Dear Khun Chanchai,
I always wondered what happened to you guys who have climbed straight out over the back wall of the house, and what happened to the two injured. While in the house in these hours we have discussed your fate a lot. I am so glad that you at least are alive and well. I am still trying to find out what happened to the fat man with the shot in the stomach, is he dead or alive? This is a question that haunts me.
Thank you.
I agree with many of you here that education system is a big problem in Thailand and it should be improved. The first priority should be given to middle and higher class in Bangkok; that they should respect others, especially the poor as human beings. Why? Because the recent incidence was decided by the educated from Oxford and supported, directly and indirectly, by so many educated from top universities in Thailand and overseas. Only these educated groups are likely to be decision makers and could make similar decision (license to kill) again in the future. This could be the next for academic research and human right organisations.
Why asking for suggestion when you(Abhisit) already have your answer in mind? Like the reconciliation that you arranged just to make people see that you’re compromising but you rejected almost all red-shirt offers. This time you try to make people see that you open for discussion, but exactly you don’t.
If you want to hear suggestions from people, why you rejected reconciliation?
2005 is pretty clear. 2001 is pretty close to a simple majority. In both cases Abhisit and his democrats would be hard pressed to put up numbers like this.
I don’t accept any of the results from parties that were still around after TRT was dismembered illegally, after the not to so legal coup d’etat. The “Democratic Party” here in Thailand had no chance against TRT.
The simple truth is that Abhisit would not be sitting where he is if there had never been a coup.
>Yet despite the sympathetic coverage for the Redshirts in much of the international media, this is not a classic “pro-democracy” struggle between good guys and bad guys. It is a savage and dispiriting civil conflict, from which nobody emerges with much credit
Just like any civil conflict. The need you have to find the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ in the conflict are just an artifact of your own culture.
>Nearly everything that is written about the situation in Thailand seems to take for granted the fact that the Red Shirts really are underpinned by some kind of ideology. But what if this notion is wrong?
In the west the fixation on ideology is a hangover of the cold war where everything was seen through an ideological prism. When Thais say there is no ideology they just mean the redshirts don’t even know what they are fighting for. It’s a statement of contempt.
But all that is needed at the start of a civil war is long standing grievances and an other side that feels no need to do anything about them. Both conditions exist and are getting worse. The Thai upper classes are demonising the lower classes – people they already feel to be stupid and ignorant, and inequality will be increased by the plateauing of thai growth.
One of the self serving big lies in the west about revolutions in the cold war was that only the pure peasant lead revolutions are ‘real’. The fact is that they are always lead by middle class and upper class educated people. There are always politicians who throw their lot in with the movement or try to exploit the grievances to better their career.
Thailand is in a state before severe civil conflict has really started going. The upper classes are already surprisingly hardened against the poor, quite willing to see them shot in the streets but the poor haven’t decided yet whether destroying everything for equality is worth it yet.
I think that it will continue to have 3 main functions/ roles/ purposes, as so far , only perhaps some would be more enforced:
1) Pre-propaganda – for kids & youth, to become a qualified “propagandees” – folks the MOST perfectly susceptible to actual systematic propaganda.
(these are Ellul’s terms in his book “Propaganda – The Formation of Men’s Attitudes“; it’s available @ Kinokuniya book stores in Bangkok, soft pinkish color)
2) as mainly a tool to get a position in business / be able to get any more or less decent paid job. and of course in politics (well, it is another form of business – sort of ! LOL) – to have any chance to be eligible to become a Member of Parliament; soon perhaps (if PAD succeeds in imposing its “New Politics”) it will be as one of main qualification even for being able to have the very right to VOTE at all !
