the full force of that infinite spending power isn’t really evident. Certainly the yellows were not underfunded, but they do not seem to be holding their own against a red group that always claims to be underfunded. It is difficult to fathom the full significance of this. Especially since I continue to find no indication that either side has a monopoly on good sense here. One could hardly call such a bloodstained chapter in Thai history a harmless exercise in voter motivation.
Indeed, it is the continually declared goodwill of both factions towards that higher plane that indicates to me that neither faction can be trusted. (The ultimate stereotype, as endorsed by both sides.) It is perhaps a pity we can no longer just accept their vote-motivation measures on the assumption that they are both basically harmless. Blood HAS now been spilled by both.
So I ask again. What policy? What charisma? What skill? And if those qualities do exist, why is it that they are (in all three cases) incapable of delivering a form of government that is broadly acceptable to both the haves and have-nots.
Sex, love and vote-buying
#14 “some perspective” “how do you think the PAD was funded in all its glory of weapons, razor wire, vehicles, logistics af all sorts, for how long….
just because Sondhi has hyped Thaksin doesnt mean you should ignore some basic facts”
Perspective? Ha! What a laugh! How do you propose that I finance such an expensive deadend investigation? Are you seriously suggesting that I can give you the full perspective on matters that have long been buried under an avalanche ofdosh from both of the succession factions. (Or is it just that you DB have the finances to get to the parts that other laagers cannot reach?)
It’s always been where the PAD gets its money from, and I am no happier about it than you. I DO realise the deeper ramifications of what happened in 1973 and 1976. And ever since.
“just because Sondhi has hyped Thaksin doesnt mean you should ignore some basic facts”
I see the PAD, Sondhi and their ‘financiers’ as an equal threat. Would you care to give me those basic facts? Had it ever occurred to you that the money of both sides has made it almost impossible to establish anything as a fact? I don’t realistically expect to get the inside on anything in this power-struggle. Which is precisely why I have come to believe that the onus is not on the likes of people like me to establish the guilt of either faction, but rather it should be entirely on those factions to prove to me that they are not collectively guilty. Indeed, that collective guilt extends to heights that this site cannot mention.
Thai institutions: Police
The Bangkok Post of Sunday, 27 June, has a front-page article about two drug suspects shot dead by the police just this week, both while handcuffed in custody. The police claimed the suspects were shot while trying to grab a police officer’s gun.
Thitinan on Thailand’s “Dead-End”
#14 “Whatever happened to reason, professionalism, and ethics these days? Would they not be good ingredients for the democratic reconstruction of Thailand? Or has democracy already become a thing of the past?”
The myth of Thai democracy again. I don’t doubt for one minute that those withdrawals were an attempt to oust the Abhiset regime.
Even when some minor degree of reason, professionalism and ethics have been present, the supposed ‘elite’ of this country has always demonstrated itself incapable of respecting those qualities. One might be prepared to cut the Thaksinites a bit of slack, if it weren’t for the absolutely-sitting truth that they are as completely devoid of reason, professionalism and ethics as those others in the ‘amaat’ who conspire against them. One might be prepared to see the various color-coded terrorists as committed political individuals, if it weren’t for the unsavory fact that they seem intent on upholding the time-honored backstabbing traditions of pooyai intrigue.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Ben – 12
I’m so not going to talk about spiritual aspect of Ghandi since the red doesn’t have that “spiritual leader” like that of Ghandi, Mao, Lenin, or Ho. Furthermore, there are so many interpretation to his action and no one can be sure of what the man is actually thinking. We can never know whether he develop the “non-corporation” over time or he think of that initially.
I think you are wrong: the case of non-violence cannot be easily tainted for someone like Gandhi.
I beg you read what happened in Kheda.
Anyhow, let me say again that I’m not selling Ghandi short, I respected his non-violence/non-corporation cause, but Thailand is more similar to France in 1789 than India in 1946. One main reason being that, in case of Thailand, it is a crash of the conservative and the progressive, no matter how much the red trying to spread their voice, they will never get all of the population to support them.
Thai institutions: Police
I see the Thai military having a malign effect on virtually everything in Thailand and particularly the Police.
The military, and the Border Patrol Police, a quasi military force, claim allegiance to the monarchy rather than the government or people and are able to act effectively without accountability.
This makes there relationship with the Police fraught with difficulty and wherever they appear together it appears soldiers can order the police around and on occasion actually place the police in direct danger.
For example during the recent red standoff there was a pitched battle with rifles and grenades between soldiers and police at the Sanam Luang police station. Also at one stage the police were forced to march ahead of soldiers under threat of being shot if they avoided confronting the protesters.
Peoples view of the police is formed through day to day interactions on the roads and of course the crime reenactments and reporting noted in the article.
