Remember what the central government narrative is – that Thaksin and an his opportunistic elite clique corrupted the simpleminded peasantry using nothing but money, to create a national security threat for their own narrow objectives.
Showing large transactions allows the government to go after their political enemies as a security threats while ignoring the peasantry who it is assumed will return to docile obedience once the funds have been dried up.
There is nothing in the government’s plan that could be considered real reconciliation it is simple political dominance, with the hope that power and dominance will inspire enough awe at the next election.
[…] what with the riots, the "red shirts" being hunted like animals, the government assassinations, the prog dong (heh), and the burning down of the nation's largest shopping mall (where tourists now go to take […]
It’s quite reasonable to believe that your figures reflect the budget of the Min of Agriculture. The sector “Science, technology, energy and environment” (from 1984 onwards) must come from the Min of Science, Technology and Environment. The earlier version of the Ministry (M of Sc, Tech and Energy) was created in 1979 and somewhere between 1979 and 2002 the term “environment” replaced “energy” in its title (sources: http://www.most.go.th/eng/index.php/about-the-ministry/background ).
If you want to compare your data with the Min of Agriculture’s budget, here’s a sample of the data (current value, 000 baht). It comes from OAE ‘Agricultural statistics of Thailand”, various editions.
1982: 13 587 036
1983: 15 130 877
1984: 15 885 201
1985: 16 878 137
1986: 16 142 206
1987: 15 773 452
1988: 16 612 485
1989: 19 591 878
1990: 26 586 762
1991: 31 420 574
1992: 35 433 040
1993: 44 328 456
1994: 54 694 157
1995: 63 924 294
1996: 74 428 952
1997: 81 719 222
1998: 63 778 159
1999: 65 709 702
As you’ll see, the form of the curve is similar to the one shown on your graph.
Note that during 1982-1999, RID represented between 60 % (1982) and 45 % (1994) of MOAC budget, showing a slightly declining trend.
I’ll explain later why I think it is relevant to note the importance of the RID, and especially of large dams, in total agricultural spending
“Compare with yellow shirt 193 days rally.No paid money,Only heart and soul of racism”
Yes, and the “yellows” never commited any crimes, they never occupied the airport, just having a picnic. Racism is correct though -but I find it hard to see how one can be a racist against one’s own countryman
You wrote, “However, based on my experience, I am very skeptical about the notion that headmen can readily swing votes one way or the other in national elections. I think the political power of headmen has greatly declined as economic, social and political connections in rural Thailand have proliferated.”
Would you say that vote buying is a way the headmen can swing votes?
I reckon thats a pretty good way they can influence any election.
I wonder how much the protesters in 1992 were getting in per diem? Or how about students 1973 or 1976? OK how about the people’s power demonstrators in the Philippines? Paris 1968? Grosvenor Square London 68? Kent State? Last years anti-global demonstrations in London?
Am I really missing on what should be considered the norm here?
I always like to read your posts but you rarely write with paragraphs and I often fail to get your point or reach the finish. A bit pedantic but I feel it would improve your writing.
Firstly, the money trail is critical to implicating Thaksin on terrorism charges.
Secondly, if the amount of money leaders received vastly outweighs their costs, then they appear to be employees. If they show leaders’ who greatly profited financially from the protests it destroys the leaders’ and paymaster’s credibility in the eyes of everyone on all sides of the fence. Recouping costs is very different from profiting from spilled blood.
She said her family was originally from Sakon Nakhon. Her father came to work in Bangkok first. When she entered Prathom Suksa (Grade 1), her parents brought her and her sister to Bangkok to live in the Sai Mai area. Her father was a taxi driver, and her mother was a housewife. In the evening, her father usually dropped her mother off at the rally site, because her mother thought that there were not many people at night, so she had to be there. Her father then just went to work, and came to pick her up in the morning. It went on like this almost every day. They started to go there frequently before the 10 April clash.