3) actual Propaganda – and here I mostly mean – becoming some academic (ajarn) and thus a Propagandist: to get a position of an authority on all sorts of matters, and being used by gov / establishment for giving “opinions” and pass judgments on everything & everyone. in other words, to become a …. Thinitan! LOL 😀 no, seriously – to become a mouthpiece (and a prostitute) for establishment with NO SHAME, NO CONSCIENCE left at all. and perhaps, also must be mentioned other “specialists” in Propaganda: as professional Thai media (say, Yoon), army (Sansern?), others (Dr. Pornthip ?)
so, to me the picture is quite obvious – the “Education” in Toler-land (or as many now after recent massacres call it Die-land) will be mainly, if not only, for the above mentioned purposes – similar to some grotesque Orwellian like horror story.
well, of course someone may say that education can also be used for art, something “creative” – but I think that is all covered by 2) because nowadays most of those things are commercialized anyway; also because in dictatorship like this EVERYTHING must be aimed at supporting propaganda, otherwise anything slightly liberal might be deemed as anti-establishment. (politicizing & polarization is already pretty evident: recent speech by actor who received highest award, also some statements by film-maker who got award at Cannes )
and of course, promised / promoted by PAD “re-education” will soon start at earnest, I bet ! it has already started ever since 2007 (before the “Referendum”) and only increased during Abhish1t’s regime (which is nothing else than same 2006/07 junta with Demo-crap cover)
that’s my own opinion. more of my own thoughts on “Education” matter I have already posted 1 year ago :
“education or what usually goes by that word in the modern world, is the absolute prerequisite for propaganda. In fact, education is largely identical with what Ellul calls “pre-propaganda”– the conditioning of minds with vast amounts of incoherent information, already dispensed for ulterior purposeds and posing as “facts” and as “education…
Without this intense collaboration by the propagandee the propagandist would be helpless
propaganda itself is our culture and what the masses ought to learn… Primary education makes it possible to enter the realm of propaganda, in which people then receive their intellectual and cultural environment… The uncultured man cannot be reached by propaganda…
development of primary education is a fundamental condition for the organization of propaganda… need of a certain cultural level to make people susceptible to propaganda… ”
well, I recommend to read both Ellul’s book “Propaganda” as well as KhiKwai’s (Ferrera) entire blog in order to be able to cut through the crap of Thai media & ajarns’ spin, and the whole “Education” myth.
Abhisit should hold a conference on whether Thailand should have a strong government like Burma or a workers paradise like Laos because Cambodia just isn’t working anymore.
But seriously we already know what Abhisit will do, he will do nothing fundemental. Theer was talk of reconcilliation of a grand bargain and nothing happened. He had an opportunity a year ago after the shongkran riots to do something and he didn’t use it. A year from now we will have an even larger problem and Abhisit will still be looking good talking fine and doing nothing.
There is always a chance in politics that the weak leader pushed to the front as an outside compromise candidate grabs the reigns and surprises everyone with a dynamic leadership unfettered by the strings or loyalty to the existing political structure. But Abhisit is an administrator meant for peaceful times not a crisis.
The report is entitled “Human Security: Today and Tomorrow.” I am not sure whether the report has very much new data. It is another UN report, not unlike the ones by WHO on health for all, the ones on Human Trafficking, the ones on agriculture or economics.
Getting the Prime Minister’s signature on the report (indicating that he has read it????) clearly looks like a non-issue. Thailand has a Ministry to handle issues of human security. If I were Prime Minister and this were to come across my desk even in normal times, I would likely defer to the Ministry that handles it. Why?
The report’s title, though very important, is not comprehensive enough of all of Thailand’s developmental issues to merit a Prime Minister’s “John Hancock.” (for my Ozland colleagues, that’s “signature.” :)) It is a report that will be useful for discussion in problem solving and policy setting in the Ministry. Relevant points can be discussed in the PM’s cabinet.
Maybe because of my approach on this, I will never get elected PM, but that’s ok too. That’s my take on this blog.
Abhisit should proceed with his roadmap plan, he can elicit public input on specific issues – policies to reduce income gap, policies to improve education, policies to develop Isan etc.
Maybe he should set up some sort of a public forum, in parallel to the parliament, and get all the competing sides send their representatives and come up with real ideas.
