A comment from a reader who had trouble posting in Bangkok:
As far as I’ve managed to read without falling asleep, the 2007 and 1997 constitutions are virtually identical. And the amendments that are such a hot-button issue seem rather trivial. (BTW the 2007 constitution is the first and only constitution that has been subjected to a popular referendum, all the rest, including the “people’s constitution” of 1997 were imposed by a governing junta. One new feature is the guarantee of universal access to quality health care, education etc.
Anyway all constitutions of recent decades have had similar weaknesses–e.g. absolute freedom of expression (except when someone’s good name or that of his family might be sullied), gender equality (interpreted in Kafkaesque ways by the courts) i.e. bold declarations of rights that are immediately robbed of any force. One big problem, IMO, is that the process for making law ensures that the elected parliament is no more than a rubber stamp–yes or no–to legislation put forward by the powers that be. I.e. Parliament does not initiate or even deliberate legislation. Laws are proposed to the Council of State–a mostly or completely appointed body, I’m fuzzy on how that happens. If they approve it, it goes to the Council of Ministers, if they approve it it goes to Parliamentary committee then, assuming approval, it goes up for a vote. If any changes are requested at any stage, it goes back for redrafting and starts the whole process over again. Thus
virtually impossible to produce meaningful legislation and impossible to get any meaningful public debate (though legislation is sometimes put up for public debate–probably as a stalling tactic–it still has garner the approval of the councils). OTOH, it’s embarassingly, dangerously, easy to amend the constitution.
Another problem is draconian punishments (decertification) for pols and parties who violate impossible standards of purity. Thus Samak being striped of office for doing a cooking show. What this does, since every pol and party is in violation of something, is to give the courts to decertify them whenever it’s convienient (thus removing Samak to end the yellow shirt standoff). — The red shirts may want to hang on in hopes that the courts will decertify the Democrat party just to end the standoff.
It beats me why anyone would still read Thanong and quote him. I have stopped reading his fictional crap long ago. I have better things to do with my time.
This is pure intimidation of opposite opinions and used to spread fear and manipulate optinions. it seems very soft, yet the idea behind this is the same as the reeducation camps we know from the past.
It shows that the army is not the right party to be involved in handling civil unrest.
we all want peace – but with justice and equity; we should remember those who died in the streets: there is no point in making conciliatory remarks without ensuring substance and iron clad guarantees: Abhisit’s DP-Amaart-Military Alliance have shown over the past five years to be duplicitous, cunning and engage consistently in double speak: Nor Por Chor leaders should hold out for a dissolution within the next few months otherwise the DP will simply further entrench their power base, esp. post-September reshuffle…
And [POrtman] what’s wrong with SaeDaeng? eccentric yes, outspoken yes; but in fact mostly correct if you read his web site. Many folk seem unable to get beyond mere appearances, as happened to Thaksin. The categorising of oppositional voices (as listed in your blog) in one basket is mischievous and typifies the current media-GOv attempt to delegitimise (any) opposition through the use of linguistic devises such as ridicule…
In my opinion, there are three explanations to General Pravit Wongsuwan and General Anupong Paojinda decisions. First, the military refused to be used by Aphisit at the expense of the military institution. Second, the military recognizes that the use of force would certainly lead to civil war across the land. Third, both persons are Chinese descendants so they culturally tend to follow the peace loving Chinese tradition.
Army chief’s tactics force election offer
5/05/2010
Bangkok Post
“Army chief Anupong Paojinda made it clear on April 12 that he was opposed to another crackdown on red shirt demonstrators, instead favouring a house dissolution and the use of political measures to solve the impasse.
Gen Anupong said politicians should facilitate talks between the government and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship because the use of force would lead to more deaths.
Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, who once said police, not soldiers, should lead any crackdowns on protesters, holds the same position.
“It’s unacceptable for me to use soldiers to shoot Thais,” he said.
Although the prime minister forced Gen Anupong to take a more decisive role in ending the rallies by appointing him chief of security operations on April16, the army leader has made no obvious effort to disperse the rally at Ratchaprasong intersection.
