Liberalization in other areas will only make headway if the economics part of it demonstrates success. To date, despite the efforts to form an ASEAN Economic Community – there is not much headway.
Hence, if there is fear in economic liberalisation, not much can be expected in the political and social front.
Notice that when Thailand tanked and disrupted regional events (humiliating ASEAN) there were some suggestions that ASEAN needs to relook the non-interference principle but it went nowhere.
One way forward would be setting certain “ASEAN benchmarks” or “minimum standards” for example in the areas of labour laws or what should constitute as “free and fair elections” in the democratic members.
do you guys want solutions or just want to winge or distract people that might want to work towards solutions?
I guess if you want to preserve the status quo then you are happy to tie the discussion in worthless knots
meanwhile, I suggest those interested in solutions should ignore these distractions
democracy means accountability for all these issues to the people, not to some faceless (soulless) people behind the scenes who corrupt society to their own benefits and use the military to repress the people and escape judgement
democracy means these people have nowhere they can hide and that means these corruptions get weeded out, not completely but at least under control of the mass of citizens who can look everywhere
from the discussion its obvious and it seems to be a concensus that traditional Thai society has failed, lets work toward something better!
A and B might be two consenting adults, entering into a mutually beneficial and completely acceptable relationships, doesn’t really matter if it involves paying for a vote or pork barrel policies, the problem is that this relationship is used to take advantage of person C who had nothing to do with it.
C might not be even a person but a policy.
Example – village fund scheme got Thaksin political power to get Cabinet’s approval to avoid launching a satellite to replace faulty Thaicom 3 and appropriate insurance payments that should have gone to the state, as the latest gripe against him goes.
The problem is that if somebody protests, Thaksin brings up “I’ve been elected” argument and makes you the enemy of the village fund and the poor in general.
Hold on, it’s not only Thaksin who does that – the whole elites vs poor epic discussion is based on this argument.
Here we go with my sixth or is it seventh attempt to get a comment accepted on this thread.
One thing that I must admit is there was a time when Giles did take a very principled stand on Thaksin and the PAD. Far more principled I will admit than my very vague views were at the time. So let’s go back to April 2006 and see what Giles was saying.
The principle reason for this alliance with the conservatives is that PAD’s leaders have no faith in the independent strength of the people’s movement, and are therefore looking for “more powerful” allies. But the problem with all such cross-class popular fronts is that the social movements participating have to drop their more radical demands. This means that PAD leaders can only talk about Thaksin’s corruption and must ignore all the other valid reasons for getting rid of his government – which include the gross human rights abuses in the south and his support for neo-liberal policies.
So let’s bring it forward to 2009. Did Giles look for “more powerful” allies in the pro-Thaksin movement? Does the UDD as cross-class popular front cause Giles followers to drop their more radical demands? Does the recent reluctance to talk about Thaksin’s corruption show the other side of the coin?
OK one more quote.
We in the People’s Coalition Party are calling for people to choose the abstention box on their ballot paper. Together with sections of the student movement, the Assembly of the Poor (a rural movement) and the Thai Labour Solidarity Committee we have set ourselves the difficult task of pushing for a progressive political reform agenda – rather than simply concentrating on getting rid of Thaksin.
What a shame he is so much connected with bringing back Thaksin now.
Quotations taken from Giles’ article in Socialist Review. You can find it at the link below.
Once we start making excuses for this, where do we stop.
What’s so wrong about paid demonstrators?
What’s so wrong about political corruption?
What’s so wrong about selling your daughter into prostitution?
How about outside Thailand?
What’s so wrong about female genital mutilation?
The problem with vote-buying is that it’s seen by the politicians, (of all parties), as an investment. There has to be a return on this investment and that is received by corrupting government contracts. Not sure if it is an example, but what is going on with the Ministry of Interior smart card blanks for ID cards? If you are Thai and need a renewal sounds like you better wait a month.
StanG: “I don’t think you understand my position, I don’t have a problem with who wins the elections here”
At last we agree on something!