The forum should be televised but heavily moderated – no ranting about coups, elections, double standards and crap, only practical policies to address specific and limited areas, and those proposals should be implemented regardless of which party comes to power.
If the forum is successful it would address several problems at once, from ineffective parliament to disfranchised population to exposing loud mouthed buffoons to the need to get representative system to work to realization of the complexity of the problems to replacing mob politics with civilized discourse to shifting public attention from dualities to common goals, and probably many more.
If the forum is successful Abhisit should tell people to demand the same from the parliament.
The key to success is bottom up selection of delegates, perhaps even pulling New Politics trick – mandatory reps from Udon reds, Chonburi yellows, relevant professional organizations, etc. They all have their registration systems and regular assemblies and they should have no problems with nominating their people.
On the other side of the debate should be bureaucrats and technocrats, reps form NESDB and other think tanks.
the military should be banned from involvement in business and politics, most of the 700 generals sacked and banned from any operations in Thailand including refugees and immigration
currently the military can do whatever they like and are unaccountable to anyone
without military interference the police might have a chance to perform and perform their rightful role in management of Thai people in Thailand, even the south, etc
“The government has underestimated badly the support and conviction of the Reds in the North and Northeast. So badly in fact, that some of the radical elements in the Reds, who were reigned in by the leadership of the UDD, have now begun to move underground…
If things stay as they are now you can expect a Southern insurgency type operation from the radical elements….
Abhisit can no longer reconcile with the North and Northeast. It’s no longer safe for him and some of his government to travel in over half the country, without a huge security operation…
It looks very much like a protracted armed Guerrilla war will be in Thailand’s future. Arms are cheap and easy to acquire…”
This includes making it illegal to invoke any type of internal security act that is used against all people in Thailand who should be permitted to exercise their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. This is for both foreigners and Thai citizens.
(2) Immediate abolish Lèse majesté laws in Thailand.
Lèse majesté laws are a blatant violation of basic human right of freedom of expression. Lèse majesté laws are used as a legal shield to insure propaganda and censorship and at the same time prosecute political opponents.
(3) Make all coups against the government a capital crime with severe punishment.
It is simply a blatant abuse of human right to have Lèse majesté laws in force (could) severely punish anyone with 15 years in prison, yet people can overthrow a democratically elected government and go on to become future leaders and prime ministers.
(4) Impeach politicians from office based on an independent judicial process; not based on unproved allegations and mud slinging.
Yes, the electoral process is corrupt in Thailand; but it corrupt on all sides and has been that way for as long as we can remember. It is unfair to use long standing flaws in the “Thai system” selectively for political purposes. Serious political charges of corruption need to be tried in the court of the UN, not the Thai judicial system. Thailand need external help.
Of course, this is only the beginning. However, before other things can be accomplished, a working democracy based on basic human rights and freedoms must be established.
Unfortunately, we know that this will not happen in Thailand, and that is why there has been so little progress as a democratic society. “Democracy” in Thailand is an illusion. It is a complete sham subject to the whims of the established power brokers.
It is a undisputed fact that the rural poor have voted for their choice of leader in Thailand. The established Bangkok power based has used every thing at their disposal from coups, to mass demonstrations, censorship, propaganda, guns, and and out right murder to control their power.
Until this crime against Thai people stops, Thailand will never move forward.
Abhisit seems to have assumed the persona of a pantomime villain in the minds of many. I can’t claim to have met Abhisit, and it’s hard to defend, however tentatively, someone who was at the helm when so many lost their lives; however, it is worth considering who might step into his shoes should the Democrats be defeated in the next election.
If we examine the political leadership of the Reds, we discover Chalerm Yubamrung as the likely Prime Minister in waiting. Perhaps I’m being unfair, but when I hear slogans like “end double standards” I tend to think of the Yubamrung family. (The fact is, if you are rich enough, you really can get away with murder in Thailand, and you don’t even have to be Prime Minister to do it). Suzie Wong (or anyone else), can you tell me, in all honesty, that replacing Abhisit with Chalerm will be a step forward for Thai democracy?
