Tunku Abdul Raham Putra, the first PM of Malaysia, was sure an exceptional character in many respects. As a royal, he was privileged. He was the first person in his State of Kedah to earn a degree overseas. 3 of his 4 wives were not Malays, was another privilege. His mother was a daughter of some Thai noble (Luang Kleb). TARP saved many Chinese during the Japanese Occupation coz the Japanese soldiers respected him as a prince as they would have respected their Emperor. He sure looked like the hero in the Schindler’s List movie!
Articles 153 and 160 of the Malaysian Constitution have the Agung protect the Malays their rights and privileges. TARP had a soft touch for the Chinese. 2 of wives were Chinese, his formative years in Penang Free School where majority of the students were Chinese. He probably spoke Penang Hokkian dialect. At he was in Bkk’s Debsirin School where students were mostly Thai Chinese had Thai-sounding names. That was give Thai Chinese equal standing. If you were borned non-Malay, as Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew a fmr Malaysian. He has been at war with the Malaysian gov’t after joining Malaysia for short and calculated sting in 1963. Bangsa Malaysia/Malaysian Malaysia This issue is as recent as the UMNO Meeting in Johore Baharu when someone raised this inequality issue. A hazy problem was the excuse given by some high official.
As much as TARP wanted be fair to the non-Malays in writing the constitution, he failed coz he was among those who wounldn’t give a damn. The Bristish knew the different races well enough to go along with the constitution drafting crowd. In less than 3 years of the independence Islam became the national religion. About 12 year later, May 13, 1969, riot broke out. It could have been worse if the Malays had not been given their rights and privileges as the have-nots. Running amok must come from this part of the world.
The Chinese survived by going undertable whenever possible. Mid-way in TARPS’s long political career he coined this word ‘Bhumiputra and non- ‘/Son of land or earth to sugar-coat the bitterness. This explains my decision to stay put in Thailand NE after my retirement. Away from Ethno-Theocratic Malaysia.
Tarrin, donations to the parties are officially registered. Quick search gave 130 mil to TRT vs 39 mil to Dems in 2006 (until August).
On the eve of 2005 elections Pojamarn caused a bit of a furor with giving TRT 50 mil herself.
Nganadeeleg,
I don’t think vote buying is the main reason Democrats “lose” elections and, more importantly, I don’t think international observers can do anything about it anyway. Thailand has long got over basic stuff the observers are supposed to monitor – ballot staffing, counting problems, obstructing voters from attending etc.
I don’t think you understand my position, I don’t have a problem with who wins the elections here, I have a problem with what they do AFTER winning those elections, specifically I had problems with Thaksin trying to “vote” his way out of the court and PPP trying to push for his amnesty.
I don’t care if Dems get booted out and PTP forms the next government, I will care if they overstep their mandate.
Vote buying is a real and longstanding tradition across the board, and its kind of useless to pretend otherwise.
I don’t have a problem with people taking cash off politicians per se, you can hardly blame them given the circumstances. The more interesting question is does it actually influence people’s voting behaviour?
I don’t know firsthand, not being a voter, but anecdotally from discussions with provincial friends some have complained that privacy can be an issue when casting the ballot, and sometimes it is possible to observe whether the recipient voted as per their ‘undertaking’ or not (you’d have to think this is an issue that could easily be fixed). Others have told me that their votes were bought not by some anonymous person in the street as you might imagine, but by via influential family members recruited for the task.
Personally I think vote buying is to some extent a manifestation of the patronage system. There is a much stronger cultural tendency for people to go out of their way to return favours. You help me (cash), I’ll help you (vote). The average Oz voter might sneer at such a proposition, but this isn’t Oz.
Who are they trying to convince? The country is polarized. The red shirts are not going to be convinced that they were paid to protest and the yellows opinions have not changed. All they are doing is putting up further roadblocks to reconciliation. If the govt continues to suppress red shirt media, charge their leaders with terrorism, etc, then they can be assured that the next time the red shirts take to the streets they will not stop until they have total victory. That means a revolution. If you live in Bangkok you better get ready for it.
I don’t doubt that the mine has generated a lot of revenue for the local economy, but it would be interesting to know how it was distributed and what kind of salary/working conditions the employees have.
