”But powerful military men and politicians found it useful to cultivate the royal charisma.”
Why did first Phibun, then (Pote?) Sarit and Thanom choose to rehabilitate the king? Certainly, Sarit and Thanom were powerful enough not to need his visible presence to support their regimes.
Did the US ’suggest’ this as part of its military financial support/ anti communist package?
Phibun never chose to rehabilitate the king. I’m not a great fan of Paul Handley, but I suggest you read Handley on this.
What he writes is in agreement with a large number of highly reputable historians of Thailand.
Sarit may have supported the king simply because he genuinely believed in the Thai monarchy.
US suggestions – undoubtedly yes : see Benedict Anderson, and numerous others on this.
What principles are you referring to? Governments from outside the region prefer to spend their money on social and rural development. It’s no mystery that they were ‘conspicuously absent’ from funding a sporting event!
The Lao government isn’t going to turn down economic investment or development assistance. Funding from “western” sources will probably become less important in a relative sense as regional investment continues to grow, but the idea that its days are numbered is a bit off track.
Srithanonchai # 27 : its’ hardly news that the Thai military now – and at least since the 1933 Borowit Rebellion – has a strong, often dominant – highly hardcore fascist strand.
The only time this was really threatened was when the British, immediately post-war and under the Attlee landslide Labour government, were threatening to take over the fascist construct “Thailand”.
The fascists would certainly have been weeded out then, but America blocked this in preference for support of Seni Pramoj and his brother Kukrit, founders of today’s Democrat party.
America of course, later abandoned Seni Pramoj during the Thammasat 1976 massacre.
It’s hardly surprising many – though certainly not all – of today’s Democrats seem to be in bed with Thai military fascists, yet again.
There is a lot of ‘analyses’ going around that after the failed Red rebellion (and their shame at the bombing/arson/deaths rampage that trailed the Reds anywhere they went at Bangkok), gasp:
“The failed Red campaign strengthened Abhisit.”
Well but of course! The Reds leadership had not only been disgraced, but a number of them are facing very serious charges of terrorism.
Who is the last hope of the Reds? Chalerm Yubamrung????
Sondhi is an opportunist who will do anything for the sake of himself. The reason behind this crazy idea is because he is quite sure that the he will be given a big reward for suggesting this undemocratic way. During the last four years he already got many rewards for what he had done. But if his dream come true and if Apisit really does follow his stupid advise, he may probably be appointed the next Thai prime minister. One more real reason behind this crazy idea is because he knows damn well that nobody is crazy enough to elect him as an member of parliament. He has no chance to walk on the street like a normal guy. It is impossible for him and his party member to beg for any vote during election time.
Luckily, now I’m in Germany so I can visit your website.
In contradiction, I can’t achieved some of Redshirt website in Thailand.
Now the the censorship and propaganda media in Thailand are in critical state. Today Dan River,CNN reporter was called by the police to investigate what he reported. then please take care ,Nick. You may asked someday…
I’m Thai who have observed the situation by myself, received any information from Thai and international sources. I know that there is some hidden agenda behind Thai media, why they must or need to be bias.
For example; The Nation, it had the conflict in ITV free channel case in Thailand against Thaksin, when he was still in his power. Then, they go against him all the time and supported PAD (Anti-Thaksin protestors). After the military coup, ITV case went to court justice (assign by the coup), then its concession was confiscated and turned back to the government. Then the government hired The Nation for 2000 Mio. Baht per years to run this media in name TPBS. So that is what they receive to follow the government.
For the other media, as I have known some journalists and moderators working on Thai free TV, three persons I known have been intimidated to report the news in the direction that the government please. One of them was called by the military officer who asked him to choose between his family and the direction he report the news.
Accordingly, I must recheck it and research more before trust it, when I watch or read the news. I’ve found a lot of information that Thai media never presented and some that they exaggerate more than the real situation and make the conclusion by themselves without the crucial evidence to support. In my opinion, most Thai media have the conspiracy. It’s necessary for them in order to survive.
We can see a lot of examples, that some Thai who believe Thai media and government’s propaganda try to insult every organizations such as HRW BBC CNN MEPs and other international organization s who inform what they don’t like that they don’t know the truth as them. (How do they know, what they think is true or false when they never open their mind to learn the difference?) .Moreover they claim that those media is bias or receive money from someone they against.
By the way the censorship in Thailand creates an effective propaganda by telling one-sided stories. People in Thailand don’t have chance to receive variety of information for their consideration. Now, it’s worse because the court said that, from now on, who publish the media and information against the government that means they distort the incident and must go to jail.
For how Abhisit came to power, I will tell you in sequence.
Four years ago, the country was led by Thaksin, a billionaire populist who was twice re-elected. A deeply divisive figure loved by the rural poor and loathed by the country’s elite. The PAD – anti Thaksin movement, mostly the elite and middle class who lost their benefit to the poor, rallied for so long time and then the military coup came to dispel Thaksin government.
Then the coup’s government felt to rule the country. They issued new constitution which a lot of unlawful article to protect themselves and disadvantage their political foes. They assigned their new supported group of officers to work in judgment and court system. After that, they let the condition: if we didn’t accept this constitution, there‘s no new election and they could apply worse constitution as they please. So the majority accepted it with the fear for worse rule and hope for new election.
After an election, PPP; pro Thaksin party; unexpectedly won again with 233 seats from 480 seats. While Democrat gained 165 seats. So PPP had right to form the government. Then The PAD can’t accept the result, blamed that they bought vote (In fact, every other parties in Thailand also buy vote included Democrat party).They closed the street for 7 months , seized the government house for 3 months and Thai international airports about a week in total, and they didn’t ask for democratic solutions but only wanted to expel whoever who support Thaksin out of their power.
They didn’t want common election but just raised the one they preferred to get in power. Moreover they also have dangerous ideas against democracy. For example; the one so- called “70/30” which means 70% of representatives in parliament should come from an assignment of the committee contained of experts, academic professors or other selected elites and the other 30% come from an election. Another example is the idea to prohibit normal citizens who don’t hold academic degrees to vote in an election because they believe that the low-educated people are too stupid to choose a good leader.
After long protest, the court, as the tool, banned all 3 parties on government side which affected these parties’ executive committees out of the position as representatives. They also made the other politicians go against PPP. Some of formal PPP members turned to Democrat side. Consequently, the proportion of the parliament was changed. Then they brought the parties’ leaders to the military Barracks to lobby them with or without force up to cases. So people can imply that they used dirty tools to form the government. And that is how the new government lead by Democrat came to power.
Some of his supporters claim that Abhisit and his coalition came from the same parliament. It’s half-true because he took his power after he got rid of his opponents. So this is the difference between an elected one and a person who come to power by dirty elimination of his foes.
– How they use the court to unbalance the sovereignty?
– How they intimidate the other politicians?
– Is the negotiation in the military barrack to form the new government the right thing for democracy?
For the demonstration, I think we should know the root of problem first. The problem is not Thaksin or some few people.
Some foreigners call this crisis as “social class war”. In fact, it isn’t exactly “social class war” or political difference, but the crackdown of Thai society. Yes, it’s about the different between rich and poor but in the abstract way. What the poor want is the acceptation and equal chance for their life. The poor don’t care much how much money they can gain but they want the acceptation from the rich ones.
The situation in Thailand is about the people’s attitude that separated into 2 directions. “Think as Rich or poor ones”. The rich, as they call themselves the middle class, try to insult that the poor is greedy and stupid, so they don’t accept the poor’s votes or decisions. In contradiction; the poor have their grudge against what the so-called rich people look down on them. They stole the poor right and blame them again and again.
The person, no matter class they are, if they agree and pay sympathetic for the poor will be claimed as the fool one and will be pushed to that political side, although they’ve no interest in political issue.( I also have that experience.)