The article also fails to mention that the overt rich in Thai society are able to ignore the police and only on rare occasions actually risk fines or arrest. Anyone driving a gold or black BMW or Mercedes with darkened windows can behave as they wish on the roads.
At a deeper and veery pervasive level the fact of military and rich peoples power to ignore the police causes people contempt for the police and results in low expectations of any worthwhile legal recourse especially if someone of the “rich” is involved..
The article is interesting for its historical glimpses but very shallow in its analysis.
Thai institutions: Unions
Thank you Sam Deedes, I’ve downloaded and will read your report.
To me the most salient feature of Thai unions was the support of big, state unions for the Yellow PAD. That gave me the idea that unions were a management artifact, unconnected to workers at all.
The nation railroad unions failed to support their locals and members in Hat Yai, too, as I remember, when they refused to operate unsafe equipment there some several months back.
The garment workers in Thailand lost their fight with their exploiters and are now trying to do without outside management all together. I wish them the best of luck. I hope they can create a human “brand” of clothing that catches on with western yuppies. Unfortunately, price cuts conscience everytime.
Unions everywhere have been broken by globalization and the exploitation of the Chinese. It will have to be Chinese unions that reinstate union power world wide. I understand that is beginning to happen now.
Thai institutions: Archives
In wars the victors write the history and the government of Thailand has always been at war with the people.
The fact that they never (see the military’s 2007 charter), ever explain what “national security” means and the fact that “national security” is always invoked to override any and every human right, including the right to life itself, demonstrates the contempt with which the amat holds the people of Thailand.
Historians are people. They are therefore contemptible.
Thai institutions: Police
Cuffed cop killer shot by police at his home
Still going strong, a la Thaksin.
Please… rely upon the cops as judge, jury, and executioner? Is that what they teach you at Cornell?
And so with all the structural problems in Thailand.
I think a possible strategy is divide and conquer. Have an election, reinstate the 1997 Constitution, amend it as necessary, and then pay special attention to its provisions for decentralization… some detail is afforded here,Thailand: Decentralization, or What Next? (pdf).
What other country has just a national police force, answerable to itself, essentially. No. Provincial, Amphoe and Tambon police each answerable to an elected civilian review board. And pay them. No more “self-financing”.
Same with the courts and the military… with everything really. Decentralize, devolve power, divide, dismember, and conquer the colonial government in Bangkok.
Thai institutions: Police
Thailand will have to sort out it’s political problems before anyone can start trying to reform this corrupt, inept force that has the audacity to call itself ‘Royal Police.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Listening to privileged middle-aged men pontificate in TV studios about the virtues of non-violence makes for a deeply uncomfortable experience. It’s very easy for the economist – whose name I’ve forgotten – to criticize the reds for their occasional lapse into violence – though as usual, the case for non-violence is taken as completely self-evident – but when confronted by the full deployment of state repression, what exactly does he expect to happen? And why, in his 20 minutes, if he’s going to stray from the topic of economics, does he pick out the reds for criticism and ignore government assassination? That, coupled with his peculiar claims along the lines of ‘it’s easy to make people think that they’re being ripped off by the rich’ (if they’re not being ripped off, then say it and say why) hardly support his – presumed – claim to academic impartiality. He then goes on to criticize Thaksin for his monopolistic business practices and says that was an example of Thaksin exploiting his fellow countrymen. Well, Thaksin is a capitalist. Of course he exploited his fellow countrymen, that’s how they get their money, but because this guy is beholden to his own – undeclared – ideological interests, he makes the unstated claim that some kinds of exploitation are fine, but that pursued by Thaksin is in some mysterious way exceptionally egregious. Poor. And it put me off watching the second interviewee.
Origins and evolution of ethnocracy in Malaysia
Thanks for those insights.
My understanding of the thrust of the paper is that the “abuse” of the Federal Constitution – e.g. Article 153 & 160) is legal.
Hence, what Malaysia needs is a mindset change among the Malays –as other Bumiputera communities e.g. in Sabah & Sarawak and the Orang Asli’s, do not have this problem — which can then lead to interpreting the Federal Constitution following international norms and providing justice to minorities in Malaysia.
p.s. Note that Malaysians (or more specifically non-Malays) do not question the special position of the Malays and its institutions but how this is translated into the socio-political & economic realm that has been troubling – e.g. definition of Bumiputera, affirmative action based on race and not needs, 30% equity, etc.
I realise this is also very similar problem to what is going on in Thailand in relation to the position of the Thai monarchy – which has a special position that is not consistent with a modern progressive democracy.
Rudd and the APC – dead in the water?
Australia still doesn’t consider itself part of Asia and still supports the concept of global US hegemony. So APC was nothing new, increase US influence under the banner of global security and Australia as “Americas deputy sheriff in Asia”. It was dead on the same day it was announced.