He has only taken direct action to end red shirt rallies staged outside of the Ratchaprasong area.
As the political crisis drags on, the army’s dissatisfaction with Mr Abhisit is increasing because of pressure from the government to use force to end the protests.
The government has invoked threats to national security, terrorism and attacks on the monarchy as grounds for the army to clear the protesters from Bangkok’s streets. But the army has maintained its support for Gen Anupong’s position that a political resolution is the only way out of the crisis.”
Another election, another coaltion of the usual suspects.
Another government comprised of self-serving, corrupt ”representatives” of the people.
Another round of empty promises, quick fix policies and sops for the people.
Another year of pointless, failed political debate and argument.
Another crisis.
Despair.
Addendum:
Banharn (insert name of your choice) is already saying that his previous banning from politics should be reversed, so he can return to politics. (I imagine because he loves Thailand, the king…and the people have already voiced their mandate for him to unite Thailand etc.)
1) Actually I agree with your comments, almost entirely. But if you have problem with my statement that anti-monarchy was a “bogus” allegation, I would like to call Somsak, the same authority you cite as the critic of invisibility of anti-monarchy, to my support.
If you understand and accept his statement, then you should understand mine as well. If you don’t accept, esp. to the first sentence, would you say to him, “this invisibility of anti-monarchy sentiment may distort the understanding we have of the situation” (Aladdin #40)? I hope you find his answer to your criticism.
2) You and I may evaluate the extent of anti-monarchy in the Reds movement differently. But actually I didn’t avoid talking about it. Here it is what I think, from the article.
“Even as some quarters among the Reds are critical of the monarchy, …the mass base of the Reds is people who remain deeply religious, nationalistic, and royalist, although with some disappointment at the royals. The leaders of the UDD reflect the politics of their people. They have not shown any signs of anti-monarchy but to the contrary. The strongest comment is disappointment and they beg for some royal sympathy.” (Note: By “the strongest comment”, I mean Nattawut’s famous speech on “Sky and Soil/Earth” 200?.)
Please read it carefully. You may disagree with me. That’s fine. I don’t think the Reds movement is an anti-monarchy one as the govt tried to suggest. I don’t think most of the names mentioned in the govt’s diagram are anti-monarchy at all, except a few such as Ji. I don’t think there is a “network” either.
BTW this is not an article about the anti-monarchy in Thailand and it is not the subject of my interest. I hope people who are interested in this subject, or very much engaged with it, write it. Should I wonder why many people who are so deeply interested in writing about the monarchy in recent years don’t make the anti-monarchy visible? Perhaps you, Aladdin, can enlighten me why don’t they do it.
To Somsak #39: I agree with the comments/criticism on the decision-making process. A concrete suggestion how should it be done would be nice.
What I disagree is the jump from that (the questionable or inadequate decision-making process) to the implicit and explicit allegations that the leaders (ab)use people, using them as pawns for a higher or hidden agenda, that there is a secret deal or collusion or conspiracy, without care for people’s life because they are simply bad old politicians who never care fore people’s life, and so on.
These are serious accusations. Then we should be careful. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused to prove their innocence. As far as I see (not only yours but also similar others such as those who are suspicious of secret deals between UDD leaders and the gocrnment), the allegations are not based even on circumstantial evidence. They arethe result of suspicion + deductive logics, both of which are framed by conspiratorial approach to a political conflict. These thinkings then make a stretch out of inadequate circumstantial evidence and a lot of “they said”, “it is said”.
Yes, a dubious decision by leaders or people can/should be criticised. But why can’t a dubious decision be just that, a dubious or bad decision? Why must it be the result of a conspiratorial hidden agenda (with Thaksin) or secret deal (with government)? Why can’t the leaders make a poor decision despite their care for life and their close relations with people, but because of their views of life, risk, weapons, peace, non-violence, because of their ideology and politics? Why a poor decision must be due to a conpriatorial factor (although I don’t rule it out)?