So I think the trend of Thai society now is the isolation and discrimination between people’s hearts, which strong enough to eliminate ones who think different out of society. Even if it may costs people’s lives, some don’t feel guilty about it at all.
For the acceptation and chance, Taksin was an idol for the poor because he is the first one who gave it down to them. He didn’t give the budget for them freely but use strategies to make them try to work and have their praise. For example, he gave them the legal loan for their investment or payment. Before his time, the government had never concerned that the poor never allowed having debt with the formal financial institutes because they don’t have enough asset to guarantee. With the illegal ones, they must pay for very high interest rate. So forget about the investment or have their own business. It’s very hard for the poor to improve their status and quality of life by themselves. Even if they have similar ability as the richer one.
When Thaksin gave the chance to them, he also made the conditions. If you borrow the money and you can’t pay back in time, you’ll never receive it again. So it stimulates the people to work for themselves. At the same time he improved the healthcare and education in rural areas, made the stand-alone brand “OTOP” for the rural ones. So they can work, create and have pride with their works.
In contradiction, Abhisit gives the money, too. This is with more “popularity” policy without repayment. But he gives just only money not the chance. He gives money but he still looks down of them by his speeches and actions. For the investment and financial policies he usually gives the priority to the big enterprises not the small or middle ones.
I think the corruption issue is also significant. But no only Thaksin who corrupted ; in fact; so do the members of Democrat .The Democrat play the most corruption in Thai history but they never blame what they did and the elite back-up help them to cover it with the law distortion and media. There’s no sanction for every politician ‘s corruptions except Thaksin’s.
Have you ever heard about the cases such as Thai BIBF , Hopewell project, Miyazawa project or the land right case so-called “ Sor-Por-Gor 4-01 “corrupted by Democrat? And do you know what the former Prime minister Chuan’s brother cheated from the bank in last financial crisis. I persuade you to dig down about them a bit then you can find the true. And now they also corrupt nonstop!
The court have sentenced Thaksin for 2 years in prison but I have read the reason and it isn’t directly told that he corrupt but just only against the morality as the prime minister and help his alliance to gain profit from his policies as same as another normal people (yet no prove to support).
For the other most popular accusation is that Thaksin and Redshirt want to overthrow the king. I think that is a very silly issue. I believe that most of UDD respect the king and never drag the king down as the other group did. Yes, there’re some few people who don’t respect to the monarchy but not the whole of the group. It’s different between “disrespect” and “overthrow “. And if they blame that Thaksin has this kind of idea, they should have the solid evidence not just only the connection between him and the others.
In cyber world, you may find that most Thai are against Redshirt. It is so normal, because they are in the educational class. For the poor they have too few ways to discuss which these guys in especially international forums and for the most middle class who think different, they just keep it in mind. It’s dangerous to their social positions. For me, I also have an effect that some of my friends saw what I’ve commented here and gossip about me or try to isolate me. But I don’t care much about it because I’m also sick of that kind of society.
The education in Thailand also makes the gap between people’s minds. In the universities, a lot of professors talk about politic in classes. In their cafeterias, only pro-government TV channels are broadcasted. The student are programmed that they are prestige and smart so that it’s their right to run the country and this is their kindness given for the poor one.( without asking them ,if they like it or not).
For the education, that the middle class guys usually claim that the poor and rural persons are uneducated. I think it isn’t true.
How much education we need to understand politic?
In fact, Thai literacy rate is about 95%. That means almost everyone can read and receive any information they want. And so-called “Educated” in Democracy means how much you understand about democracy, right, freedom and another political nature.
As you see, some of people who claim themselves as “educated “ones, can’t understand about these kinds of issues better than the poor ones. So, that is how the problem goes in Thailand.
For the demonstration, I think that they both make the violence but who stir it first.
From March to 8th April, the protestors had really peaceful demonstration. Meanwhile, both sides had the negotiation but couldn’t come to an agreement because they couldn’t accept the conditions from the oppositions.
The first serious incident happened when the government seized the media station of the redshirt without the court procedure but used the military instead. The protestors came to Thaicom Station to ask it back but they received the tear gas booms and rubber bullets instead.
Next day, the protestors had the demonstration outside the parliament but suddenly, the government thrown the tear gas boom to the protestors. Some of them were angry and tried to break into the parliament. After the negotiation, 20 people could get into the parliament to ask for the reason and responsibility but received no answer. The vice prime minister, Mr. Sutep , who took the responsibility had already gone.
After that the government used this incident to claim the state of emergency and forced the law.
10th April 2010, the government claim that it wanted to ask for the space of Ratchaprasong back from the protestors. But the military with heavy weapons was ordered to troop to Phan Fah Intersection.( At that time, the protest located at two places, the smaller group was at Phan Fah Intersection and the bigger group with main UDD leaders was at Ratchaprosong Intersection). The first protestor was shot by real bullet in the afternoon following with the several in the twilight. The mass killing happened around 8-9 pm. In conclusion, 25 people dead and more that 800 people injured. This is the news from the following morning.
After that incidence the next round negotiation got cancel.
Is that the fault of the protester to have anger against the government after their friends were killed and injured as a consequence by the government action?
28th April, again the government used the military with heavy weapons. The result is the death of a soldier by “friendly fire”.
The government used the video from Aljazeera to claim and rerun several times on Thai media that the one who shot the soldier was redshirt. (Who wore black but, in fact, have the similar uniform as the special police.) After that the Aljazeera report against the government announcement that it’s misinformation and distortion.
4th May, Abhisit announced his Roadmap and 5 May the UDD received it s principle but asked for the detail and confirmation. PAD was against it and warned that they would have arranged the rally if the roadmap had been applied.
For the Roadmap
Abhisit promised that with his speech (but his speeches usually were altered and forgotten what when the time past). So the UDD accept it with their speech, too. If the government wants the action from UDD side, it should act first. On the other hand, the government added more and more soldiers, cut the infrastructure in the protester area and trooped to kill them ,then call the peaceful roadmap.
When the speech is 180 degrees off the action, what could we call that? A lie?
I suggest to let every parties sign the ratification long ago. Because it is the way to entrust that the Roadmap is the real not just the propaganda to buy the time. In addition, after Abhisit ‘s speech, there’s no evidence to show that this Roadmap can be successful. PAD went against it. Some Democrat member didn’t approve it. The Election Commission said that the prime minister had never consulted it first for his guarantee about new election with them. And they’ve never seen the document about it.
Moreover he has no right to issue new election date. It’s the Election Commission authority. His authority is only dissolve the parliament; promise the date about it then the law and other officer will drive the other step to new election automatically.
So why didn’t Abhisit make what he can make. Not promise the thing he can’t do.
Is it difficult to do the direct thing than the reticent one?
If both sides have any other request, just come to open talk .Eye to eye…side by side…to make a negotiation then agreement.
I see this kind of situation compare to the trading situation. The Government sells their roadmap, the UDD‘s interested in it but don’t please enough about some conditions. So if they don’t come to talk and make a bargain, the trade isn’t success. If they talk and can come to the conclusion, then they both must sign the contract. After that, the government (the seller) must show their product and hand it to the UDD( buyer) ,at the same time the buyer must pay for the goods.
The situation was on hold. The government announced that unless the protestors accept the roadmap without any conditions before 15th May, the government considered using military force to disperse the demonstration.
The problem is that 12th May, Red shirt general got shot and dead after that.
14th May, the Crackdown began before the deadline.
15th May, live fire zone was announced.
The soldiers shot live bullets (most from snipers or rifles) to everyone they can shoot; most of dead and injured ones didn’t have any weapon or tried to harm the soldiers. (Included journalists, normal citizens, nurses, police etc.) And a few protestors had only cocktail bomb, homemade bombs or shotgun.
Afternoon 19th May, the UDD leader surrendered to the police but the shooting game of the soldiers continued. Evening the existing protestors ceased fire.