What I have a problem with is how a select few ride roughshod over the peoples choices (see Jakrapob’s “A State within a State”), and if things don’t go their way their ultimate weapons are military (& judicial) coups.
As for YOUR ‘problem’ of what election winners do after winning elections, well I don’t really see that as much of a problem, AS LONG AS they continue to be willing to submit to elections (and act lawfully of course, as is expected of all governments).
The voters should the ones who decide whether they like a government or not.
I understand your point, I have read about Ghandi himself that’s why I said that. However, like I did not sell Ghandi short, I simply trying to say that the course of non-violence took time to achieve and it can be easily tainted. I’m not trying to say that there’s little hope to non-violence, I’m just said its a tough road and in practice when you dont have media on your side and your opponent is slimy like a fox. 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?
While I do get the point of the dangers of stereotypes and gross simplification, I have to comment that the choice of comparison is, well, a little on the tasteless end. I think it distract from the real issues on discussion.
Nevertheless, there was an interesting discussion or lecture on role of money in relationships, in particular between ‘officials’ and constituents by Yi Zhong Tien as part of his televised series on San Guo Yian Yi. It deals with the chinese idealistic expectations of a ‘virtuous’ official as the ‘Junzi’ versus the reality of the role of money in keeping the guanxi and system going. The problem is, my Dad have the DVD of that rebuttal lecture, therefore no links that I can post.
Actually, Party Hopping is a fav past-time of MPs like Newin, and it happened every single election before 2001. For that reason, I *respect* the likes of Banharn and Chavalit more than Newin. Take that as an indication of the miserable crop of choices available for election. My family play bets every election on who will go where – it was for us more than just a fun exercise – it was a matter of foreseeing what is good for our business.
—
But, I must admit that changes in election laws (meaning no longer able to party hop just before election unlike in the past) have led to unprecedented ‘Party-hopping’ in the 2001 election, in which many ended up with TRT (much to the annoyance of the DP that was expecting unprecedented defection to their party since they were the expected winners of that election, and self-expected to continue as one of Thailand’s two major party into the future). Personally, I was expecting lots of backroom deals and negotiation the moment I heard about that particular new rule on Thai radio when I drove to work – that must be in late 2000? It was an exciting time, keeping an eye on all those backroom bartering – mind you, that was when it was still unclear whether DP or TRT will emerge tops. Actually, DP was expected the big winner, and the obvious one of two key party as a result of the 97 constitution. At that time, TRT was still the underdog. The political backstabbing was at an all time high for Thai politics – DP was arrogant believing they should get the major bite of the pie and the others should be grateful to be part of DP’s bright future and taking every opportunity to beat down on the smaller political parties. That was what drove a lot of the smaller players towards TRT – with potential money from billionaire Taksin being a bonus. The result was the expose from fellow politicians and the stink pf the corruption eventually even manage to taint Mr. Clean of DP (well, one really have to ask how did a life-time MP and later PM’s wife managed to pay for a 5million baht house in cash and that’s not mentioning all the new gold and gems she’d been flashing around back then)
I will have to agree that many initially supported Taksin for his money. The problem is: Taksin only promised monetary support to some – others were ‘hoping’ and turned angry when they got nothing. More than one of Taksin’s former supporters complained about Taksin’s stinginess. Sondhi for example was very supportive of Taksin in hopes of a bailout for his The Manager, that was deeply in debt (well-known that he is deep in debt). When Taksin did not give him the relief he expected, he turned angry and bitter – all for the illusionary ‘cash’ that was never promised by the politician in the first place.
So yes, Taksin is a very rich man, and money featured very strongly with him as politician. He bought some MPs (You mean Banharn never? Banyaat never? Prem never?), and some toady up to him in hopes of cash and favors (Like Sondhi). That is how it is in any election in Thailand, and I suspect, in many other countries too to varying degrees.
Peter Warr, you saying ‘really’ and ‘there would be nothing to discuss’ only reveals your interpretation and concession more than any ‘illogic’ in the analogy.
If we’re going to be all high and mighty and talk of vote buying corruption and headmen cronyism, why not elaborate more on the moral corruption encapsulated in the transaction fee made by one ‘voluntarily’ consenting individual to another?