I have no illusion what the UDD leaders think about Thaksin’s war on drugs or the crisis in the south. They said it so many times. I think I said it too (in the article?) that the Reds are typical people who are nationalistic, conservative, religious, royalist (although more ciritical and with lots of disappointment). I don’t think the Reds movement is primarily an ideologial movement either. This conflict is not about a great ideological divide inThai society. Their decisions look bad to you could very well because they don’t think like you. Their morals are different from yours. Their views of life, risk, weapons, paeace, non-violence are different from yours. Plain and straightforward. If you try to understand who they are, how they think, the general characteristics and culture of this movement, you probably can explain those decisions you disagree without having to jump to accusations by a conspiratorial thinking.
Of course, we still can/ should comment and criticise their views of life, risk, justice, and so on, if we want to. Why is a reaction to your criticism = making the UDD leaders angels (and who used to criticise Thaksin now turn opposite, bla bla bla, irrelevance)? My disagreement with a conspiratorial accusation does not mean I endorse the UDD decisions or their views about Thaksin, wars on drigs, the south, many more in fact.
I don’t think the concept of agency is for practical matters of a social movement. But like nakleng, agency, a conspiratorial approach to a political conflict does have limits too. (Well, what doesn’t have?) Even if some of the allegations of conspiracy are true, the limits of the conspiratorial approach remain there, still misses many important points, and can still be misleading. As a matter of fact, it is the commonly known, popular and sensational approach to a political conflict. The contention of these different approaches are well known. No need to elaborate.
Sure, Thaksin is an elephant in the room. Sure, elite conflicts are inseparable from any analysis of the crisis. For such a huge crisis like this one, there must be so many dimensions to sort out. But there is no single one that can explain the whole crisis adequately. I don’t dismiss those other approaches. In my opinion, however, among the typical approaches now include the conspiratorial one. Yours is one of them. I would like to offer one. If it is a reminder to your readers/ fans of the limits of your approach, that’s a bonus. thinking.
Thanks A.W. #25, for updating with the FM’s summary. It reads very well & contains several attractive proposals (e.g. improved education, welfare & employment opportunities for all Thais, an independent media watchdog, an independent tribunal to investigate the recent violence, etc.,etc.). However, it raises a few small problems:
1. Improvements based on broader interpretations of justice/injustice which are in areas of fundamental rights and egalitarian concerns are impossible unless it is recognised that the justice system must be entirely remodelled. Without courts that are in a position to slap the government’s wrists as soon as they step out of line, injustice will continue because it can (see my # 31);
2. The flaky generalisations about media responsibility (e.g. it must “operate in a constructive manner”) are useless. There are laws about inciting violence, organising seditious movements, etc. If they are not good enough, re-write them so that they specifically state what is not allowed;
3. How on earth does a man who can’t even bring the selection of a police chief to a satisfactory conclusion, or buy a fleet of buses without seemingly credible allegations of open, bare-faced corruption, think he can implement such an ambitious project? In 6 months! AND WHO WILL HELP HIM? Look at the people he has to keep happy in the coalition: a motley group, largely composed of greedy, parasitic fools, human rights abusers, criminal consorts & brothel-keepers.
4. The military reshuffle in September.
Perhaps he should sit down with the Redshirt leaders and negotiate a similar proposal to be the aim of the next government, they should all sign it & take an oath of commitment to it in front of HMK. Then the parliament should be dissolved, with a caretaker govt, composed of both sides. Call elections for the end of July, & everyone go away to work on specific strategies for achieving the goals they have mutually committed to (because the electorate will surely want details), and the election process.
I think the main purpose of such questioning was – to try figure out the potential for a more massive students’ involvement at this period of time. because so far, unlike in 73, 76, and even in 92, students are mostly inert mass seemingly indifferent to politics. present time students are engrossed in consumerism very much, rather preferring to spend time socializing, having all sorts of fun and CONSUMING (whatever – from pretty toys as latest models of mobile phones, to alcohol). personally I have been living in areas where many students reside and even had them as neighbors – so, I can tell with confidence what they are mostly interested in.