Where is this quote take from? It’s difficult to make any sort of judgment on it without knowing. (Cheers.)
Since it does not seem to be a direct quote, the quality and type of the journalism and commentary is also a major factor. Perhaps it is best not to only focus on finding in this quote the “misunderstanding” of PM Abhisit, but also on those who “quote” — or “use” — him in this way. It’s up to the press to quote, react, and comment appropriately, too. And it’s up to us to read Piece X in the spirit of Piece X and only take away from it what we can or could from reporting/commentary/journalism/press statements of that type. Fortunately or unfortunately, the issues are very broad.
StanG: If you (or anyone else, including the thai elite) think vote buying is the reason your team loses elections, then the obvious thing for you to do is to support calls to have international observers/scrutineers of the elections.
If you don’t support that call, then it’s obvious that you don’t really think it is a problem (same goes for those Dems, like Chuan, and other yellows who complain about it !)
I do not have much to input, but I would like to thank the original author and several other posters for suggesting taking the whole context and trying to de-emotionalize, rationalize an issue like this one. Even without proposing solutions and slap-bang answers, posing problems in realistic terms is incredibly important.
I think that’s a bigger issue with grass root vote buying is the MP vote buying. It is much more efficient if you asked me…
Yes Tarrin buying MPs certainly is. When should we start looking at it? Just this government or further back?
I would love to know how Chalerm ended up in Thaksin’s party, and all those provincial godfathers, they got in there too. In fact how come Newin was there before he switched?
Vote buying also has discoursive significance, which has been guiding the actions of elite policy-makers and constitution drafters for many years (and is still doing so). It might then be argued that it is not vote buying itself hat is important. Rather it is the “obsession” of the Thai elite with this issue (foreign academics ought not to fall into this trap, although many of them have also been obsessed with this issue, though probably for different reasons).
The elite’s own endemic corruption, for example, figures much less prominently. Why should military and civil bureaucrats or academics, who have corrupted huge amounts of money and thus impacted on the rights of others, as well as on the furthering of the public good, be allowed to agitate against vote buying? And what is the purpose that they do so?
Anyway, vote buying is but one factor in the (or rather “some”)voters’ decision-making. It is high time to produce a more realistic model of the Thai voter than the usual “poverty–patronage–vote buying–voting.” For an article on the discourse of vote buying (and the word “obsession”), see
Callahan, William A. 2005. “The Discourse of Vote Buying and Political Reform in Thailand.” Pacific Affairs 78 (1):95-114.
I’ve seen many discussion about grass root vote buying, but why not many people ever talk about the vote buying in the house itself? the Newin camp for example, we can obviously see that Newin switch side to ensured his innocent in his corruption case (which also shows that the court can be manipulate), I think that’s a bigger issue with grass root vote buying is the MP vote buying. It is much more efficient if you asked me, you can check who is voting for what in the house and you dont have to deal with many people, just enough to make sure you get enough vote.
Democrat war chest has always been a lot smaller than TRT.
You must be kidding, the Dem money basket included TPIPL, CP, BBL, Sarasin group, and more. As for CP case I happened to know them personally and I can assured you that they had been the main supporter for the Dem since even before the inception of TRT. Please go to Forbes and check the top 20 richest individual in Thailand, I can tell you that about 5-6 of the people there are openly supporting the Dem.
Andrew, if that was all you were saying, there would be nothing to discuss. Your argument was really an attempt to excuse vote buying and it was fallacious.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I took this video to be trying to highlight the complexity of the farmers/agricultural voting preferences? Didn’t you say that in your video?
The Lao govt, people at the WB and ADB must have read through the WCD and noted the many examples of this sort of thing happening. How much negligence can they therefore be accused of?
At first, Warr’s argument seems well-constructed and the graph certainly supports the conclusion that economics was the underlying force behind the Red Shirts’ political phenomenon. However, the argument is weakened by serious flaws. First, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. The argument that the richest 20% quintile group has risen at the expense of the rest does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it’s an economic issue because the richest 20% quintile group in other countries generates what economists call “the trickle down effect” in the distribution of wealth. This didn’t happen in Thailand due to the political issue of the network of monarchic cronyism and monopoly in the use of force.