I’m sure trying to understand human behaviour through economic analysis must be rather a strain. But funny that one certain type of behaviour you deduce to be morally acceptable, and the other unacceptable. Why? You should provide the consistency you cry foul for!
With the public sector unions, they probably thought their status was under attack by the Thaksin governments as threats of privatization were flying around and pieces were being chopped off them as at SRT and the airport link
Agreed, which is why some were driven into the arms of the yellow shirts. Unions can have reactionary qualities at times, but that does not alter the fundamental fact that societal transformation without independent worker’s rights is meaningless; neither does it remove the obligation of the international labour movement to assist the development of unions finding their way in harsh regimes.
Yes, it is incredibly hard to stick to non-violence. As you say, M.K. Gandhi’s life is a good illustration of this. But I think you are selling short Gandhi’s actual message of non-violence (ahimsa) and his significance .
One of Gandhi’s contemporary biographers (Olivier Lacombe) called non-violence, the “force of the soul” or “strength of the soul” (take your pick, Lacombe was French!). But he echoed Gandhi and argued that the soul is, in the end, stronger than the rest of the things at our disposal. Gandhi always dissociated himself from anyone resorting to violence. His methods were hard. His methods were robust. Sometimes he publicly and openly fasted until his (previous) associates gave up a violent aspect of their political action. He would win. People listened. That’s one hell of a power and one hell of compassion.
Gandhi suffered for what he believed in. That is what ahimsa (non-violence) was to him. It was the willingness to suffer, not blame, not lash out, not condemn, not parade, not attack, not harm, not rise above those he fought for, which caused people to stop and look. They did stop. They did look. Even those who were on “his side” in aim, but not in method. It is not true that “one mishap” causes the whole non-violent claim to fall into a heap. This is not a natural, necessary, automatic result. Gandhi himself had to deal with people claiming to be on his side, but using violence. Gandhi himself responded to people who disagreed with his methods. If the obvious, clear, and insistent will to put an end to all violence is there — by yourself suffering for violence perpetrated in your name — the non-violent case does not automatically collapse.
To say it again: M.K. Gandhi conquered attempts at and accusations of non-violence by himself suffering more than those he was fighting for. No “mishaps” could counter this. No one else’s violence was strong enough to question his non-violence.
In the case of the UDD/Red Shirts, the leadership is obviously, at the least, divided as to the application and acceptance of non-violence. This inexplicitness or division is not hard to find. We need only remember Khattiya or the unencouraging words, “Red Shirt people are easily scared…”
This is a real compromise. To take up the words of Professor Peter Warr, the UDD is not “explicitly non-violent”. Whatever the banners say, Pattaya and Rajprasong and whatever else were not explicitly ahimsa. A lack of explicit non-violence in a “peaceful” movement is really a compromise. That is what ultimately kills the non-violence case. Not “one mishap”.
We are not all saints. We can’t all suffer as much as Gandhi. But it’s no good pretending that there is no or little hope for applying non-violence. You are selling Gandhi’s message short. “One mishap” does not cause a collapse of the case. An inexplicitness in method does.
The first thing which needs saying is that NM should not be ending these excellent podcasts –
Thailand’s crisis is far. far from over.
Professor Warr – frankly you provided the best, most objective analysis I’ve seen anywhere.
(And I follow Thai events a LOT !!).
Andrew – you’re second best :
I would n’t worry about those questioning you’re economist credentials – ultimately it is going to be the human, anthropologist
and political dimension which plays out in this very fundamental crisis.
If anything – there may be one or two too many graphs creeping in on these podcasts, which are somewhat surreal to the what is ultimately going to decide the issues : namely raw political power.
>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.
The graphs on wealth distribution include all sources including the trickle down effect already.
>I am skeptical about Warr’s argument that economic reasons are responsible for the Red Shirts’ crisis.
Wealth disparities have a long history of generating discontent and conflict. Why would Thailand be any different ?