I feel a bit like a record that has stuck, but I can’t help repeating the same message as it remains relevant. Nearly everything that is written about the situation in Thailand seems to take for granted the fact that the Red Shirts really are underpinned by some kind of ideology. But what if this notion is wrong? In case anyone thinks this is only my personal fear, the following was written by Duncan McCargo in the Telegraph online:
“This has been portrayed as a struggle between poor farmers from the countryside and an undemocratic Bangkok elite. Yet despite the sympathetic coverage for the Redshirts in much of the international media, this is not a classic “pro-democracy” struggle between good guys and bad guys. It is a savage and dispiriting civil conflict, from which nobody emerges with much credit…..
……The central problem is that Thailand is torn between two rival camps, each led and directed by rich and powerful factions. Though ostensibly divided by ideological differences, in reality the anti-government Redshirts and the pro-government Yellowshirts are best characterised as competing patronage networks, bound together primarily by personal loyalties and emotional attachments. Supporters on both sides have been mobilised by intermediaries playing on local and family ties.”
My fear is this: that the Red Shirts, rather than being a progressive, grassroots democracy movement, may in fact be a reactionary group mobilised by regional strongmen to safeguard their interests. This seems to be consistent with McCargo’s observations and also with the kind of people we see leading the Peua Thai Party.
If this is true, the unfortunate fact may be that it does not matter what Abhisit does next. The only people capable of defusing this situation are the Red Shirt leaders, most notably Thaksin, but a rapprochement with the government is in almost everyone’s interests except these particular people.
The protected rights I am referring to are inalienable rights or natural rights. Rights to life, self protection, free speech, etc… The constitution only reiterates those rights that people already have.
I believe the Republic form of government has a democratic “PROCESS” built in but is not in any case a democracy as it is ruled by law and democracies as the name entails, is rule by mob. The republic I am referring to is a Constitutional Republic ruled by the supreme law of the land.
Theoretically, in a Constitutional Republic, 99% of the people cannot vote away the right of free speech from 1% of the people.
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” – William Pitt
I heartily second the proposal that NM should devote a thread topic to education in Thailand. However, necessarily and by cultural default almost, it would also have to closely examine the use and abuse of the Thai phrase, ‘greng jai.’
I don’t pretend to be an expert of this; however, I have discussed this with many Thai people and seen it action.
For the Thai commentators on this site, surely this would also be a great opportunity to give us your views on this interesting socio- cultural-linguistic construct.
Proposals need to be realistic. Things like cutting corruption are non-starters at the best of times (and a strong electoral mandate). They are impossible to even think about when a government is hanging by a thread and dependent on allies who are notorious for corruption.
Realistically, a statesman of some caliber in Abhisit’s position would aim for reconciliation:
1. Declare amnesty for both reds and yellows for acts of civil disobedience. No need to amnesty corruption and looting, but the dubious political chargers. Realistically, there is no way for them to be fairly processed through the courts. Injustice would be perceived even if prosecutions were fair.
2. Unconditionally promise to dissolve parliament and have elections within a fixed timeframe. Even the 2006 military junta made this promise. Even if people disagree about timing, this releases pressure, but it should be an honest proposal, no strings attached. Elections are not a delayed reward for someone’s good behavior.
3. Create conditions for a fair election, starting with freedom of the press, unblocking websites, encouraging dialog between the two sides, removing the threat of prosecution for LM (except in narrowly-defined cases), terrorism and other political crimes.
The most important element is to work towards genuine reconciliation, and not throw in poison pills in seemingly reconciliatory words (“media should be a constructive tool” etc.)
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Nick Nostitz in the killing zone
Dear Khun Chanchai,
I always wondered what happened to you guys who have climbed straight out over the back wall of the house, and what happened to the two injured. While in the house in these hours we have discussed your fate a lot. I am so glad that you at least are alive and well. I am still trying to find out what happened to the fat man with the shot in the stomach, is he dead or alive? This is a question that haunts me.