I used to say long ago that I’m against all kind of the violence because the violence causes the other violence (as action and reaction)
At the end this brings only tragedy. I think this is the result of violence from the government for the past whole month. So after long endurance, they can’t endure it any longer. Under the stress, fear and wrath, you can predict what will happen for the people under the circumstance.
However there’s something I can’t clearly understand, after the surrender of UDD leaders, the situation is uncontrolled, the person who raised the incident after that can be anyone which you can’t identify. From the VDO clip you can only see most people ran away, some people around the burnt down building with anger, few are creasing fire with tires. But this one can’t use as the evidence to tell who is the redshirts, who is normal people who (may be) the third party.
Beside, as I consider about the timeline and the position, at that time the UDD leader had already surrendered to the police and the military could control the most of that area. They can troop to the Pratumwanaram Temple really near by the Central World. Moreover we know that the protesters are friendlier with the police but why did all the officers just concentrate to arrest the protesters but no action to control the fire, if they use so lots of the troop, police and bring the fire trucks or at least let them into the burnt down area (There’re some firemen who were ready in change but they must wait for a long time because the military didn’t let them in.) The situation will be better. So why did they ignore about that fact?
For me, I turned to be more interested in redshirt movement after the black Songkran last year. Before that I never thought to take a side and never care whether red or yellow. But after Abhisit came to power, he not only can’t fulfill his promise but also make it worse. The government holds the judgment procedure of the PAD make an excuse that they’re too many personal witnesses. Now we can see how fast the process of the UDD’s ,even though there’re many more witnesses to ask and prove. And then, the crackdown on black Songkran with I could see the evidence from the other media and the eyewitness my uncle who live in Nanglerng district were very different for what the government report. So I try to research it by myself.
Last, I can’t stand the society that has no mercy for the lack of human right , cruel people who never care about the other’s lives and using ironic words to blame the other without looking back to themselves.
So, I agree with redshirt‘s principle but never support the hardcore and violence. However I analyze it as cause and result. Why are things happened? What is the motivation? And that is all of my opinion.
In fact, I am just one of a powerless citizen. I also afraid of a confrontation in real life. Even if I experience something unsuitable, I’m not brave enough to speak loud against the power in Thai society . For this comment I admit that I also have a bits bias as a normal human.
However I try to analyze the situation by using logic instead of negative emotion.
I want to be one small point of my society to explain what happened to the world.( Yes, also all Thai friends, if they want to listen.) I want to speak for the poor who have so few chance to speak to the world. (And if you see, not every poor are stupid as the rich claim. They have their own ideas . Some attitudes’re really mature. This is one of the VDO clip I invite you to see. The voice of the poor hardly reach the outside world just only because they can’t speak English and there’re to few educated Thai who care about what they say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsh225KsfZU )
The milestone is that I want people to understand the root of the problem and use the reasonable way to solve it.
The riot seems to be ended but it isn’t actually end because the procedure of the government to treat the people who think different still continue against human right. Moreover the people’s attitudes have more gap between one another after this last unrest.
Now, Mr. Abhisit arrests everyone who have connection with the redshirt ,although there’s no evidence to prove ,if they’re the one who take part in the last unrest or not.
The Roadmap is still on hold but practically canceled and Abhisit announced that the commeon election won’t be arranged in this years for sure.
So, this is how the government and its supporters call reconcilation….
Last but not least ,thank you for your understanding and sympathy to all Thai.For foreigners, I think you could help us, too. If you understand and don’t forget the problem when the time past as if it is the flow of the wind. So could I ask you, foreigners , to keep a eye on what happen next.
A recent traveler’s ironic summary of the arrival of modernity in Laos in all its various forms…………
====================================
“THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT”
Still ruled by a group that calls itself “Socialist’, Laos is often thought of as the “Land that Time Forgot”.
Southeast Asia before it got modernized, educated and partially 1st world, a combo of New Age “Buddhist” tourists and backpackers, and, more recently, sprawling China development projects designed to extract the maximum possible natural resources, agricultural output and economic value.
Two entirely separate Lao worlds, one for the marijuana-dazed New Age Yuppie crowd and “politically correct” (at least in their own eyes), relationship-seeking backpackers wearing organic sandals as they wander reverently around the Disneyland-like New Age “Buddhist” City Center, full of re-constructed Buddhist temples, cozy “fair-trade” coffee/internet cafes, whole earth vegetarian restaurants and sidewalk signs that proudly announce, “Latest Lonely Planet Guides Now in Stock”.
These metrosexual male refugees from the West, apparently in desperate need of being “understood” by their significant female others, some even going so far as to wear men’s skirts in the old Lao tradition, all of them loaded down with Buddhist amulets and sacred wrist strings, and passively led about the Lao capitol by their bigger, stronger, stouter women, looking very much like domesticated urban dogs being taken for sheltered walks, the only thing missing being the Doggy Bags and Pooper Scoopers.
The people of Laos, 80% still scratching out a living from subsistence agriculture in a country where only 4% of the land is arable, 44% with incomes of less than 500 USD per year (about 42 USD per month/10 USD per week) watch with some wonderment at the faux Buddhist “simplicity” of the Western backpacker/yuppie crowd who they know spend hundreds of dollars each week, sometimes thousands of dollars each month to maintain their reverent postures.
“Luckily” for Laos’ impoverished people, the modern version of China has also arrived on this sleepy and economically stagnant scene, bringing with it almost half of all the Foreign Direct Investment presently taking place in Laos.
Basic industrial factories for cement, textiles, food processing and Beer Lao. Gigantic agricultural developments for latex and sugar cane to be exported to China. Big open pit mines and hydroelectric dams. And infrastructure projects like the Asean highway that will connect southwest China to Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore, Mekong River control structures that have lowered the water level of the river by almost 30 feet and created vast gravel pits on either side, electricity distribution, modern water supply systems and centralized underground sewage.
All this activity designed and staffed by thousands of China engineers, accountants, planners and foremen, employing tens of thousands of workers from not only China but also Vietnam, who work 6 days per week, 12 hours per day, under the passive gaze of the unemployed Laotians.
The largest single structure in the whole of Laos is the very large and modern Don Chan Place Hotel, financed by Chinese from Malaysia, built with Vietnamese labor.
Standing astride the Mekong River about a kilometer south of Vientiane, part of a much larger and very ambitious Free Trade Zone/Trade Mart structure that will occupy all of the land between the hotel and the river and serve as a center of trade and trans-shipments for the entire Mekong River from Kumming in southwest China all the way to Saigon and the South China Sea.
On the third floor of the hotel is Laos only “real” nightclub, open from midnight until 3AM, full of China entrepreneurs and engineers, Laotian, China and Vietnamese prostitutes as well as crisply uniformed and suitably humble Laotian service staff along with the small handful of spoiled children of Laos’ tiny ruling group who arrive nightly in their SUV’s and Toyota HiLux trucks, boom boxes blaring the latest hip-hop tunes from LA.
And, oh yeah…over in the corner, a scraggly bunch of Western NGO guys, wives back in the home country, looking with envy at the more free-spending Chinese as they hope to catch the girls left behind.
Just an example – Khun Nattaya in the Bangkok Post of March 3, 2010:
“Even when the country has just emerged from one of the gravest crises it has ever seen, and the wounds of people affected by it remain open, politicians still cannot look beyond their own self-interest.
Thailand will have to go on picking up the pieces, with serious attempts being made at restoring the rule of law and justice system. Thailand has not failed, although if there were a debate it would be a vociferous one on whether the country’s body politic and its politicians have gone bankrupt.”