But there are other reasons too. The poor are excluded not just economically but culturally in Thailand. This is not only the bigotry against them you see everywhere but the way they are represented in the media, and the sustained attempts the wealthy are making to isolate themselves from the poor in every aspect of their lives – from entertainment to education.
Peaceful protest should be preferred on a purely practical basis because violence tends to generate large amounts of resentment and make the other side entrench but it is not a magic solution. It works particularly well in situations when just the very top elite needs to be deposed and the rest of the elite can be co-opted.
Such was the case in India and the Philippines and not in Burma and Thailand.
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?
Who are you talking about, exactly?
Is that where all opposition to vote buying coming from? Military, bureaucrats and corrupted(!) academics?
It sounds like anyone standing in the way of vote buying is only protecting their own, illicit gains.
Am I oversimplifying and dehumanizing your point?
I think most people agree here that direct vote buying is so last century and politicians have moved on to far better ways to secure votes.
Another thing – MPs, especially in the current parliament, are often only stand in guys for their backers and their jobs (real jobs, not on paper ones) are to recuperate the investments by diverting state funds to projects run by their sponsors.
ASEAN is far too weak to do anything about Myanmar and the pots are way too sensitive about their own lousy human rights records to call the kettle black. And practically speaking, what could they do anyway?
The generals may be jerks but they aren’t exactly the supreme and sole sole scourge of the country portrayed in the media. “Myanmar government” officials can’t enter large tracts of the “union” without a military escort. They don’t dictate policy there.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
On ASEAN’s Burma policy
Liberalization in other areas will only make headway if the economics part of it demonstrates success. To date, despite the efforts to form an ASEAN Economic Community – there is not much headway.
Hence, if there is fear in economic liberalisation, not much can be expected in the political and social front.
Notice that when Thailand tanked and disrupted regional events (humiliating ASEAN) there were some suggestions that ASEAN needs to relook the non-interference principle but it went nowhere.
One way forward would be setting certain “ASEAN benchmarks” or “minimum standards” for example in the areas of labour laws or what should constitute as “free and fair elections” in the democratic members.
Sex, love and vote-buying
a lot of carry on about vote, MP buying etc, etc
do you guys want solutions or just want to winge or distract people that might want to work towards solutions?
I guess if you want to preserve the status quo then you are happy to tie the discussion in worthless knots
meanwhile, I suggest those interested in solutions should ignore these distractions
democracy means accountability for all these issues to the people, not to some faceless (soulless) people behind the scenes who corrupt society to their own benefits and use the military to repress the people and escape judgement
democracy means these people have nowhere they can hide and that means these corruptions get weeded out, not completely but at least under control of the mass of citizens who can look everywhere
from the discussion its obvious and it seems to be a concensus that traditional Thai society has failed, lets work toward something better!
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
The red shirts are not going to be convinced that they were paid to protest
Unless they were taking the money, of course.
I don’t think the guys who blew up a bomb at BJT HQ this week did it out of the goodness of their hearts, for free.
Sex, love and vote-buying
I liked Peter’s analogy.
A and B might be two consenting adults, entering into a mutually beneficial and completely acceptable relationships, doesn’t really matter if it involves paying for a vote or pork barrel policies, the problem is that this relationship is used to take advantage of person C who had nothing to do with it.
C might not be even a person but a policy.
Example – village fund scheme got Thaksin political power to get Cabinet’s approval to avoid launching a satellite to replace faulty Thaicom 3 and appropriate insurance payments that should have gone to the state, as the latest gripe against him goes.
The problem is that if somebody protests, Thaksin brings up “I’ve been elected” argument and makes you the enemy of the village fund and the poor in general.
Hold on, it’s not only Thaksin who does that – the whole elites vs poor epic discussion is based on this argument.
Launch of Ji Ungpakorn’s new book
Here we go with my sixth or is it seventh attempt to get a comment accepted on this thread.
One thing that I must admit is there was a time when Giles did take a very principled stand on Thaksin and the PAD. Far more principled I will admit than my very vague views were at the time. So let’s go back to April 2006 and see what Giles was saying.