I am skeptical about Warr’s argument that economic reasons are responsible for the Red Shirts’ crisis. The increase of income inequality, and the national income skew in favor of skilled, capital, and land: all these factors are happening in most market economy countries.
Secondly, the argument shows a possible causal fallacy in assuming that without weapons there would have no violent response to the protesters. The empirical evidence has shown that the monarchy and the military had used force in response to unarmed protests in 1973, 1976, and 1992. In fact, it was an arms struggle and somewhat equal power between the Communist Party of Thailand and the military that led to a peaceful agreement. The Philippines, Burma, and India have different internal contexts so to say that the situations are the same is too generalized.
Finally, the cited study may be based on an inappropriate sample by focusing on the pro-Aphisit and anti-Thaksin analysis. Aphisit moved the level and growth rate of real quarterly GDP from +5% during Thaksin to –7.5%. With the same global financial crisis, other countries in the region did not perform poorly as Aphisit.
The argument would have been compelling if Warr also showed evidence of how the Crown Property and the King became the largest land-owner and the richest family in the world. Ignoring the study of the richest man among the richest 20% quintile group has made Warr’s argument fall into the selection-bias category with the implication of other motives.
Colin, yes I think there are some interesting differences between the picture in relation to the government’s agricultural spending and the picture in relation to credit provision. Economics is complex. And so is politics. Simple explanations are usually inadequate. That’s why I talk about the need for nuance, and awareness of long-term processes, in the videos. Your comments here highlight the complexity of rural people’s electoral decision making.
Thanks Peter. I think you have missed the point of my post. The point was not to compare the impacts (desirable or otherwise) of two types of “buying” – (affection or votes). The point was to suggest that characterising complex relationships as involving “buying”, without some knowledge of the full context of exchange, involves reliance on dehumanising stereotypes.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Origins and evolution of ethnocracy in Malaysia
Tunku Abdul Raham Putra, the first PM of Malaysia, was sure an exceptional character in many respects. As a royal, he was privileged. He was the first person in his State of Kedah to earn a degree overseas. 3 of his 4 wives were not Malays, was another privilege. His mother was a daughter of some Thai noble (Luang Kleb). TARP saved many Chinese during the Japanese Occupation coz the Japanese soldiers respected him as a prince as they would have respected their Emperor. He sure looked like the hero in the Schindler’s List movie!
Articles 153 and 160 of the Malaysian Constitution have the Agung protect the Malays their rights and privileges. TARP had a soft touch for the Chinese. 2 of wives were Chinese, his formative years in Penang Free School where majority of the students were Chinese. He probably spoke Penang Hokkian dialect. At he was in Bkk’s Debsirin School where students were mostly Thai Chinese had Thai-sounding names. That was give Thai Chinese equal standing. If you were borned non-Malay, as Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew a fmr Malaysian. He has been at war with the Malaysian gov’t after joining Malaysia for short and calculated sting in 1963. Bangsa Malaysia/Malaysian Malaysia This issue is as recent as the UMNO Meeting in Johore Baharu when someone raised this inequality issue. A hazy problem was the excuse given by some high official.
As much as TARP wanted be fair to the non-Malays in writing the constitution, he failed coz he was among those who wounldn’t give a damn. The Bristish knew the different races well enough to go along with the constitution drafting crowd. In less than 3 years of the independence Islam became the national religion. About 12 year later, May 13, 1969, riot broke out. It could have been worse if the Malays had not been given their rights and privileges as the have-nots. Running amok must come from this part of the world.
The Chinese survived by going undertable whenever possible. Mid-way in TARPS’s long political career he coined this word ‘Bhumiputra and non- ‘/Son of land or earth to sugar-coat the bitterness. This explains my decision to stay put in Thailand NE after my retirement. Away from Ethno-Theocratic Malaysia.
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Tarrin, donations to the parties are officially registered. Quick search gave 130 mil to TRT vs 39 mil to Dems in 2006 (until August).
On the eve of 2005 elections Pojamarn caused a bit of a furor with giving TRT 50 mil herself.
Nganadeeleg,
I don’t think vote buying is the main reason Democrats “lose” elections and, more importantly, I don’t think international observers can do anything about it anyway. Thailand has long got over basic stuff the observers are supposed to monitor – ballot staffing, counting problems, obstructing voters from attending etc.