Sondhi’s anti-parliamentary stance has indirectly received broad support during the censure debate in the sense that many printed comments have strongly belittled the “politicians” and their parliamentary “talk shop” (very similar to the contempt of the German parliament by intellectuals and newspapers in the late 19th and beginning 20th century). Third-rate lecturers from Thammasat and Ramkhamhaeng Universities have essentially denied the MPs, especially those of the Phuea Thai party, the right to be representatives of the people at all (Bangkok Post, June 2, 2010).
At the end of the censure debate, Prime Minister Abhisit almost pleaded, “that he did not want people to lose hope in the parliamentary system as the main mechanism to resolve a national crisis” (The Nation, June 2, 2010).
Ironically, it had been the Democrats themselves, who had “crucially and cynically giving up the chances of a democratic and parliamentary solution” (Democrat Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij, Bangkok Post, May 22, 2010, though made with regard to Phuea Thai) when they boycotted the election of April 2006, and in 2008 teamed up with the PAD to destabilize and finally topple the governments of Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat.
Obviously, it did not help improve the quality of parliament when the Constitution Tribunal/Court dissolved TRT and PPP in 2007, and 2008, respectively. Yet, it is not merely the TRT/PPP/PT that lost many well-qualified politicians to this sort of “judicial politics.” The Democrat party also is very short of any number of promising personnel. In his broadcast, Sondhi went as far as saying that Abhisit was the last hope of the Democrats (indeed–who else is there?), and that his demise would lead to the disintegration of the party altogether.
Indeed, the acceptance of Thailand’s parliamentary system of government among Bangkok’s opinion leaders seems to have been reduced to a very low level. Who can say for sure that this will not lead to more support for Sondhi’s call for a strong and visionary leader to put the house back into order? Yet, leaders cannot create generally accepted political structures that are in accordance with the socio-political demands of a varied population, and the lack of such structures is what has caused the long-term crisis that has shaken Thailand for almost a decade.
Khun Thorn, thanks for the interesting report. Your dissertation will certainly add to what Marc Askew has told us about politics and the Democrat party in Songkhla. 🙂
I think that Andrew Walker must have been glad to get some fodder for his justified view that Thai NGOs are a bunch of narrow-minded and anti-capitalist idealists, who ignore the real economic aspirations of the people.
From the report, I got the impression that the Democrat Party in southern Thailand is in fact a Chuan-Leekpai fan club supported by an infrastructure of innumerable localized social groupings rather than a nationalized political party with a nationalized electorate. This, obviously, begs the question of what will happen after Chuan’s demise (not too long in the future, to be sure). In that case, will all the local groups be thrown back upon themselves, because they will have lost their central integrating figure? Will they be open to other alignments? Or will Chuan’s personality cult be extended beyond his life time in order to keep the groups together under the party’s umbrella, and for how long will this work?
Connected to this latter question is the observation that the report only deals with the Democrats as far as national political offices are concerned. It seems that is has been here that the “Chuan factor” has been very effective. However, it has not been possible, though attempts have been made, to expand the structuring of political allegiance from the national party to the local level. This level still seems to be very much dominated by localized pak-puak. These groups tell party politicians to keep out of local elections, and insist on the dominance of their respective groups in local electoral contests, though they would turn into “Democrats” in national-level elections.
I wonder, whether the author has any information on this particular issue, and an explanation of why the Democrat party has been unable, in all these decades, to expand to the local level. Is this because “Chuan” is not a generalized ideology but rather a personal brand?
On the double issue of southerners recognizing that the Democrats have done nothing much for them in the past decades, and that they seem to be great fans of the PAD’s ASTV (from the perspective of political communication and opinion formation, as you mention, this is very worrying; do they have any other sources of information, such as newspapers?), one might add what Sondhi Limthongkul said at a rally of his “New Politics Party” in Ko Samui in March 2009:
“If I spoke without pity, I would say that the southerners have elected the Democrats for the past 20 years, without anything having improved. Thus, for once, give the PAD an opportunity to get rid of the Thaksin regime. If we cannot manage this, do not elect us again. I know the feelings of the southerners. When they love somebody, then they really love that person. They still love the Democrats, even to the extent that they grind their teeth and are patient after they have been betrayed with the establishment of this [Abhisit] government. However, if this betrayal continues without end, there will be a young handsome person waiting for them. His name is PAD. The southerners are ready to say that the time has come that somebody new must be tried.”
I suppose this is the right thread for our beloved Chris Beale to come and write:
“I fear the colonial construct of 20th Century ‘Thailand’ will come to an end, the pride of the Northern Thai’s will secede and form their own Lanna land, as with Isarn in the Northeast, alongside the secession of the Southern provinces because Thailand is a facist construct held on by force. Soon we will see the return of the Kingdom of Siam with seperate States.”
I just want the joy of writing that before he does
😀
Very interesting post Simon. It brought to mind one of the classic works on Laos from the 1990s which concludes like this:
As Laos is drawn into new phases of regional and global interconnection it is very likely that new, and not so new, opportunities for regulation will emerge. The persistence of regulation in Laos has been all too readily explained away as reflecting a lack of “competent personnel” trained, presumably, in the wonders of free market economics. However, perhaps the possibility should be entertained that deliberate, alternative, regulatory choices are being made. It is now well recognised that globalisation – while homogenising at one level – also encourages regionalism and sharpens the focus on locality. The regulatory opportunities that arise out of global flows undoubtedly contribute to the piquancy of these regional and local phenomena.
Laos has a long history of accepting aid from China, Vietnam, US, NGOs and pretty much anyone else. With national budgets that were regularly half funded externally. So they know very well how to play the game.
A Laos benefiting from the growth of a Chinese style market economy rather then just depending on NGO aid and tourism would be a great improvement.
In my opinion, Laos has always been a quiet yet decisive force in ensuring Southeast Asia stability throughout the turbulence of the Cold War period. In the contemporary post-Cold War world, Laos has yet again showing the same objective, that is, to maintain the international stability of Southeast Asia. I appreciate the forward thinking of China-Laos decision makers in foreseeing that, “A preponderance of power on one side, on the other hand, increases the chances for peace, for the greatly stronger side need not fight at all to get what it wants, while the weaker side would be plainly foolish to attempt to battle for what it wants.”
I hope someday I have an opportunity to drop by China town in Laos to enjoy my favorite dish “Tim-Sum and Xiao-Pao.”
Thanks a bunch Laos!
Good to hear that the article has now been unblocked. In future please do let us know if you have unusual or unexpected difficulties accessing New Mandala in the region. Conditions in Thailand are clearly now of great concern, but the freedom of websites like New Mandala is also potentially relevant in Burma, Laos, Cambodia and many other places.
I worked many years as an international consultant, providing advisory service to mainly MNCs from US and Europe, in third world countries like Pakistan, India, Indonesia etc.
Due to the work, I had many contacts with western aid workers and NGOs. While some of them are genuinely concerned people, most of them are there for the job. Furthermore they carry too much “other” agenda baggage to really do a good job.
What countries like Laos need are really infrastructure development aid, that countries like China is providing.I really do not care about the long term “hidden” agenda and how Laos will be exploited in the future. Building of infrastructure will at least give Laos and its people a chance of bettering themselves – in terms of standard of living. There is o point in talking about “human rights” etc when you and your children are hungry all the time.
Get the roads, rails, clean water, schools, electricity, then the industries will come followed by indigenous demands for better rights etc. When people have satisfied their basic needs and have time o their hands, it will be a natural progression.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why King Vajiralongkorn will be good for Thai Democracy (re-post)
JohnH #4 :
”But powerful military men and politicians found it useful to cultivate the royal charisma.”
Why did first Phibun, then (Pote?) Sarit and Thanom choose to rehabilitate the king? Certainly, Sarit and Thanom were powerful enough not to need his visible presence to support their regimes.
Did the US ’suggest’ this as part of its military financial support/ anti communist package?
Phibun never chose to rehabilitate the king. I’m not a great fan of Paul Handley, but I suggest you read Handley on this.