The principle reason for this alliance with the conservatives is that PAD’s leaders have no faith in the independent strength of the people’s movement, and are therefore looking for “more powerful” allies. But the problem with all such cross-class popular fronts is that the social movements participating have to drop their more radical demands. This means that PAD leaders can only talk about Thaksin’s corruption and must ignore all the other valid reasons for getting rid of his government – which include the gross human rights abuses in the south and his support for neo-liberal policies.
So let’s bring it forward to 2009. Did Giles look for “more powerful” allies in the pro-Thaksin movement? Does the UDD as cross-class popular front cause Giles followers to drop their more radical demands? Does the recent reluctance to talk about Thaksin’s corruption show the other side of the coin?
OK one more quote.
We in the People’s Coalition Party are calling for people to choose the abstention box on their ballot paper. Together with sections of the student movement, the Assembly of the Poor (a rural movement) and the Thai Labour Solidarity Committee we have set ourselves the difficult task of pushing for a progressive political reform agenda – rather than simply concentrating on getting rid of Thaksin.
What a shame he is so much connected with bringing back Thaksin now.
Quotations taken from Giles’ article in Socialist Review. You can find it at the link below.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9714
Sex, love and vote-buying
Chris Beale – 34
What’s so wrong about vote-buying ?
Once we start making excuses for this, where do we stop.
What’s so wrong about paid demonstrators?
What’s so wrong about political corruption?
What’s so wrong about selling your daughter into prostitution?
How about outside Thailand?
What’s so wrong about female genital mutilation?
The problem with vote-buying is that it’s seen by the politicians, (of all parties), as an investment. There has to be a return on this investment and that is received by corrupting government contracts. Not sure if it is an example, but what is going on with the Ministry of Interior smart card blanks for ID cards? If you are Thai and need a renewal sounds like you better wait a month.
Weekly heat, water and fire
Other topics covered in May were a decline in visitors to shopping centres in Yangon following rumours of further imminent bomb attacks…
That’s further bomb attacks. How many thus far?
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
StanG: “I don’t think you understand my position, I don’t have a problem with who wins the elections here”
At last we agree on something!
What I have a problem with is how a select few ride roughshod over the peoples choices (see Jakrapob’s “A State within a State”), and if things don’t go their way their ultimate weapons are military (& judicial) coups.
As for YOUR ‘problem’ of what election winners do after winning elections, well I don’t really see that as much of a problem, AS LONG AS they continue to be willing to submit to elections (and act lawfully of course, as is expected of all governments).
The voters should the ones who decide whether they like a government or not.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Ben – 9
I understand your point, I have read about Ghandi himself that’s why I said that. However, like I did not sell Ghandi short, I simply trying to say that the course of non-violence took time to achieve and it can be easily tainted. I’m not trying to say that there’s little hope to non-violence, I’m just said its a tough road and in practice when you dont have media on your side and your opponent is slimy like a fox. 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?
Sex, love and vote-buying
What’s so wrong about vote-buying ?
In Western countries there is plenty of “pork-barelling”, almost the same thing, in every election.
Sex, love and vote-buying
Andrew:
While I do get the point of the dangers of stereotypes and gross simplification, I have to comment that the choice of comparison is, well, a little on the tasteless end. I think it distract from the real issues on discussion.
Nevertheless, there was an interesting discussion or lecture on role of money in relationships, in particular between ‘officials’ and constituents by Yi Zhong Tien as part of his televised series on San Guo Yian Yi. It deals with the chinese idealistic expectations of a ‘virtuous’ official as the ‘Junzi’ versus the reality of the role of money in keeping the guanxi and system going. The problem is, my Dad have the DVD of that rebuttal lecture, therefore no links that I can post.
Sex, love and vote-buying
LesAbbey:
Actually, Party Hopping is a fav past-time of MPs like Newin, and it happened every single election before 2001. For that reason, I *respect* the likes of Banharn and Chavalit more than Newin. Take that as an indication of the miserable crop of choices available for election. My family play bets every election on who will go where – it was for us more than just a fun exercise – it was a matter of foreseeing what is good for our business.