Thank you.
What next for Thailand?
I agree with many of you here that education system is a big problem in Thailand and it should be improved. The first priority should be given to middle and higher class in Bangkok; that they should respect others, especially the poor as human beings. Why? Because the recent incidence was decided by the educated from Oxford and supported, directly and indirectly, by so many educated from top universities in Thailand and overseas. Only these educated groups are likely to be decision makers and could make similar decision (license to kill) again in the future. This could be the next for academic research and human right organisations.
The challenge for Mr Abhisit…
The challenge might also be trying to cover up just how bad his army is.
I mean, read this :
http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-it-ok-to-shoot-foreigners-and-journalists-20100521-w1ur.html
They shot civilians, they shot journalists and it also seems they wanted to shoot other farangs too.
Welcome to the LOS ( LAND OF SNIPERS )
.
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Why asking for suggestion when you(Abhisit) already have your answer in mind? Like the reconciliation that you arranged just to make people see that you’re compromising but you rejected almost all red-shirt offers. This time you try to make people see that you open for discussion, but exactly you don’t.
If you want to hear suggestions from people, why you rejected reconciliation?
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Mungo:
Thaksin 2001: 49.6% 2005: 75%
2005 is pretty clear. 2001 is pretty close to a simple majority. In both cases Abhisit and his democrats would be hard pressed to put up numbers like this.
I don’t accept any of the results from parties that were still around after TRT was dismembered illegally, after the not to so legal coup d’etat. The “Democratic Party” here in Thailand had no chance against TRT.
The simple truth is that Abhisit would not be sitting where he is if there had never been a coup.
The challenge for Mr Abhisit…
>Yet despite the sympathetic coverage for the Redshirts in much of the international media, this is not a classic “pro-democracy” struggle between good guys and bad guys. It is a savage and dispiriting civil conflict, from which nobody emerges with much credit
Just like any civil conflict. The need you have to find the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ in the conflict are just an artifact of your own culture.
>Nearly everything that is written about the situation in Thailand seems to take for granted the fact that the Red Shirts really are underpinned by some kind of ideology. But what if this notion is wrong?
In the west the fixation on ideology is a hangover of the cold war where everything was seen through an ideological prism. When Thais say there is no ideology they just mean the redshirts don’t even know what they are fighting for. It’s a statement of contempt.
But all that is needed at the start of a civil war is long standing grievances and an other side that feels no need to do anything about them. Both conditions exist and are getting worse. The Thai upper classes are demonising the lower classes – people they already feel to be stupid and ignorant, and inequality will be increased by the plateauing of thai growth.
One of the self serving big lies in the west about revolutions in the cold war was that only the pure peasant lead revolutions are ‘real’. The fact is that they are always lead by middle class and upper class educated people. There are always politicians who throw their lot in with the movement or try to exploit the grievances to better their career.
Thailand is in a state before severe civil conflict has really started going. The upper classes are already surprisingly hardened against the poor, quite willing to see them shot in the streets but the poor haven’t decided yet whether destroying everything for equality is worth it yet.
What next for Thailand?
regarding Education
“What next for Thailand’s education system?”
I think that it will continue to have 3 main functions/ roles/ purposes, as so far , only perhaps some would be more enforced:
1) Pre-propaganda – for kids & youth, to become a qualified “propagandees” – folks the MOST perfectly susceptible to actual systematic propaganda.
(these are Ellul’s terms in his book “Propaganda – The Formation of Men’s Attitudes“; it’s available @ Kinokuniya book stores in Bangkok, soft pinkish color)
2) as mainly a tool to get a position in business / be able to get any more or less decent paid job. and of course in politics (well, it is another form of business – sort of ! LOL) – to have any chance to be eligible to become a Member of Parliament; soon perhaps (if PAD succeeds in imposing its “New Politics”) it will be as one of main qualification even for being able to have the very right to VOTE at all !