What he writes is in agreement with a large number of highly reputable historians of Thailand.
Sarit may have supported the king simply because he genuinely believed in the Thai monarchy.
US suggestions – undoubtedly yes : see Benedict Anderson, and numerous others on this.
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
What principles are you referring to? Governments from outside the region prefer to spend their money on social and rural development. It’s no mystery that they were ‘conspicuously absent’ from funding a sporting event!
The Lao government isn’t going to turn down economic investment or development assistance. Funding from “western” sources will probably become less important in a relative sense as regional investment continues to grow, but the idea that its days are numbered is a bit off track.
Sondhi – return parliamentary powers to the king
Srithanonchai # 27 : its’ hardly news that the Thai military now – and at least since the 1933 Borowit Rebellion – has a strong, often dominant – highly hardcore fascist strand.
The only time this was really threatened was when the British, immediately post-war and under the Attlee landslide Labour government, were threatening to take over the fascist construct “Thailand”.
The fascists would certainly have been weeded out then, but America blocked this in preference for support of Seni Pramoj and his brother Kukrit, founders of today’s Democrat party.
America of course, later abandoned Seni Pramoj during the Thammasat 1976 massacre.
It’s hardly surprising many – though certainly not all – of today’s Democrats seem to be in bed with Thai military fascists, yet again.
From the archives: Northern Thai sentiments
There is a lot of ‘analyses’ going around that after the failed Red rebellion (and their shame at the bombing/arson/deaths rampage that trailed the Reds anywhere they went at Bangkok), gasp:
“The failed Red campaign strengthened Abhisit.”
Well but of course! The Reds leadership had not only been disgraced, but a number of them are facing very serious charges of terrorism.
Who is the last hope of the Reds? Chalerm Yubamrung????
Hero or villain? The life of Samak
People who liked and missed Samak S. should be comforted that Chalerm Yubamrung is around. BTW, Chalerm Yubamrung is the Peau Thai Party chairman.
Yeah baby . . . Chalerm Yubamrung is Thailand’s champion of Thai democracy.
Sondhi – return parliamentary powers to the king
Sondhi is an opportunist who will do anything for the sake of himself. The reason behind this crazy idea is because he is quite sure that the he will be given a big reward for suggesting this undemocratic way. During the last four years he already got many rewards for what he had done. But if his dream come true and if Apisit really does follow his stupid advise, he may probably be appointed the next Thai prime minister. One more real reason behind this crazy idea is because he knows damn well that nobody is crazy enough to elect him as an member of parliament. He has no chance to walk on the street like a normal guy. It is impossible for him and his party member to beg for any vote during election time.
Surely, it’s just a coincidence
Nick Nostitz – 29
Good to hear Nick. Someone there being overzealous by the looks of it in the first instance, and someone else there being reasonable yesterday.
Update on blocking of Nostitz report
Luckily, now I’m in Germany so I can visit your website.
In contradiction, I can’t achieved some of Redshirt website in Thailand.
Now the the censorship and propaganda media in Thailand are in critical state. Today Dan River,CNN reporter was called by the police to investigate what he reported. then please take care ,Nick. You may asked someday…
Nick Nostitz in the killing zone (re-post)
Dear Sir,
I’m Thai who have observed the situation by myself, received any information from Thai and international sources. I know that there is some hidden agenda behind Thai media, why they must or need to be bias.
For example; The Nation, it had the conflict in ITV free channel case in Thailand against Thaksin, when he was still in his power. Then, they go against him all the time and supported PAD (Anti-Thaksin protestors). After the military coup, ITV case went to court justice (assign by the coup), then its concession was confiscated and turned back to the government. Then the government hired The Nation for 2000 Mio. Baht per years to run this media in name TPBS. So that is what they receive to follow the government.
For the other media, as I have known some journalists and moderators working on Thai free TV, three persons I known have been intimidated to report the news in the direction that the government please. One of them was called by the military officer who asked him to choose between his family and the direction he report the news.
Accordingly, I must recheck it and research more before trust it, when I watch or read the news. I’ve found a lot of information that Thai media never presented and some that they exaggerate more than the real situation and make the conclusion by themselves without the crucial evidence to support. In my opinion, most Thai media have the conspiracy. It’s necessary for them in order to survive.
We can see a lot of examples, that some Thai who believe Thai media and government’s propaganda try to insult every organizations such as HRW BBC CNN MEPs and other international organization s who inform what they don’t like that they don’t know the truth as them. (How do they know, what they think is true or false when they never open their mind to learn the difference?) .Moreover they claim that those media is bias or receive money from someone they against.
By the way the censorship in Thailand creates an effective propaganda by telling one-sided stories. People in Thailand don’t have chance to receive variety of information for their consideration. Now, it’s worse because the court said that, from now on, who publish the media and information against the government that means they distort the incident and must go to jail.
For how Abhisit came to power, I will tell you in sequence.
Four years ago, the country was led by Thaksin, a billionaire populist who was twice re-elected. A deeply divisive figure loved by the rural poor and loathed by the country’s elite. The PAD – anti Thaksin movement, mostly the elite and middle class who lost their benefit to the poor, rallied for so long time and then the military coup came to dispel Thaksin government.
Then the coup’s government felt to rule the country. They issued new constitution which a lot of unlawful article to protect themselves and disadvantage their political foes. They assigned their new supported group of officers to work in judgment and court system. After that, they let the condition: if we didn’t accept this constitution, there‘s no new election and they could apply worse constitution as they please. So the majority accepted it with the fear for worse rule and hope for new election.
After an election, PPP; pro Thaksin party; unexpectedly won again with 233 seats from 480 seats. While Democrat gained 165 seats. So PPP had right to form the government. Then The PAD can’t accept the result, blamed that they bought vote (In fact, every other parties in Thailand also buy vote included Democrat party).They closed the street for 7 months , seized the government house for 3 months and Thai international airports about a week in total, and they didn’t ask for democratic solutions but only wanted to expel whoever who support Thaksin out of their power.
They didn’t want common election but just raised the one they preferred to get in power. Moreover they also have dangerous ideas against democracy. For example; the one so- called “70/30” which means 70% of representatives in parliament should come from an assignment of the committee contained of experts, academic professors or other selected elites and the other 30% come from an election. Another example is the idea to prohibit normal citizens who don’t hold academic degrees to vote in an election because they believe that the low-educated people are too stupid to choose a good leader.
After long protest, the court, as the tool, banned all 3 parties on government side which affected these parties’ executive committees out of the position as representatives. They also made the other politicians go against PPP. Some of formal PPP members turned to Democrat side. Consequently, the proportion of the parliament was changed. Then they brought the parties’ leaders to the military Barracks to lobby them with or without force up to cases. So people can imply that they used dirty tools to form the government. And that is how the new government lead by Democrat came to power.
Some of his supporters claim that Abhisit and his coalition came from the same parliament. It’s half-true because he took his power after he got rid of his opponents. So this is the difference between an elected one and a person who come to power by dirty elimination of his foes.
– How they use the court to unbalance the sovereignty?
– How they intimidate the other politicians?
– Is the negotiation in the military barrack to form the new government the right thing for democracy?
For the demonstration, I think we should know the root of problem first. The problem is not Thaksin or some few people.
Some foreigners call this crisis as “social class war”. In fact, it isn’t exactly “social class war” or political difference, but the crackdown of Thai society. Yes, it’s about the different between rich and poor but in the abstract way. What the poor want is the acceptation and equal chance for their life. The poor don’t care much how much money they can gain but they want the acceptation from the rich ones.
The situation in Thailand is about the people’s attitude that separated into 2 directions. “Think as Rich or poor ones”. The rich, as they call themselves the middle class, try to insult that the poor is greedy and stupid, so they don’t accept the poor’s votes or decisions. In contradiction; the poor have their grudge against what the so-called rich people look down on them. They stole the poor right and blame them again and again.