Although she was sympathetic to the cause, she never agreed on their going to the rally, out of concern for their safety.
‘I read the news, and it said there was violence, and live rounds were being used. ‘They fired every day, Mother!’ I did not want them to go. But my mother said that if we did not go out to make demands, who else was going to do it for us? If we don’t fight for ourselves, who else will fight for us?’ she said. Later, she did not say anything and saw that her parents had the right to do what they did. Still, she was worried and feared the worst.
‘We didn’t think that live rounds would be used,’ she said, adding, ‘Father had one slingshot, kept in the boot of his cab.’
‘The word that is most painful to hear is ‘terrorists’. I don’t get it. People came out to demand their rights. Their weapon was a slingshot. OK. Some might say a slingshot could kill, if marbles or metal pellets are used. But, seriously, how can it fight against a gun?’
‘[They] fired like life was worthless. Was it too much? I can’t take this. But what can we do? We can do nothing, since they say my father was a terrorist. Who can we make demands from? They are the ones who make the accusation, and the ones we have no chance to fight with anyway.’
Her mother and her father understand and understood exactly what they are up against in Thailand. They are not dupes of Thaksin or “terrorists”, they are ordinary Thais trying to defend themselves from the Thaksins and Abhisits and Prems and the entire Thai military.
Compare with yellow shirt 193 days rally.No paid money,Only heart and soul of racism.They can attack two government successfully.It is very sympathy.Do you?
Take some time to appreciate the unfathomable cruelty of this pattern. You may be grievously harmed and even permanently damaged by the actions of those who hold unanswerable power — but you may only speak about this evil and its effects within the very narrow limits set by those who would destroy you.
If you are killed, the identical prohibitions apply to those who still manage to survive and who would protest the unforgivable crime committed against you.
In this manner, the complacency and comfort of those who possess immense power and wealth are underwritten by the silence forced upon their victims. The victims may speak and even protest, but only within severely circumscribed limits, and only so long as their rulers are not made to feel too uncomfortable, or too guilty. Anything which approaches too close to the truth is strictly forbidden.
In comment #2 Jean-Philippe Leblond asked about my data sources for the agriculture budget graphs. They are:
1960-1975 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand (various editions): Government Expenditure and Percentage Distribution, by Function (Agriculture).
1975-1982 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand (various editions): Summary of ordinary expenditure by Ministry (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives). (Note: for some reason, the tables in these Yearbooks do not provide agriculture spending by function.)
1983 missing year. I have interpolated.
1984 -1986 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand: Budget Expenditures Appropriate by Programme Structure (Agricultural sector). Note that from 1984 “Science, technology, energy and environment” is a specific sector.
1987-2008: Thailand in Figures (various editions): Budget Expenditures by sector.
So, in relation to J-P’s specific point: “during Thaksin’s time the RFD was transferred out of the MOAC and to MNRE. This could bias somewhat the results as the RFD had a budget of about 9 billion baht.” Except for 1975-1982 the figures I have used are for the agricultural sector, not for MOAC itself. I think (but am not 100% certain) that by Thaksin’s time the RFD expenditure would already have been counted in the “Science, technology, energy and environment” sector.
On the issue of the Royal Irrigation Department. I presume this is included in agricultural sector funding and, as J-P, suggest it would be interesting to look at the changing patterns of irrigation funding. But I think irrigation funding still represents pretty direct support for the agricultural sector, whether the funding was for small-scale or large-scale schemes.
It was a sad commentary that Prof. Thongchai felt it unwise to comment on the legacy of the King, even living as far away as he does in Madison, Wisconsin. It is even sadder that he was probably correct for self-preservation purposes to hold back his thoughts, because the royalists would undoubtably persecute him from afar and attempt to prosecute him in abstentia should he tell us what he truly believes. It was telling as far as what he did share: that the legacy is different now than it would have been had he died before the 2006 coup. What he leaves unsaid but implies is that HMK’s legacy has been tainted by recent events, some carried out in his name.