3) actual Propaganda – and here I mostly mean – becoming some academic (ajarn) and thus a Propagandist: to get a position of an authority on all sorts of matters, and being used by gov / establishment for giving “opinions” and pass judgments on everything & everyone. in other words, to become a …. Thinitan! LOL 😀 no, seriously – to become a mouthpiece (and a prostitute) for establishment with NO SHAME, NO CONSCIENCE left at all. and perhaps, also must be mentioned other “specialists” in Propaganda: as professional Thai media (say, Yoon), army (Sansern?), others (Dr. Pornthip ?)
so, to me the picture is quite obvious – the “Education” in Toler-land (or as many now after recent massacres call it Die-land) will be mainly, if not only, for the above mentioned purposes – similar to some grotesque Orwellian like horror story.
well, of course someone may say that education can also be used for art, something “creative” – but I think that is all covered by 2) because nowadays most of those things are commercialized anyway; also because in dictatorship like this EVERYTHING must be aimed at supporting propaganda, otherwise anything slightly liberal might be deemed as anti-establishment. (politicizing & polarization is already pretty evident: recent speech by actor who received highest award, also some statements by film-maker who got award at Cannes )
and of course, promised / promoted by PAD “re-education” will soon start at earnest, I bet ! it has already started ever since 2007 (before the “Referendum”) and only increased during Abhish1t’s regime (which is nothing else than same 2006/07 junta with Demo-crap cover)
that’s my own opinion. more of my own thoughts on “Education” matter I have already posted 1 year ago :
Education = “pre-propaganda” + Culture = base for propaganda
well, I recommend to read both Ellul’s book “Propaganda” as well as KhiKwai’s (Ferrera) entire blog in order to be able to cut through the crap of Thai media & ajarns’ spin, and the whole “Education” myth.
The challenge for Mr Abhisit…
Abhisit should hold a conference on whether Thailand should have a strong government like Burma or a workers paradise like Laos because Cambodia just isn’t working anymore.
But seriously we already know what Abhisit will do, he will do nothing fundemental. Theer was talk of reconcilliation of a grand bargain and nothing happened. He had an opportunity a year ago after the shongkran riots to do something and he didn’t use it. A year from now we will have an even larger problem and Abhisit will still be looking good talking fine and doing nothing.
There is always a chance in politics that the weak leader pushed to the front as an outside compromise candidate grabs the reigns and surprises everyone with a dynamic leadership unfettered by the strings or loyalty to the existing political structure. But Abhisit is an administrator meant for peaceful times not a crisis.
UNDP report – where is Abhisit?
The report is entitled “Human Security: Today and Tomorrow.” I am not sure whether the report has very much new data. It is another UN report, not unlike the ones by WHO on health for all, the ones on Human Trafficking, the ones on agriculture or economics.
Getting the Prime Minister’s signature on the report (indicating that he has read it????) clearly looks like a non-issue. Thailand has a Ministry to handle issues of human security. If I were Prime Minister and this were to come across my desk even in normal times, I would likely defer to the Ministry that handles it. Why?
The report’s title, though very important, is not comprehensive enough of all of Thailand’s developmental issues to merit a Prime Minister’s “John Hancock.” (for my Ozland colleagues, that’s “signature.” :)) It is a report that will be useful for discussion in problem solving and policy setting in the Ministry. Relevant points can be discussed in the PM’s cabinet.
Maybe because of my approach on this, I will never get elected PM, but that’s ok too. That’s my take on this blog.
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Abhisit should proceed with his roadmap plan, he can elicit public input on specific issues – policies to reduce income gap, policies to improve education, policies to develop Isan etc.
Maybe he should set up some sort of a public forum, in parallel to the parliament, and get all the competing sides send their representatives and come up with real ideas.