The person, no matter class they are, if they agree and pay sympathetic for the poor will be claimed as the fool one and will be pushed to that political side, although they’ve no interest in political issue.( I also have that experience.)
So I think the trend of Thai society now is the isolation and discrimination between people’s hearts, which strong enough to eliminate ones who think different out of society. Even if it may costs people’s lives, some don’t feel guilty about it at all.
For the acceptation and chance, Taksin was an idol for the poor because he is the first one who gave it down to them. He didn’t give the budget for them freely but use strategies to make them try to work and have their praise. For example, he gave them the legal loan for their investment or payment. Before his time, the government had never concerned that the poor never allowed having debt with the formal financial institutes because they don’t have enough asset to guarantee. With the illegal ones, they must pay for very high interest rate. So forget about the investment or have their own business. It’s very hard for the poor to improve their status and quality of life by themselves. Even if they have similar ability as the richer one.
When Thaksin gave the chance to them, he also made the conditions. If you borrow the money and you can’t pay back in time, you’ll never receive it again. So it stimulates the people to work for themselves. At the same time he improved the healthcare and education in rural areas, made the stand-alone brand “OTOP” for the rural ones. So they can work, create and have pride with their works.
In contradiction, Abhisit gives the money, too. This is with more “popularity” policy without repayment. But he gives just only money not the chance. He gives money but he still looks down of them by his speeches and actions. For the investment and financial policies he usually gives the priority to the big enterprises not the small or middle ones.
I think the corruption issue is also significant. But no only Thaksin who corrupted ; in fact; so do the members of Democrat .The Democrat play the most corruption in Thai history but they never blame what they did and the elite back-up help them to cover it with the law distortion and media. There’s no sanction for every politician ‘s corruptions except Thaksin’s.
Have you ever heard about the cases such as Thai BIBF , Hopewell project, Miyazawa project or the land right case so-called “ Sor-Por-Gor 4-01 “corrupted by Democrat? And do you know what the former Prime minister Chuan’s brother cheated from the bank in last financial crisis. I persuade you to dig down about them a bit then you can find the true. And now they also corrupt nonstop!
The court have sentenced Thaksin for 2 years in prison but I have read the reason and it isn’t directly told that he corrupt but just only against the morality as the prime minister and help his alliance to gain profit from his policies as same as another normal people (yet no prove to support).
For the other most popular accusation is that Thaksin and Redshirt want to overthrow the king. I think that is a very silly issue. I believe that most of UDD respect the king and never drag the king down as the other group did. Yes, there’re some few people who don’t respect to the monarchy but not the whole of the group. It’s different between “disrespect” and “overthrow “. And if they blame that Thaksin has this kind of idea, they should have the solid evidence not just only the connection between him and the others.
In cyber world, you may find that most Thai are against Redshirt. It is so normal, because they are in the educational class. For the poor they have too few ways to discuss which these guys in especially international forums and for the most middle class who think different, they just keep it in mind. It’s dangerous to their social positions. For me, I also have an effect that some of my friends saw what I’ve commented here and gossip about me or try to isolate me. But I don’t care much about it because I’m also sick of that kind of society.
The education in Thailand also makes the gap between people’s minds. In the universities, a lot of professors talk about politic in classes. In their cafeterias, only pro-government TV channels are broadcasted. The student are programmed that they are prestige and smart so that it’s their right to run the country and this is their kindness given for the poor one.( without asking them ,if they like it or not).
For the education, that the middle class guys usually claim that the poor and rural persons are uneducated. I think it isn’t true.
How much education we need to understand politic?
In fact, Thai literacy rate is about 95%. That means almost everyone can read and receive any information they want. And so-called “Educated” in Democracy means how much you understand about democracy, right, freedom and another political nature.
As you see, some of people who claim themselves as “educated “ones, can’t understand about these kinds of issues better than the poor ones. So, that is how the problem goes in Thailand.
For the demonstration, I think that they both make the violence but who stir it first.
From March to 8th April, the protestors had really peaceful demonstration. Meanwhile, both sides had the negotiation but couldn’t come to an agreement because they couldn’t accept the conditions from the oppositions.
The first serious incident happened when the government seized the media station of the redshirt without the court procedure but used the military instead. The protestors came to Thaicom Station to ask it back but they received the tear gas booms and rubber bullets instead.
Next day, the protestors had the demonstration outside the parliament but suddenly, the government thrown the tear gas boom to the protestors. Some of them were angry and tried to break into the parliament. After the negotiation, 20 people could get into the parliament to ask for the reason and responsibility but received no answer. The vice prime minister, Mr. Sutep , who took the responsibility had already gone.
After that the government used this incident to claim the state of emergency and forced the law.
10th April 2010, the government claim that it wanted to ask for the space of Ratchaprasong back from the protestors. But the military with heavy weapons was ordered to troop to Phan Fah Intersection.( At that time, the protest located at two places, the smaller group was at Phan Fah Intersection and the bigger group with main UDD leaders was at Ratchaprosong Intersection). The first protestor was shot by real bullet in the afternoon following with the several in the twilight. The mass killing happened around 8-9 pm. In conclusion, 25 people dead and more that 800 people injured. This is the news from the following morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8612783.stm
After that incidence the next round negotiation got cancel.
Is that the fault of the protester to have anger against the government after their friends were killed and injured as a consequence by the government action?
28th April, again the government used the military with heavy weapons. The result is the death of a soldier by “friendly fire”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8648109.stm
The government used the video from Aljazeera to claim and rerun several times on Thai media that the one who shot the soldier was redshirt. (Who wore black but, in fact, have the similar uniform as the special police.) After that the Aljazeera report against the government announcement that it’s misinformation and distortion.
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/asia/2010/05/01/shot-had-huge-impact
4th May, Abhisit announced his Roadmap and 5 May the UDD received it s principle but asked for the detail and confirmation. PAD was against it and warned that they would have arranged the rally if the roadmap had been applied.
For the Roadmap
Abhisit promised that with his speech (but his speeches usually were altered and forgotten what when the time past). So the UDD accept it with their speech, too. If the government wants the action from UDD side, it should act first. On the other hand, the government added more and more soldiers, cut the infrastructure in the protester area and trooped to kill them ,then call the peaceful roadmap.
When the speech is 180 degrees off the action, what could we call that? A lie?
I suggest to let every parties sign the ratification long ago. Because it is the way to entrust that the Roadmap is the real not just the propaganda to buy the time. In addition, after Abhisit ‘s speech, there’s no evidence to show that this Roadmap can be successful. PAD went against it. Some Democrat member didn’t approve it. The Election Commission said that the prime minister had never consulted it first for his guarantee about new election with them. And they’ve never seen the document about it.
Moreover he has no right to issue new election date. It’s the Election Commission authority. His authority is only dissolve the parliament; promise the date about it then the law and other officer will drive the other step to new election automatically.
So why didn’t Abhisit make what he can make. Not promise the thing he can’t do.
Is it difficult to do the direct thing than the reticent one?
If both sides have any other request, just come to open talk .Eye to eye…side by side…to make a negotiation then agreement.
I see this kind of situation compare to the trading situation. The Government sells their roadmap, the UDD‘s interested in it but don’t please enough about some conditions. So if they don’t come to talk and make a bargain, the trade isn’t success. If they talk and can come to the conclusion, then they both must sign the contract. After that, the government (the seller) must show their product and hand it to the UDD( buyer) ,at the same time the buyer must pay for the goods.
The situation was on hold. The government announced that unless the protestors accept the roadmap without any conditions before 15th May, the government considered using military force to disperse the demonstration.
The problem is that 12th May, Red shirt general got shot and dead after that.
14th May, the Crackdown began before the deadline.
15th May, live fire zone was announced.