I don’t think you understand my position, I don’t have a problem with who wins the elections here, I have a problem with what they do AFTER winning those elections, specifically I had problems with Thaksin trying to “vote” his way out of the court and PPP trying to push for his amnesty.
I don’t care if Dems get booted out and PTP forms the next government, I will care if they overstep their mandate.
Sex, love and vote-buying
Vote buying is a real and longstanding tradition across the board, and its kind of useless to pretend otherwise.
I don’t have a problem with people taking cash off politicians per se, you can hardly blame them given the circumstances. The more interesting question is does it actually influence people’s voting behaviour?
I don’t know firsthand, not being a voter, but anecdotally from discussions with provincial friends some have complained that privacy can be an issue when casting the ballot, and sometimes it is possible to observe whether the recipient voted as per their ‘undertaking’ or not (you’d have to think this is an issue that could easily be fixed). Others have told me that their votes were bought not by some anonymous person in the street as you might imagine, but by via influential family members recruited for the task.
Personally I think vote buying is to some extent a manifestation of the patronage system. There is a much stronger cultural tendency for people to go out of their way to return favours. You help me (cash), I’ll help you (vote). The average Oz voter might sneer at such a proposition, but this isn’t Oz.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Suzie,
You seem to be trying very hard to discredit anti-Thaksin commentary.
Some say its an economic issue, some say it isn’t. Please, red shirt supporters, make up your mind???
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Who are they trying to convince? The country is polarized. The red shirts are not going to be convinced that they were paid to protest and the yellows opinions have not changed. All they are doing is putting up further roadblocks to reconciliation. If the govt continues to suppress red shirt media, charge their leaders with terrorism, etc, then they can be assured that the next time the red shirts take to the streets they will not stop until they have total victory. That means a revolution. If you live in Bangkok you better get ready for it.
Economic impact of the Sepon mine
I don’t doubt that the mine has generated a lot of revenue for the local economy, but it would be interesting to know how it was distributed and what kind of salary/working conditions the employees have.
Launch of Ji Ungpakorn’s new book
Frank G Anderson // Jun 25, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Where is this quote take from? It’s difficult to make any sort of judgment on it without knowing. (Cheers.)
Since it does not seem to be a direct quote, the quality and type of the journalism and commentary is also a major factor. Perhaps it is best not to only focus on finding in this quote the “misunderstanding” of PM Abhisit, but also on those who “quote” — or “use” — him in this way. It’s up to the press to quote, react, and comment appropriately, too. And it’s up to us to read Piece X in the spirit of Piece X and only take away from it what we can or could from reporting/commentary/journalism/press statements of that type. Fortunately or unfortunately, the issues are very broad.
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
StanG: If you (or anyone else, including the thai elite) think vote buying is the reason your team loses elections, then the obvious thing for you to do is to support calls to have international observers/scrutineers of the elections.
If you don’t support that call, then it’s obvious that you don’t really think it is a problem (same goes for those Dems, like Chuan, and other yellows who complain about it !)
Sex, love and vote-buying
I do not have much to input, but I would like to thank the original author and several other posters for suggesting taking the whole context and trying to de-emotionalize, rationalize an issue like this one. Even without proposing solutions and slap-bang answers, posing problems in realistic terms is incredibly important.
Sex, love and vote-buying
Tarrin – 25
I think that’s a bigger issue with grass root vote buying is the MP vote buying. It is much more efficient if you asked me…
Yes Tarrin buying MPs certainly is. When should we start looking at it? Just this government or further back?
I would love to know how Chalerm ended up in Thaksin’s party, and all those provincial godfathers, they got in there too. In fact how come Newin was there before he switched?
Sex, love and vote-buying
Vote buying also has discoursive significance, which has been guiding the actions of elite policy-makers and constitution drafters for many years (and is still doing so). It might then be argued that it is not vote buying itself hat is important. Rather it is the “obsession” of the Thai elite with this issue (foreign academics ought not to fall into this trap, although many of them have also been obsessed with this issue, though probably for different reasons).
The elite’s own endemic corruption, for example, figures much less prominently. Why should military and civil bureaucrats or academics, who have corrupted huge amounts of money and thus impacted on the rights of others, as well as on the furthering of the public good, be allowed to agitate against vote buying? And what is the purpose that they do so?