Brett Wyatt raises some good questions in his comments in #13, but his overall tone is just too inflamatory and baiting to be taken seriously in an academic discussion. For instance, what evidence does he have to support his claim that the politics of patronage is anymore extreme in the northeast than the rest of the country? I have lived in the south, north, northeast, and central regions and IMHO the patronage politics in Nakhon Pathom where I currently reside are about as extreme as they can get.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Remember what the central government narrative is – that Thaksin and an his opportunistic elite clique corrupted the simpleminded peasantry using nothing but money, to create a national security threat for their own narrow objectives.
Showing large transactions allows the government to go after their political enemies as a security threats while ignoring the peasantry who it is assumed will return to docile obedience once the funds have been dried up.
There is nothing in the government’s plan that could be considered real reconciliation it is simple political dominance, with the hope that power and dominance will inspire enough awe at the next election.
Aftermath of “In the killing zone”
thanks benny! I’ll work on that!
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
More telling than the financial overheads were the small touches that said ‘we are human, so are you, together we take care of each other’.
Report from the South: From the day of Prong-Dong (Harmony) to the day of Prab-Pram (Suppression)
[…] what with the riots, the "red shirts" being hunted like animals, the government assassinations, the prog dong (heh), and the burning down of the nation's largest shopping mall (where tourists now go to take […]
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Thanks Andrew for the sources.
It’s quite reasonable to believe that your figures reflect the budget of the Min of Agriculture. The sector “Science, technology, energy and environment” (from 1984 onwards) must come from the Min of Science, Technology and Environment. The earlier version of the Ministry (M of Sc, Tech and Energy) was created in 1979 and somewhere between 1979 and 2002 the term “environment” replaced “energy” in its title (sources: http://www.most.go.th/eng/index.php/about-the-ministry/background ).
If you want to compare your data with the Min of Agriculture’s budget, here’s a sample of the data (current value, 000 baht). It comes from OAE ‘Agricultural statistics of Thailand”, various editions.
1982: 13 587 036
1983: 15 130 877
1984: 15 885 201
1985: 16 878 137
1986: 16 142 206
1987: 15 773 452
1988: 16 612 485
1989: 19 591 878
1990: 26 586 762
1991: 31 420 574
1992: 35 433 040
1993: 44 328 456
1994: 54 694 157
1995: 63 924 294
1996: 74 428 952
1997: 81 719 222
1998: 63 778 159
1999: 65 709 702
As you’ll see, the form of the curve is similar to the one shown on your graph.
Note that during 1982-1999, RID represented between 60 % (1982) and 45 % (1994) of MOAC budget, showing a slightly declining trend.
I’ll explain later why I think it is relevant to note the importance of the RID, and especially of large dams, in total agricultural spending
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
“Compare with yellow shirt 193 days rally.No paid money,Only heart and soul of racism”
Yes, and the “yellows” never commited any crimes, they never occupied the airport, just having a picnic. Racism is correct though -but I find it hard to see how one can be a racist against one’s own countryman
Therein lies the real problem….
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Colin: I’m simply interested in how you think it works.
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Andrew,
Are you saying it doesn’t happen or are you trying to tell me something with another question?
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Colin, explain to me how the headmen’s vote buying works.
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Andrew,
You wrote, “However, based on my experience, I am very skeptical about the notion that headmen can readily swing votes one way or the other in national elections. I think the political power of headmen has greatly declined as economic, social and political connections in rural Thailand have proliferated.”
Would you say that vote buying is a way the headmen can swing votes?
I reckon thats a pretty good way they can influence any election.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
What would be a reasonable per head cost…
I wonder how much the protesters in 1992 were getting in per diem? Or how about students 1973 or 1976? OK how about the people’s power demonstrators in the Philippines? Paris 1968? Grosvenor Square London 68? Kent State? Last years anti-global demonstrations in London?
Am I really missing on what should be considered the norm here?