—
But, I must admit that changes in election laws (meaning no longer able to party hop just before election unlike in the past) have led to unprecedented ‘Party-hopping’ in the 2001 election, in which many ended up with TRT (much to the annoyance of the DP that was expecting unprecedented defection to their party since they were the expected winners of that election, and self-expected to continue as one of Thailand’s two major party into the future). Personally, I was expecting lots of backroom deals and negotiation the moment I heard about that particular new rule on Thai radio when I drove to work – that must be in late 2000? It was an exciting time, keeping an eye on all those backroom bartering – mind you, that was when it was still unclear whether DP or TRT will emerge tops. Actually, DP was expected the big winner, and the obvious one of two key party as a result of the 97 constitution. At that time, TRT was still the underdog. The political backstabbing was at an all time high for Thai politics – DP was arrogant believing they should get the major bite of the pie and the others should be grateful to be part of DP’s bright future and taking every opportunity to beat down on the smaller political parties. That was what drove a lot of the smaller players towards TRT – with potential money from billionaire Taksin being a bonus. The result was the expose from fellow politicians and the stink pf the corruption eventually even manage to taint Mr. Clean of DP (well, one really have to ask how did a life-time MP and later PM’s wife managed to pay for a 5million baht house in cash and that’s not mentioning all the new gold and gems she’d been flashing around back then)
I will have to agree that many initially supported Taksin for his money. The problem is: Taksin only promised monetary support to some – others were ‘hoping’ and turned angry when they got nothing. More than one of Taksin’s former supporters complained about Taksin’s stinginess. Sondhi for example was very supportive of Taksin in hopes of a bailout for his The Manager, that was deeply in debt (well-known that he is deep in debt). When Taksin did not give him the relief he expected, he turned angry and bitter – all for the illusionary ‘cash’ that was never promised by the politician in the first place.
So yes, Taksin is a very rich man, and money featured very strongly with him as politician. He bought some MPs (You mean Banharn never? Banyaat never? Prem never?), and some toady up to him in hopes of cash and favors (Like Sondhi). That is how it is in any election in Thailand, and I suspect, in many other countries too to varying degrees.
Sex, love and vote-buying
Peter Warr, you saying ‘really’ and ‘there would be nothing to discuss’ only reveals your interpretation and concession more than any ‘illogic’ in the analogy.
If we’re going to be all high and mighty and talk of vote buying corruption and headmen cronyism, why not elaborate more on the moral corruption encapsulated in the transaction fee made by one ‘voluntarily’ consenting individual to another?
I’m sure trying to understand human behaviour through economic analysis must be rather a strain. But funny that one certain type of behaviour you deduce to be morally acceptable, and the other unacceptable. Why? You should provide the consistency you cry foul for!
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
LesAbbey – 73
With the public sector unions, they probably thought their status was under attack by the Thaksin governments as threats of privatization were flying around and pieces were being chopped off them as at SRT and the airport link
Agreed, which is why some were driven into the arms of the yellow shirts. Unions can have reactionary qualities at times, but that does not alter the fundamental fact that societal transformation without independent worker’s rights is meaningless; neither does it remove the obligation of the international labour movement to assist the development of unions finding their way in harsh regimes.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
By the way: another wonderful episode in a wonderful video series — thank you! Always can think about the information presented in this series.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Tarrin // Jun 25, 2010 at 5:04 pm — 3
Yes, it is incredibly hard to stick to non-violence. As you say, M.K. Gandhi’s life is a good illustration of this. But I think you are selling short Gandhi’s actual message of non-violence (ahimsa) and his significance .
One of Gandhi’s contemporary biographers (Olivier Lacombe) called non-violence, the “force of the soul” or “strength of the soul” (take your pick, Lacombe was French!). But he echoed Gandhi and argued that the soul is, in the end, stronger than the rest of the things at our disposal. Gandhi always dissociated himself from anyone resorting to violence. His methods were hard. His methods were robust. Sometimes he publicly and openly fasted until his (previous) associates gave up a violent aspect of their political action. He would win. People listened. That’s one hell of a power and one hell of compassion.