however in many countries in the past, as well as even here in Thailand, students has always been as one of the most active layers of society, and quite powerful too. they are “fresh”, open to change in life, to challenges, have much less attachments than adults, and are clever, as well as eager to learn something new. so, all this makes students as a big potential fuel for any sort of political movement. that’s why often students have been distracted by all sorts of tricks – like during Vietnam war in US it was hippy revolution, “free love” and LSD. now Consumerism is bigger and more addictive drug than all those combined.
therefore army intel were trying to check the state of students’ mass in current period of time and figure out the potential of and consequences if students join in the whole mess Thailand now in. it was a recon task, assessment of forces so to say.
therefore the author of the OP is perhaps too naive thinking :
“I can also dare say that the intelligence here is not very functional”
they are very functional, alright. it is just modern students are a bit less clever than they used to be, to put it mildly. or otherwise all their whatever cleverness is being more cleverly directed towards some other things, deviating their attention from the events which are shaping their lives, as a future generation who is gonna live in here.
perhaps army intel were pleased to find them so, “bored”, and perhaps that was the whole idea : “politics are bored, better go and have some sanook (fun) – shopping, partying, consuming … ”
and it is much more INTELLIGENT than intimidation, because … it achieves the EXACT desired reaction ! intimidation might have caused reaction to stand up for a challenge. but what is the reaction to being bored ? 😉 to go and have fun of course ! 😀
Re: Tarrin’s belief that some patients may have been refused treatment at Chula Hospital
It seems very unlikely that actually anyone was refused treatment. Dr. Suthep who led the initiative at Chula Hospital issued public apology for his remarks about not treating police and affirmed that he never refused treatment to anyone.
The incident also seemed to cause quite an uproar in the medical community causing the Medical Council, Red Cross Society of Thailand, Ministry of Health and Chula Hospital itself to come out publicly to say that they affirm treatment to all patients equally. The Medical Council also said it would investigate the issue.
So looking at the circumstances as describe, it seems very unlikely that any police was in fact denied treatment.
I have no problems with defending the Red Shirt movement against the attack by Bangkok snobs, the royalists, the government, etc, the kind of defense Thongchai’s done so well here (as do many others recently). I had myself done it too since 2007 when the ‘Red Shirts’ still wore Yellow Shirts!. But to stop here, with only such defense, would be a mistake.
In my view, the major problem this kind of defense, that many academics/activists are now doing, is to see the Red Shirts as simply a kind of modern day ‘Peasant Rebellion’ (р╕Бр╕Ър╕Пр╕Кр╕▓р╕зр╕Щр╕▓). In a sense, it’s certainly is: broadly speaking, a revolt by rural-based masses against the injustice suffered from the ‘center’, the government and all its aristocratic and middle classes bakers.
But this is also a modern day ‘Peasant Rebellion’, under the leadership / hegemony of the neo/big bourgeoisie. To simply ignore this, is to abandon social analysis entirely, and retreat to a kind of romanticized populism.
(Of course, I insisted since before the coup and still do, that hegemony/leadership of the neo/big bourgeoisie is incomparably better, from democratic standpoint, than hegemony/leadership of the unelected, unaccountable forces that were behind the coup and are now behind the government.)
I don’t understand how Abhisit can state the first pointer when he has himself allowed exactly what he is speaking against: by allowing the anti-monarchy allegations surface and promising in second or third point to investigate them he is doing exactly what he is saying has to stop:dealing at all issues (artificially) related to royalty.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Abhisit’s offer
re comparing constitutions… google as usual is helpful even for those that were interested in this topic a couple of years ago
I suggest:
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0603/284/
is useful
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
This is a very good article, hit the crux of the matter.
Too bad not enough sensible nor people who make the difference will read it.
Abhisit’s offer
A comment from a reader who had trouble posting in Bangkok:
As far as I’ve managed to read without falling asleep, the 2007 and 1997 constitutions are virtually identical. And the amendments that are such a hot-button issue seem rather trivial. (BTW the 2007 constitution is the first and only constitution that has been subjected to a popular referendum, all the rest, including the “people’s constitution” of 1997 were imposed by a governing junta. One new feature is the guarantee of universal access to quality health care, education etc.