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
“Money – it’s a crime. Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie.” – which is exactly how we got into this current mess to begin with.
Aftermath of “In the killing zone”
dear Jim Taylor
I always like to read your posts but you rarely write with paragraphs and I often fail to get your point or reach the finish. A bit pedantic but I feel it would improve your writing.
Translation of interview with Sae Daeng
Tarrin,
So tell me, what are they saying on the stage?
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
There are two points I can see.
Firstly, the money trail is critical to implicating Thaksin on terrorism charges.
Secondly, if the amount of money leaders received vastly outweighs their costs, then they appear to be employees. If they show leaders’ who greatly profited financially from the protests it destroys the leaders’ and paymaster’s credibility in the eyes of everyone on all sides of the fence. Recouping costs is very different from profiting from spilled blood.
Aftermath of “In the killing zone”
Monchaya, the daughter of Charnnarong Polsrila, mercilessly slain by the Thai military on the street in Bangkok talks about her parents :
Daughter of a slain red shirt hears story of father from Nick Nostitz
Her mother and her father understand and understood exactly what they are up against in Thailand. They are not dupes of Thaksin or “terrorists”, they are ordinary Thais trying to defend themselves from the Thaksins and Abhisits and Prems and the entire Thai military.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Compare with yellow shirt 193 days rally.No paid money,Only heart and soul of racism.They can attack two government successfully.It is very sympathy.Do you?
Aftermath of “In the killing zone”
A little further insight into the Bangkok “elite’s” binge of censorship:
Memo to the Victims: You Yourselves Will Pay for the Crimes of the Ruling Class
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
In comment #2 Jean-Philippe Leblond asked about my data sources for the agriculture budget graphs. They are:
1960-1975 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand (various editions): Government Expenditure and Percentage Distribution, by Function (Agriculture).
1975-1982 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand (various editions): Summary of ordinary expenditure by Ministry (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives). (Note: for some reason, the tables in these Yearbooks do not provide agriculture spending by function.)
1983 missing year. I have interpolated.
1984 -1986 Statistical Yearbook of Thailand: Budget Expenditures Appropriate by Programme Structure (Agricultural sector). Note that from 1984 “Science, technology, energy and environment” is a specific sector.
1987-2008: Thailand in Figures (various editions): Budget Expenditures by sector.
So, in relation to J-P’s specific point: “during Thaksin’s time the RFD was transferred out of the MOAC and to MNRE. This could bias somewhat the results as the RFD had a budget of about 9 billion baht.” Except for 1975-1982 the figures I have used are for the agricultural sector, not for MOAC itself. I think (but am not 100% certain) that by Thaksin’s time the RFD expenditure would already have been counted in the “Science, technology, energy and environment” sector.
On the issue of the Royal Irrigation Department. I presume this is included in agricultural sector funding and, as J-P, suggest it would be interesting to look at the changing patterns of irrigation funding. But I think irrigation funding still represents pretty direct support for the agricultural sector, whether the funding was for small-scale or large-scale schemes.
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
It was a sad commentary that Prof. Thongchai felt it unwise to comment on the legacy of the King, even living as far away as he does in Madison, Wisconsin. It is even sadder that he was probably correct for self-preservation purposes to hold back his thoughts, because the royalists would undoubtably persecute him from afar and attempt to prosecute him in abstentia should he tell us what he truly believes. It was telling as far as what he did share: that the legacy is different now than it would have been had he died before the 2006 coup. What he leaves unsaid but implies is that HMK’s legacy has been tainted by recent events, some carried out in his name.
Brett Wyatt raises some good questions in his comments in #13, but his overall tone is just too inflamatory and baiting to be taken seriously in an academic discussion. For instance, what evidence does he have to support his claim that the politics of patronage is anymore extreme in the northeast than the rest of the country? I have lived in the south, north, northeast, and central regions and IMHO the patronage politics in Nakhon Pathom where I currently reside are about as extreme as they can get.