Gandhi suffered for what he believed in. That is what ahimsa (non-violence) was to him. It was the willingness to suffer, not blame, not lash out, not condemn, not parade, not attack, not harm, not rise above those he fought for, which caused people to stop and look. They did stop. They did look. Even those who were on “his side” in aim, but not in method. It is not true that “one mishap” causes the whole non-violent claim to fall into a heap. This is not a natural, necessary, automatic result. Gandhi himself had to deal with people claiming to be on his side, but using violence. Gandhi himself responded to people who disagreed with his methods. If the obvious, clear, and insistent will to put an end to all violence is there — by yourself suffering for violence perpetrated in your name — the non-violent case does not automatically collapse.
To say it again: M.K. Gandhi conquered attempts at and accusations of non-violence by himself suffering more than those he was fighting for. No “mishaps” could counter this. No one else’s violence was strong enough to question his non-violence.
In the case of the UDD/Red Shirts, the leadership is obviously, at the least, divided as to the application and acceptance of non-violence. This inexplicitness or division is not hard to find. We need only remember Khattiya or the unencouraging words, “Red Shirt people are easily scared…”
This is a real compromise. To take up the words of Professor Peter Warr, the UDD is not “explicitly non-violent”. Whatever the banners say, Pattaya and Rajprasong and whatever else were not explicitly ahimsa. A lack of explicit non-violence in a “peaceful” movement is really a compromise. That is what ultimately kills the non-violence case. Not “one mishap”.
We are not all saints. We can’t all suffer as much as Gandhi. But it’s no good pretending that there is no or little hope for applying non-violence. You are selling Gandhi’s message short. “One mishap” does not cause a collapse of the case. An inexplicitness in method does.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
The first thing which needs saying is that NM should not be ending these excellent podcasts –
Thailand’s crisis is far. far from over.
Professor Warr – frankly you provided the best, most objective analysis I’ve seen anywhere.
(And I follow Thai events a LOT !!).
Andrew – you’re second best :
I would n’t worry about those questioning you’re economist credentials – ultimately it is going to be the human, anthropologist
and political dimension which plays out in this very fundamental crisis.
If anything – there may be one or two too many graphs creeping in on these podcasts, which are somewhat surreal to the what is ultimately going to decide the issues : namely raw political power.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
>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.
The graphs on wealth distribution include all sources including the trickle down effect already.
>I am skeptical about Warr’s argument that economic reasons are responsible for the Red Shirts’ crisis.
Wealth disparities have a long history of generating discontent and conflict. Why would Thailand be any different ?
But there are other reasons too. The poor are excluded not just economically but culturally in Thailand. This is not only the bigotry against them you see everywhere but the way they are represented in the media, and the sustained attempts the wealthy are making to isolate themselves from the poor in every aspect of their lives – from entertainment to education.
Peaceful protest should be preferred on a purely practical basis because violence tends to generate large amounts of resentment and make the other side entrench but it is not a magic solution. It works particularly well in situations when just the very top elite needs to be deposed and the rest of the elite can be co-opted.
Such was the case in India and the Philippines and not in Burma and Thailand.
Sex, love and vote-buying
Srithanonchai
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?
Who are you talking about, exactly?
Is that where all opposition to vote buying coming from? Military, bureaucrats and corrupted(!) academics?
It sounds like anyone standing in the way of vote buying is only protecting their own, illicit gains.
Am I oversimplifying and dehumanizing your point?
I think most people agree here that direct vote buying is so last century and politicians have moved on to far better ways to secure votes.
Another thing – MPs, especially in the current parliament, are often only stand in guys for their backers and their jobs (real jobs, not on paper ones) are to recuperate the investments by diverting state funds to projects run by their sponsors.
On ASEAN’s Burma policy
ASEAN is far too weak to do anything about Myanmar and the pots are way too sensitive about their own lousy human rights records to call the kettle black. And practically speaking, what could they do anyway?
The generals may be jerks but they aren’t exactly the supreme and sole sole scourge of the country portrayed in the media. “Myanmar government” officials can’t enter large tracts of the “union” without a military escort. They don’t dictate policy there.