Anyway, vote buying is but one factor in the (or rather “some”)voters’ decision-making. It is high time to produce a more realistic model of the Thai voter than the usual “poverty–patronage–vote buying–voting.” For an article on the discourse of vote buying (and the word “obsession”), see
Callahan, William A. 2005. “The Discourse of Vote Buying and Political Reform in Thailand.” Pacific Affairs 78 (1):95-114.
On ASEAN’s Burma policy
ASEAN will follow the lead of the U.N. – make a few noises, then do nothing.
Sex, love and vote-buying
I’ve seen many discussion about grass root vote buying, but why not many people ever talk about the vote buying in the house itself? the Newin camp for example, we can obviously see that Newin switch side to ensured his innocent in his corruption case (which also shows that the court can be manipulate), I think that’s a bigger issue with grass root vote buying is the MP vote buying. It is much more efficient if you asked me, you can check who is voting for what in the house and you dont have to deal with many people, just enough to make sure you get enough vote.
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
StanG – 52
Democrat war chest has always been a lot smaller than TRT.
You must be kidding, the Dem money basket included TPIPL, CP, BBL, Sarasin group, and more. As for CP case I happened to know them personally and I can assured you that they had been the main supporter for the Dem since even before the inception of TRT. Please go to Forbes and check the top 20 richest individual in Thailand, I can tell you that about 5-6 of the people there are openly supporting the Dem.
Sex, love and vote-buying
Andrew, if that was all you were saying, there would be nothing to discuss. Your argument was really an attempt to excuse vote buying and it was fallacious.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Andrew,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I took this video to be trying to highlight the complexity of the farmers/agricultural voting preferences? Didn’t you say that in your video?
Nam Theun 2: what about the Xe Bang Fai?
The Lao govt, people at the WB and ADB must have read through the WCD and noted the many examples of this sort of thing happening. How much negligence can they therefore be accused of?
None. The perpetrators are the judges.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
At first, Warr’s argument seems well-constructed and the graph certainly supports the conclusion that economics was the underlying force behind the Red Shirts’ political phenomenon. However, the argument is weakened by serious flaws. First, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. The argument that the richest 20% quintile group has risen at the expense of the rest does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it’s an economic issue because the richest 20% quintile group in other countries generates what economists call “the trickle down effect” in the distribution of wealth. This didn’t happen in Thailand due to the political issue of the network of monarchic cronyism and monopoly in the use of force.
I am skeptical about Warr’s argument that economic reasons are responsible for the Red Shirts’ crisis. The increase of income inequality, and the national income skew in favor of skilled, capital, and land: all these factors are happening in most market economy countries.
Secondly, the argument shows a possible causal fallacy in assuming that without weapons there would have no violent response to the protesters. The empirical evidence has shown that the monarchy and the military had used force in response to unarmed protests in 1973, 1976, and 1992. In fact, it was an arms struggle and somewhat equal power between the Communist Party of Thailand and the military that led to a peaceful agreement. The Philippines, Burma, and India have different internal contexts so to say that the situations are the same is too generalized.
Finally, the cited study may be based on an inappropriate sample by focusing on the pro-Aphisit and anti-Thaksin analysis. Aphisit moved the level and growth rate of real quarterly GDP from +5% during Thaksin to –7.5%. With the same global financial crisis, other countries in the region did not perform poorly as Aphisit.
The argument would have been compelling if Warr also showed evidence of how the Crown Property and the King became the largest land-owner and the richest family in the world. Ignoring the study of the richest man among the richest 20% quintile group has made Warr’s argument fall into the selection-bias category with the implication of other motives.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Colin, yes I think there are some interesting differences between the picture in relation to the government’s agricultural spending and the picture in relation to credit provision. Economics is complex. And so is politics. Simple explanations are usually inadequate. That’s why I talk about the need for nuance, and awareness of long-term processes, in the videos. Your comments here highlight the complexity of rural people’s electoral decision making.
Sex, love and vote-buying
Thanks Peter. I think you have missed the point of my post. The point was not to compare the impacts (desirable or otherwise) of two types of “buying” – (affection or votes). The point was to suggest that characterising complex relationships as involving “buying”, without some knowledge of the full context of exchange, involves reliance on dehumanising stereotypes.