The soldiers shot live bullets (most from snipers or rifles) to everyone they can shoot; most of dead and injured ones didn’t have any weapon or tried to harm the soldiers. (Included journalists, normal citizens, nurses, police etc.) And a few protestors had only cocktail bomb, homemade bombs or shotgun.
These are the evidences :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyapbQCWzac
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1469377857410&ref=mf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZeVvmOlAI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfoTuVPY3l4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxAbTIdFKU
http://www.reporterinexile.com/
Afternoon 19th May, the UDD leader surrendered to the police but the shooting game of the soldiers continued. Evening the existing protestors ceased fire.
I used to say long ago that I’m against all kind of the violence because the violence causes the other violence (as action and reaction)
At the end this brings only tragedy. I think this is the result of violence from the government for the past whole month. So after long endurance, they can’t endure it any longer. Under the stress, fear and wrath, you can predict what will happen for the people under the circumstance.
However there’s something I can’t clearly understand, after the surrender of UDD leaders, the situation is uncontrolled, the person who raised the incident after that can be anyone which you can’t identify. From the VDO clip you can only see most people ran away, some people around the burnt down building with anger, few are creasing fire with tires. But this one can’t use as the evidence to tell who is the redshirts, who is normal people who (may be) the third party.
Beside, as I consider about the timeline and the position, at that time the UDD leader had already surrendered to the police and the military could control the most of that area. They can troop to the Pratumwanaram Temple really near by the Central World. Moreover we know that the protesters are friendlier with the police but why did all the officers just concentrate to arrest the protesters but no action to control the fire, if they use so lots of the troop, police and bring the fire trucks or at least let them into the burnt down area (There’re some firemen who were ready in change but they must wait for a long time because the military didn’t let them in.) The situation will be better. So why did they ignore about that fact?
For me, I turned to be more interested in redshirt movement after the black Songkran last year. Before that I never thought to take a side and never care whether red or yellow. But after Abhisit came to power, he not only can’t fulfill his promise but also make it worse. The government holds the judgment procedure of the PAD make an excuse that they’re too many personal witnesses. Now we can see how fast the process of the UDD’s ,even though there’re many more witnesses to ask and prove. And then, the crackdown on black Songkran with I could see the evidence from the other media and the eyewitness my uncle who live in Nanglerng district were very different for what the government report. So I try to research it by myself.
Last, I can’t stand the society that has no mercy for the lack of human right , cruel people who never care about the other’s lives and using ironic words to blame the other without looking back to themselves.
So, I agree with redshirt‘s principle but never support the hardcore and violence. However I analyze it as cause and result. Why are things happened? What is the motivation? And that is all of my opinion.
In fact, I am just one of a powerless citizen. I also afraid of a confrontation in real life. Even if I experience something unsuitable, I’m not brave enough to speak loud against the power in Thai society . For this comment I admit that I also have a bits bias as a normal human.
However I try to analyze the situation by using logic instead of negative emotion.
I want to be one small point of my society to explain what happened to the world.( Yes, also all Thai friends, if they want to listen.) I want to speak for the poor who have so few chance to speak to the world. (And if you see, not every poor are stupid as the rich claim. They have their own ideas . Some attitudes’re really mature. This is one of the VDO clip I invite you to see. The voice of the poor hardly reach the outside world just only because they can’t speak English and there’re to few educated Thai who care about what they say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsh225KsfZU )
The milestone is that I want people to understand the root of the problem and use the reasonable way to solve it.
The riot seems to be ended but it isn’t actually end because the procedure of the government to treat the people who think different still continue against human right. Moreover the people’s attitudes have more gap between one another after this last unrest.
Now, Mr. Abhisit arrests everyone who have connection with the redshirt ,although there’s no evidence to prove ,if they’re the one who take part in the last unrest or not.
The Roadmap is still on hold but practically canceled and Abhisit announced that the commeon election won’t be arranged in this years for sure.
So, this is how the government and its supporters call reconcilation….
Last but not least ,thank you for your understanding and sympathy to all Thai.For foreigners, I think you could help us, too. If you understand and don’t forget the problem when the time past as if it is the flow of the wind. So could I ask you, foreigners , to keep a eye on what happen next.
Best Regards,
Muupan
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
A recent traveler’s ironic summary of the arrival of modernity in Laos in all its various forms…………
====================================
“THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT”
Still ruled by a group that calls itself “Socialist’, Laos is often thought of as the “Land that Time Forgot”.
Southeast Asia before it got modernized, educated and partially 1st world, a combo of New Age “Buddhist” tourists and backpackers, and, more recently, sprawling China development projects designed to extract the maximum possible natural resources, agricultural output and economic value.
Two entirely separate Lao worlds, one for the marijuana-dazed New Age Yuppie crowd and “politically correct” (at least in their own eyes), relationship-seeking backpackers wearing organic sandals as they wander reverently around the Disneyland-like New Age “Buddhist” City Center, full of re-constructed Buddhist temples, cozy “fair-trade” coffee/internet cafes, whole earth vegetarian restaurants and sidewalk signs that proudly announce, “Latest Lonely Planet Guides Now in Stock”.
These metrosexual male refugees from the West, apparently in desperate need of being “understood” by their significant female others, some even going so far as to wear men’s skirts in the old Lao tradition, all of them loaded down with Buddhist amulets and sacred wrist strings, and passively led about the Lao capitol by their bigger, stronger, stouter women, looking very much like domesticated urban dogs being taken for sheltered walks, the only thing missing being the Doggy Bags and Pooper Scoopers.
The people of Laos, 80% still scratching out a living from subsistence agriculture in a country where only 4% of the land is arable, 44% with incomes of less than 500 USD per year (about 42 USD per month/10 USD per week) watch with some wonderment at the faux Buddhist “simplicity” of the Western backpacker/yuppie crowd who they know spend hundreds of dollars each week, sometimes thousands of dollars each month to maintain their reverent postures.
“Luckily” for Laos’ impoverished people, the modern version of China has also arrived on this sleepy and economically stagnant scene, bringing with it almost half of all the Foreign Direct Investment presently taking place in Laos.
Basic industrial factories for cement, textiles, food processing and Beer Lao. Gigantic agricultural developments for latex and sugar cane to be exported to China. Big open pit mines and hydroelectric dams. And infrastructure projects like the Asean highway that will connect southwest China to Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore, Mekong River control structures that have lowered the water level of the river by almost 30 feet and created vast gravel pits on either side, electricity distribution, modern water supply systems and centralized underground sewage.
All this activity designed and staffed by thousands of China engineers, accountants, planners and foremen, employing tens of thousands of workers from not only China but also Vietnam, who work 6 days per week, 12 hours per day, under the passive gaze of the unemployed Laotians.
The largest single structure in the whole of Laos is the very large and modern Don Chan Place Hotel, financed by Chinese from Malaysia, built with Vietnamese labor.
Standing astride the Mekong River about a kilometer south of Vientiane, part of a much larger and very ambitious Free Trade Zone/Trade Mart structure that will occupy all of the land between the hotel and the river and serve as a center of trade and trans-shipments for the entire Mekong River from Kumming in southwest China all the way to Saigon and the South China Sea.
On the third floor of the hotel is Laos only “real” nightclub, open from midnight until 3AM, full of China entrepreneurs and engineers, Laotian, China and Vietnamese prostitutes as well as crisply uniformed and suitably humble Laotian service staff along with the small handful of spoiled children of Laos’ tiny ruling group who arrive nightly in their SUV’s and Toyota HiLux trucks, boom boxes blaring the latest hip-hop tunes from LA.
And, oh yeah…over in the corner, a scraggly bunch of Western NGO guys, wives back in the home country, looking with envy at the more free-spending Chinese as they hope to catch the girls left behind.
