Comments

@Portman….”Australia is an unimportant country with a small population” …….dumb thing to say on Australian National University Website. The small population certainly contributed to quite a bit to Thailand in the past too.

[“Can you run a country at gunpoint? For how long?” “Simple answer: You can’t.” Dead wrong. Burma has been ruled at the point of a gun for nigh on 48 years ago, and it is right next door.] [In Town (8); Anonymous (9)]

The answer to Burma as an example is straightforward: Thailand is not Burma. You might have got away with political rule at the point of a gun in Thailand many years ago, but in practical, effective terms you can no longer do it.

Proof?

This is precisely what the Thai government is trying to do now. The ‘sweaty masses’ just will not take it any longer; they resist. Do you doubt that they are serious? That they would lay down their lives for their democratic rights and for ‘equality of treatment’? I don’t. Just stroll down to Ratchaprasong a month ago when it was safer and the rallies and speeches were going full swing, and you will know that they are serious. The ‘reds’ will fight. And protests, rallies, disruptions are expensive economically. The present disruptions: just immediate economic costs, say US$2 billion. Longer term? Further problems. Further $billions economic costs. Will the business and economic sectors wear it? Will they endure such gigantic losses for what is essentially ‘a political shadow play’ by some elites? After all, if the ‘reds’ were to prevail politically what would change tremendously in their situations as businessmen? Nothing much really. You would just have a different government; life would still go on very much the same. In fact, if the ‘reds’ economic management is good, as per their previous record, the economy might even go up a gear.

If you think things through carefully, for businessmen and the economic sector these ructions are mere ‘shadow plays’ by some elites. A government is a government.

For some ammart(s) and their ‘dogs of war’ however it is not ‘shadow play’; it is life-and-death. It is their lifebowls. If the ‘reds’ were to prevail politically, this will actually mean some institutional change; from say a ‘feudalistic’ structure to a more ‘democratic’ structure. If this were to happen, some ‘rents’ would no longer be as easy to collect.

Why do you think some ammart(s) and some ‘dogs of war’ are fighting so hard?

The ‘reds’ will prevail ultimately. Why?

Here, as elsewhere, business and the economic sector is ‘the crucial foundation stone’. The ‘dogs of war’ do not draw their blood from the ammart(s). Both the ammart(s) and the ‘dogs of war’ draw their blood from the ‘the crucial foundation stone’.

For those of ‘the crucial foundation stone’, sooner or later (sooner for some and later for others) the coin will drop: a government is a government; if the ‘reds’ were to prevail politically nothing much would change. Life would still go on very much the same. Those who take the trouble to peer a little bit ahead might even see the advantages of being more ‘democratic’ and less ‘feudalistic’. For businessmen, it might be better. Look at America! Who calls the shots?

When the coin drops to those of ‘the crucial foundation stone’, they will come to this considered conclusion: ‘Why should my food bowl get all dirty, why should I lose my meal just because some others are fighting for their lifebowls? My food bowl will stay the same irregardless.’ The ‘dogs of war’ draw their blood from the ‘the crucial foundation stone’. When this coin drops, the ‘dogs of war’ will stop biting. He who pays the piper calls the tune. He who feeds the dogs directs who is to be bitten. The ‘dogs’ do not bite. The ‘reds’ win.

To those of you who are from the Thai ‘middle class’: Has this guy from the north hurt any of you? I don’t think so. I am sure not as much as the Democrats had. Remember Chuan Leekpai, Abhisit’s mentor? In the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis when many Thai businesses were financially devastated, Chuan opened up the widows and doors to ‘globalization’. As Dad says, ‘In stride giant WWF wrestlers (Western multinationals) to break the bones of the young Thai ‘weaklings’ prostrate with fever.’ Remember that, the jewels of Thai business and economy snatched up at firesale prices? Like mentor, like mentored. Abhisit given his background and education is sympathetic to further globalization. Another round of ‘opening up’?

Just read the above carefully. Are the ‘figures’ correct? Are the ‘figures’ ‘added up’ correctly? If so, think who is being played for a fool.

Update! The peaceful, unarmed, innocent protesters are now burning all the important places in BKK. I live here in BKK and I don’t agree with the government killing its people but you all have to know that Red shirt people are not they way you think they are. They are not innocent, unarmed, harmless, peaceful whatsoever. (excuse my english)

Another video of the above, but from a different angle

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=124158234276622

Ayutthaya – I don’t see this as a turning point toward victory for the Reds. True, they form the electoral majority but that is assuming that elections will be free and fair (and the judiciary won’t be used to ban/block candidates representing Reds). Also, there is always the opportunity for any Red-aligned members that are elected to be co-opted to work within the current system in return for minor and largely superficial reforms.

If anything, the delegitimisation campaign, especially its use of the terrorist moniker has been successful amongst the Bangkokians who are angry at the disruption in their lives. The subsequent vandalism, arson, violent civil obedience etc only reinforces to the current powers that the Reds are not credible political partners or deserving of positions in government.