The forum should be televised but heavily moderated – no ranting about coups, elections, double standards and crap, only practical policies to address specific and limited areas, and those proposals should be implemented regardless of which party comes to power.
If the forum is successful it would address several problems at once, from ineffective parliament to disfranchised population to exposing loud mouthed buffoons to the need to get representative system to work to realization of the complexity of the problems to replacing mob politics with civilized discourse to shifting public attention from dualities to common goals, and probably many more.
If the forum is successful Abhisit should tell people to demand the same from the parliament.
The key to success is bottom up selection of delegates, perhaps even pulling New Politics trick – mandatory reps from Udon reds, Chonburi yellows, relevant professional organizations, etc. They all have their registration systems and regular assemblies and they should have no problems with nominating their people.
On the other side of the debate should be bureaucrats and technocrats, reps form NESDB and other think tanks.
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Return the Phra Kaew Morakot to Vientiane.
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Portman #6
why dont you mention the military?
the military should be banned from involvement in business and politics, most of the 700 generals sacked and banned from any operations in Thailand including refugees and immigration
currently the military can do whatever they like and are unaccountable to anyone
without military interference the police might have a chance to perform and perform their rightful role in management of Thai people in Thailand, even the south, etc
On Bhumibolists and Royalists
HM the King’s new legend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMtRCRAxq_M
See for yourself.
What next for Thailand?
Ricefield Radio Thailand blog provides an interesting insight on this subject matter of “What’s next …” :
Enemy of the state 9 – Guerrillas, Abhisit and CRES
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Maratjp #7
“1. Get your books on government that you supposedly read from Eton and Oxford and review the concept of an electoral majority.”
I’d be fascinated to read the books that explain how 40% of the population make up an electoral majority. Do you have a recommended reading list?
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Suggestions:
(1) Immediately end censorship in Thailand.
This includes making it illegal to invoke any type of internal security act that is used against all people in Thailand who should be permitted to exercise their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. This is for both foreigners and Thai citizens.
(2) Immediate abolish Lèse majesté laws in Thailand.
Lèse majesté laws are a blatant violation of basic human right of freedom of expression. Lèse majesté laws are used as a legal shield to insure propaganda and censorship and at the same time prosecute political opponents.
(3) Make all coups against the government a capital crime with severe punishment.
It is simply a blatant abuse of human right to have Lèse majesté laws in force (could) severely punish anyone with 15 years in prison, yet people can overthrow a democratically elected government and go on to become future leaders and prime ministers.
(4) Impeach politicians from office based on an independent judicial process; not based on unproved allegations and mud slinging.
Yes, the electoral process is corrupt in Thailand; but it corrupt on all sides and has been that way for as long as we can remember. It is unfair to use long standing flaws in the “Thai system” selectively for political purposes. Serious political charges of corruption need to be tried in the court of the UN, not the Thai judicial system. Thailand need external help.
Of course, this is only the beginning. However, before other things can be accomplished, a working democracy based on basic human rights and freedoms must be established.
Unfortunately, we know that this will not happen in Thailand, and that is why there has been so little progress as a democratic society. “Democracy” in Thailand is an illusion. It is a complete sham subject to the whims of the established power brokers.
It is a undisputed fact that the rural poor have voted for their choice of leader in Thailand. The established Bangkok power based has used every thing at their disposal from coups, to mass demonstrations, censorship, propaganda, guns, and and out right murder to control their power.
Until this crime against Thai people stops, Thailand will never move forward.
The challenge for Mr Abhisit…
Abhisit seems to have assumed the persona of a pantomime villain in the minds of many. I can’t claim to have met Abhisit, and it’s hard to defend, however tentatively, someone who was at the helm when so many lost their lives; however, it is worth considering who might step into his shoes should the Democrats be defeated in the next election.