Diplomats by their very nature tend to be ultra conservatives and Rudd was no exception. Despite Asia’s central role in Australian economics for 40 years they are still just customers, the ever receding US and Europe are still considered family.
Sex, love and vote-buying
There’s an important distinction between handing out money to voters and buying votes. Andrew Walker made this distinction in a comment under a different post. He said:
“There is a big difference between (1) giving someone money in the hope that they will then do something in return and (2) actually buying something.”
The difference is between “vote buying” and “vote soliciting.” The practice of handing out cash that is often referred to in Thai politics is not vote buying, it is vote soliciting. It is fair to condemn the practice of vote soliciting, but don’t confuse it with vote buying.
Also recognize that vote soliciting takes many forms, from making campaign promises to enact particular policies, to busing voters to their polling places, to handing out cash to voters. These practices can be reasonably distinguished and placed along a range from better to worse. But none of them guarantees a vote by any particular voter. Indeed, many voters get cash from multiple candidates, and then vote for … whoever they want. All voters get nice promises from all the candidates and then vote for … whoever they want.
Vote buying guarantees a vote. In my opinion it is inherently wrong because it perverts the purpose of voting. Evidence of significant vote buying should be grounds for voiding an election result.
Evidence of vote solicitation, however, is not grounds for voiding an election, even if it’s the “bad” practice of handing out cash.
The government would like to confuse vote buying with vote solicitation — because it can call “solicitation” “buying” — when it doesn’t like the election result.
We should think more clearly than that, and call the Thai form of “vote buying” what it is: vote solicitation. And then discuss it more rationally.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Tarrin // Jun 27, 2010 at 10:47 am — 11
If you mean that the course of non-violence took time to be achieved amongst a very large number of people, then perhaps yes, you’d be right. Mass agreement to non-violence is not instantaneous. Unfortunately, it is very very very very far from it. But if you’re arguing that, you’re altering the frame of reference of the effectiveness of “non-violence” (ahimsa) itself.
Non-violence (ahimsa) is not first and foremost a “mass movement”. It’s first and foremost “the strength of the soul”. That was Gandhi’s message. He was clear on it. If you disagree, then you can say so; not everyone believes like Gandhi in the soul, and not everyone who believes in the soul believes in it like Gandhi. But M.K. Gandhi said what he said, did what he did, and saw effects. That doesn’t change if we disagree with him.
You speak as if non-violence develops with time. If it can develop and spread with time, it does not develop if the (perceived) leadership compromises. That was Gandhi’s constant message. Time and again, that’s what he said. That’s why he fasted for the “sins” of his associates. He talked the talk. And he walked the walk. Non-violence is the strength of the soul. Start with one person saying a categorical no to violence. That’s the only way non-violence is “in charge”.
Again, that’s what Gandhi said. Given the historical results, I’m not in a position to argue with him.
Mass movement was not Gandhi’s focus from the beginning. As soon as Gandhi had figured out his methods, he did not compromise and he thus progressively got people not to compromise around him. I think you are wrong: the case of non-violence cannot be easily tainted for someone like Gandhi. It never was. If non-violence is “easily” tainted or “easily” perceived as tainted, where is the historical evidence in the case of M.K. Gandhi? He was persistent. He did not give up on suffering for his associates’ violence. It changed the people around him. No one ignores this.
You are selling Gandhi short. I’m sorry, but you are. I love Gandhi to bits. I am not like him. I am not like a saint. Sadly, I’m not. But I do know you aren’t focusing on the amazing thing about Gandhi. You’re selling his real significance short.
Like I said earlier, its was the fight between Indian and British, this is Thai against Thai how do you know who is with who?
Under these circumstances, maybe a real Gandhi would be suffering for “all” the wrongs, not sure which ones he has had some small part in, and thus making people turn a head. If the “sides” are less clear, then the suffering is probably deeper. Sadly.
What would have happened if Natthawut and Arisman spent days hard-headedly fasting and begging outside the PM’s house instead of encouraging people to pour human blood? We’ll never know for sure. Maybe the response could eventually have been one of equal shock. But we don’t know. Because they let themselves be compromised.
The point is, even legally innocent comments like “Red shirted people are easily scared…” are a genuine compromise. Instead of being horrified and suffering for potential violence, (segments of) the UDD leadership speak about potential violence with a loudspeaker. It’s a compromise. UDD is thus open to being seen as “not non-violent” (whatever that will mean in the ears of the listeners). It’s not “one mishap” that’s the problem. It’s inexplicitness in method.
None of this discredits anything the Red Shirts have asked, are asking, and will ask for. The legitimate grievances cannot be discredited. This just points out that any claims to unequivocal non-violence are ultimately shot down by their own compromises in method. Not by “one mishap” or by a media war.
Rudd and the APC – dead in the water?
For those non-Australians here, should we regard the resignation of Rudd as a move to the right in Australia?