This isn’t to deny that there are very legitimate grievances that need to be dealt with. Only that the Yellows will now be more intent than ever at denying the Reds any form of political reform and recent events (intentional or otherwise) will give them ongoing justification it.

Rather than working within the system, the Reds attempted to bring down the system. The struggle for the Yellows is now clearly existential so unfortunately I see this as the beginning of harsher policies toward the Reds rather than the beginning of genuine progress.

The latent variable is, as always the Army, especially with the King’s ill health. While ever the Army benefits more from the current alignment, they’ve no reason to change things. If we do see the development of a mass movement rejecting the monarchy and military then that may change the calculus.

First of all, please inform on the authentity of this document, as Peera pointed out.

Second, Mick #1: You also forgot the Thai senator who demanded that money flows to Aung San Suu Kyi should be investigated last (?) month as she gotta be taking money from Thaksin AND she is in no position to comment anything about Thailand as she has no access to current news as she is in solitary basically.

JohnH: access “suspended temporarily”. I’m sure CAPO will have it back up quickly, once things calm down!

Simon: you’re right that the army realizes coups are not de rigueur in today’s world. But it’s not because they are “ashamed of 1992”; obviously they were not ashamed enough not to do it again in 2006. But you don’t need an actual coup to control things, and the army knows that now. A little gathering of party leaders at the CIC’s home in Dec. 2008 was effective enough. And they obviously found the right words to persuade Abhisit that a dissolution before September would not be in his interests. They are firmly in control without executing any coups.

Portman: Harmony is exactly right, but so are you. In 1992 the news did escape to the outside world. But it was suppressed within Thailand, and that is the more significant point. The government/military controlled radio and TV, which is all the news that most of the country received about the protests in Bangkok. That’s how the country could be persuaded that communists were destroying Bangkok, and how soldiers brought into Bangkok could conscientiously open fire on citizens — the soldiers didn’t know anything about a peaceful protest for democracy.

Imagine if the only news that people in Bangkok received in May 2010 was of the type the government allowed Wednesday night — government programming on all the TV channels. Not even news from non-government sources! No internet, no SMS, no Twitter. Maybe the siege would have ended long ago, but like 1992, and without Thais and the world understanding what really happened.

@Jim Taylor:

The idea of Prem of his own volition pulling the strings makes little sense in the context of his role as president of the privy council and the wider context of Thai culture. It is unthinkable that he acts without the clear imprimatur of the King and.or Queen. It has always been that way.

One needs to remember that according to law, the king has no role in politics, however a succession of commentators have shown that he is a compulsive and incompetent meddler politics. Of course he cannot do so overtly so a pervasive system of ‘network management’ has been put into place over a long period, developed, implemented and encouraged by corrupt ‘grace and favour’ – largesse distributed by the king (see Handley, Ferrara and others). This means that in Thailand, a nod and a wink is sufficient to get his own way, and that has often been to his direct advantage and to the direct disadvantage of the Thai people (except those at the top of the tree – the so-called ‘elites’).

Thailand is plagued by corruption and exploitation – it is a national and international disgrace. That the king has been unable to resolve this in 60 years semi-divine status is just ridiculous, and one must therefore conclude that he approves of it, indeed, there is ample evidence that he has built the royal fortune of USD 30,000,000,000+ precisely on the back of corruptly purchased grace and favour.

Even accepting their geographical and political differences, look at what has been achieved by other countries, while Thailand languishes in the developing world. Look at South Korea and Japan. Look more recently at Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Cambodia, This cannot be accidental, even though Thais have an unenviable reputation for incompetence. It can only be because the situation that the king has carefully built over 60 years suits the king very nicely thank you.

More generous and less cynical people than me say that this ‘semi-divine’ ruler, protected from all criticism by huge and oppressive laws enthusiastically applied, was powerless to address the serious structural issues in Thailand, and that he wished he could have done more, makes him out to be a hapless victim of his own impotence, and must be one of the greatest lies in the world, it certainly does not accord with the position he has in the hearts and minds of many Thais, even setting aside the all-pervasive and pernicious propaganda that has been in place throughout his reign.

It seems clear to me, and to many many Thais these days, that their hope lies not in the king at all, who is increasingly being seen, not as a part of the solution, but as a large part of the problem.

I have the privilege of not being in Thailand, or I would be seriously concerned as to the legal consequences of speaking in this vein, and fortunately (for Thailand), Thais are starting to see things the way they are. Even though their understanding is stunted by decades of deliberately poor education and the huge weight of the cultural Thai albatross. Understandably perhaps, the forces of existing self-interest, the existing power cabals, are terrified that the great unwashed poor in Thailand are going to supplant them at the national trough, hence the duplicity and savagery of the recent ‘crack-down’.

Make no mistake, those in, power, Abhisit’s handlers, are fighting for their lives, and there are few more unprincipled and ruthless things than an ‘elite’ Thai under threat.

Excellent analysis by AW (haven’t got to the other one yet).

The North and Northeast were colonized and annexed by Siam (Bangkok). The other colonial powers in the region faced their colonies’ battles for independence long ago. Bangkok is now facing its equivalent.