Sondhi – return parliamentary powers to the king
Just an example – Khun Nattaya in the Bangkok Post of March 3, 2010:
“Even when the country has just emerged from one of the gravest crises it has ever seen, and the wounds of people affected by it remain open, politicians still cannot look beyond their own self-interest.
Thailand will have to go on picking up the pieces, with serious attempts being made at restoring the rule of law and justice system. Thailand has not failed, although if there were a debate it would be a vociferous one on whether the country’s body politic and its politicians have gone bankrupt.”
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
How may central level Lao government officials, research or business people speak Mandarin?
How many official Lao state policy documents are translated into Chinese?
Sondhi – return parliamentary powers to the king
Sondhi’s anti-parliamentary stance has indirectly received broad support during the censure debate in the sense that many printed comments have strongly belittled the “politicians” and their parliamentary “talk shop” (very similar to the contempt of the German parliament by intellectuals and newspapers in the late 19th and beginning 20th century). Third-rate lecturers from Thammasat and Ramkhamhaeng Universities have essentially denied the MPs, especially those of the Phuea Thai party, the right to be representatives of the people at all (Bangkok Post, June 2, 2010).
At the end of the censure debate, Prime Minister Abhisit almost pleaded, “that he did not want people to lose hope in the parliamentary system as the main mechanism to resolve a national crisis” (The Nation, June 2, 2010).
Ironically, it had been the Democrats themselves, who had “crucially and cynically giving up the chances of a democratic and parliamentary solution” (Democrat Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij, Bangkok Post, May 22, 2010, though made with regard to Phuea Thai) when they boycotted the election of April 2006, and in 2008 teamed up with the PAD to destabilize and finally topple the governments of Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat.
Obviously, it did not help improve the quality of parliament when the Constitution Tribunal/Court dissolved TRT and PPP in 2007, and 2008, respectively. Yet, it is not merely the TRT/PPP/PT that lost many well-qualified politicians to this sort of “judicial politics.” The Democrat party also is very short of any number of promising personnel. In his broadcast, Sondhi went as far as saying that Abhisit was the last hope of the Democrats (indeed–who else is there?), and that his demise would lead to the disintegration of the party altogether.
Indeed, the acceptance of Thailand’s parliamentary system of government among Bangkok’s opinion leaders seems to have been reduced to a very low level. Who can say for sure that this will not lead to more support for Sondhi’s call for a strong and visionary leader to put the house back into order? Yet, leaders cannot create generally accepted political structures that are in accordance with the socio-political demands of a varied population, and the lack of such structures is what has caused the long-term crisis that has shaken Thailand for almost a decade.
Report from the South: From the day of Prong-Dong (Harmony) to the day of Prab-Pram (Suppression)
Khun Thorn, thanks for the interesting report. Your dissertation will certainly add to what Marc Askew has told us about politics and the Democrat party in Songkhla. 🙂
I think that Andrew Walker must have been glad to get some fodder for his justified view that Thai NGOs are a bunch of narrow-minded and anti-capitalist idealists, who ignore the real economic aspirations of the people.
From the report, I got the impression that the Democrat Party in southern Thailand is in fact a Chuan-Leekpai fan club supported by an infrastructure of innumerable localized social groupings rather than a nationalized political party with a nationalized electorate. This, obviously, begs the question of what will happen after Chuan’s demise (not too long in the future, to be sure). In that case, will all the local groups be thrown back upon themselves, because they will have lost their central integrating figure? Will they be open to other alignments? Or will Chuan’s personality cult be extended beyond his life time in order to keep the groups together under the party’s umbrella, and for how long will this work?
Connected to this latter question is the observation that the report only deals with the Democrats as far as national political offices are concerned. It seems that is has been here that the “Chuan factor” has been very effective. However, it has not been possible, though attempts have been made, to expand the structuring of political allegiance from the national party to the local level. This level still seems to be very much dominated by localized pak-puak. These groups tell party politicians to keep out of local elections, and insist on the dominance of their respective groups in local electoral contests, though they would turn into “Democrats” in national-level elections.
I wonder, whether the author has any information on this particular issue, and an explanation of why the Democrat party has been unable, in all these decades, to expand to the local level. Is this because “Chuan” is not a generalized ideology but rather a personal brand?
On the double issue of southerners recognizing that the Democrats have done nothing much for them in the past decades, and that they seem to be great fans of the PAD’s ASTV (from the perspective of political communication and opinion formation, as you mention, this is very worrying; do they have any other sources of information, such as newspapers?), one might add what Sondhi Limthongkul said at a rally of his “New Politics Party” in Ko Samui in March 2009:
“If I spoke without pity, I would say that the southerners have elected the Democrats for the past 20 years, without anything having improved. Thus, for once, give the PAD an opportunity to get rid of the Thaksin regime. If we cannot manage this, do not elect us again. I know the feelings of the southerners. When they love somebody, then they really love that person. They still love the Democrats, even to the extent that they grind their teeth and are patient after they have been betrayed with the establishment of this [Abhisit] government. However, if this betrayal continues without end, there will be a young handsome person waiting for them. His name is PAD. The southerners are ready to say that the time has come that somebody new must be tried.”
From the archives: Northern Thai sentiments
Nick,
I suppose this is the right thread for our beloved Chris Beale to come and write:
“I fear the colonial construct of 20th Century ‘Thailand’ will come to an end, the pride of the Northern Thai’s will secede and form their own Lanna land, as with Isarn in the Northeast, alongside the secession of the Southern provinces because Thailand is a facist construct held on by force. Soon we will see the return of the Kingdom of Siam with seperate States.”
I just want the joy of writing that before he does
😀
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
Very interesting post Simon. It brought to mind one of the classic works on Laos from the 1990s which concludes like this:
Modesty prevents me from providing the source!
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
Laos has a long history of accepting aid from China, Vietnam, US, NGOs and pretty much anyone else. With national budgets that were regularly half funded externally. So they know very well how to play the game.
A Laos benefiting from the growth of a Chinese style market economy rather then just depending on NGO aid and tourism would be a great improvement.
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
In my opinion, Laos has always been a quiet yet decisive force in ensuring Southeast Asia stability throughout the turbulence of the Cold War period. In the contemporary post-Cold War world, Laos has yet again showing the same objective, that is, to maintain the international stability of Southeast Asia. I appreciate the forward thinking of China-Laos decision makers in foreseeing that, “A preponderance of power on one side, on the other hand, increases the chances for peace, for the greatly stronger side need not fight at all to get what it wants, while the weaker side would be plainly foolish to attempt to battle for what it wants.”
I hope someday I have an opportunity to drop by China town in Laos to enjoy my favorite dish “Tim-Sum and Xiao-Pao.”
Thanks a bunch Laos!
Surely, it’s just a coincidence
Thanks for this feedback:
Good to hear that the article has now been unblocked. In future please do let us know if you have unusual or unexpected difficulties accessing New Mandala in the region. Conditions in Thailand are clearly now of great concern, but the freedom of websites like New Mandala is also potentially relevant in Burma, Laos, Cambodia and many other places.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
I worked many years as an international consultant, providing advisory service to mainly MNCs from US and Europe, in third world countries like Pakistan, India, Indonesia etc.
Due to the work, I had many contacts with western aid workers and NGOs. While some of them are genuinely concerned people, most of them are there for the job. Furthermore they carry too much “other” agenda baggage to really do a good job.
What countries like Laos need are really infrastructure development aid, that countries like China is providing.I really do not care about the long term “hidden” agenda and how Laos will be exploited in the future. Building of infrastructure will at least give Laos and its people a chance of bettering themselves – in terms of standard of living. There is o point in talking about “human rights” etc when you and your children are hungry all the time.
Get the roads, rails, clean water, schools, electricity, then the industries will come followed by indigenous demands for better rights etc. When people have satisfied their basic needs and have time o their hands, it will be a natural progression.