If we examine the political leadership of the Reds, we discover Chalerm Yubamrung as the likely Prime Minister in waiting. Perhaps I’m being unfair, but when I hear slogans like “end double standards” I tend to think of the Yubamrung family. (The fact is, if you are rich enough, you really can get away with murder in Thailand, and you don’t even have to be Prime Minister to do it). Suzie Wong (or anyone else), can you tell me, in all honesty, that replacing Abhisit with Chalerm will be a step forward for Thai democracy?
I feel a bit like a record that has stuck, but I can’t help repeating the same message as it remains relevant. Nearly everything that is written about the situation in Thailand seems to take for granted the fact that the Red Shirts really are underpinned by some kind of ideology. But what if this notion is wrong? In case anyone thinks this is only my personal fear, the following was written by Duncan McCargo in the Telegraph online:
“This has been portrayed as a struggle between poor farmers from the countryside and an undemocratic Bangkok elite. Yet despite the sympathetic coverage for the Redshirts in much of the international media, this is not a classic “pro-democracy” struggle between good guys and bad guys. It is a savage and dispiriting civil conflict, from which nobody emerges with much credit…..
……The central problem is that Thailand is torn between two rival camps, each led and directed by rich and powerful factions. Though ostensibly divided by ideological differences, in reality the anti-government Redshirts and the pro-government Yellowshirts are best characterised as competing patronage networks, bound together primarily by personal loyalties and emotional attachments. Supporters on both sides have been mobilised by intermediaries playing on local and family ties.”
My fear is this: that the Red Shirts, rather than being a progressive, grassroots democracy movement, may in fact be a reactionary group mobilised by regional strongmen to safeguard their interests. This seems to be consistent with McCargo’s observations and also with the kind of people we see leading the Peua Thai Party.
If this is true, the unfortunate fact may be that it does not matter what Abhisit does next. The only people capable of defusing this situation are the Red Shirt leaders, most notably Thaksin, but a rapprochement with the government is in almost everyone’s interests except these particular people.
Thai style democracy?
The protected rights I am referring to are inalienable rights or natural rights. Rights to life, self protection, free speech, etc… The constitution only reiterates those rights that people already have.
I believe the Republic form of government has a democratic “PROCESS” built in but is not in any case a democracy as it is ruled by law and democracies as the name entails, is rule by mob. The republic I am referring to is a Constitutional Republic ruled by the supreme law of the land.
Theoretically, in a Constitutional Republic, 99% of the people cannot vote away the right of free speech from 1% of the people.
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” – William Pitt
What next for Thailand?
Michael and Roger,
I heartily second the proposal that NM should devote a thread topic to education in Thailand. However, necessarily and by cultural default almost, it would also have to closely examine the use and abuse of the Thai phrase, ‘greng jai.’
I don’t pretend to be an expert of this; however, I have discussed this with many Thai people and seen it action.
For the Thai commentators on this site, surely this would also be a great opportunity to give us your views on this interesting socio- cultural-linguistic construct.
Send your suggestions to Abhisit
Proposals need to be realistic. Things like cutting corruption are non-starters at the best of times (and a strong electoral mandate). They are impossible to even think about when a government is hanging by a thread and dependent on allies who are notorious for corruption.
Realistically, a statesman of some caliber in Abhisit’s position would aim for reconciliation:
1. Declare amnesty for both reds and yellows for acts of civil disobedience. No need to amnesty corruption and looting, but the dubious political chargers. Realistically, there is no way for them to be fairly processed through the courts. Injustice would be perceived even if prosecutions were fair.
2. Unconditionally promise to dissolve parliament and have elections within a fixed timeframe. Even the 2006 military junta made this promise. Even if people disagree about timing, this releases pressure, but it should be an honest proposal, no strings attached. Elections are not a delayed reward for someone’s good behavior.
3. Create conditions for a fair election, starting with freedom of the press, unblocking websites, encouraging dialog between the two sides, removing the threat of prosecution for LM (except in narrowly-defined cases), terrorism and other political crimes.
The most important element is to work towards genuine reconciliation, and not throw in poison pills in seemingly reconciliatory words (“media should be a constructive tool” etc.)