Anyway all constitutions of recent decades have had similar weaknesses–e.g. absolute freedom of expression (except when someone’s good name or that of his family might be sullied), gender equality (interpreted in Kafkaesque ways by the courts) i.e. bold declarations of rights that are immediately robbed of any force. One big problem, IMO, is that the process for making law ensures that the elected parliament is no more than a rubber stamp–yes or no–to legislation put forward by the powers that be. I.e. Parliament does not initiate or even deliberate legislation. Laws are proposed to the Council of State–a mostly or completely appointed body, I’m fuzzy on how that happens. If they approve it, it goes to the Council of Ministers, if they approve it it goes to Parliamentary committee then, assuming approval, it goes up for a vote. If any changes are requested at any stage, it goes back for redrafting and starts the whole process over again. Thus
virtually impossible to produce meaningful legislation and impossible to get any meaningful public debate (though legislation is sometimes put up for public debate–probably as a stalling tactic–it still has garner the approval of the councils). OTOH, it’s embarassingly, dangerously, easy to amend the constitution.
Another problem is draconian punishments (decertification) for pols and parties who violate impossible standards of purity. Thus Samak being striped of office for doing a cooking show. What this does, since every pol and party is in violation of something, is to give the courts to decertify them whenever it’s convienient (thus removing Samak to end the yellow shirt standoff). — The red shirts may want to hang on in hopes that the courts will decertify the Democrat party just to end the standoff.
Interview with Thaksin: “I am speaking to you from heaven”
It beats me why anyone would still read Thanong and quote him. I have stopped reading his fictional crap long ago. I have better things to do with my time.
Thai military intelligence in action
This is pure intimidation of opposite opinions and used to spread fear and manipulate optinions. it seems very soft, yet the idea behind this is the same as the reeducation camps we know from the past.
It shows that the army is not the right party to be involved in handling civil unrest.
Abhisit’s offer
we all want peace – but with justice and equity; we should remember those who died in the streets: there is no point in making conciliatory remarks without ensuring substance and iron clad guarantees: Abhisit’s DP-Amaart-Military Alliance have shown over the past five years to be duplicitous, cunning and engage consistently in double speak: Nor Por Chor leaders should hold out for a dissolution within the next few months otherwise the DP will simply further entrench their power base, esp. post-September reshuffle…
And [POrtman] what’s wrong with SaeDaeng? eccentric yes, outspoken yes; but in fact mostly correct if you read his web site. Many folk seem unable to get beyond mere appearances, as happened to Thaksin. The categorising of oppositional voices (as listed in your blog) in one basket is mischievous and typifies the current media-GOv attempt to delegitimise (any) opposition through the use of linguistic devises such as ridicule…
Thai military intelligence in action
In my opinion, there are three explanations to General Pravit Wongsuwan and General Anupong Paojinda decisions. First, the military refused to be used by Aphisit at the expense of the military institution. Second, the military recognizes that the use of force would certainly lead to civil war across the land. Third, both persons are Chinese descendants so they culturally tend to follow the peace loving Chinese tradition.
Army chief’s tactics force election offer
5/05/2010
Bangkok Post
“Army chief Anupong Paojinda made it clear on April 12 that he was opposed to another crackdown on red shirt demonstrators, instead favouring a house dissolution and the use of political measures to solve the impasse.
Gen Anupong said politicians should facilitate talks between the government and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship because the use of force would lead to more deaths.
Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, who once said police, not soldiers, should lead any crackdowns on protesters, holds the same position.
“It’s unacceptable for me to use soldiers to shoot Thais,” he said.
Although the prime minister forced Gen Anupong to take a more decisive role in ending the rallies by appointing him chief of security operations on April16, the army leader has made no obvious effort to disperse the rally at Ratchaprasong intersection.
He has only taken direct action to end red shirt rallies staged outside of the Ratchaprasong area.
As the political crisis drags on, the army’s dissatisfaction with Mr Abhisit is increasing because of pressure from the government to use force to end the protests.
The government has invoked threats to national security, terrorism and attacks on the monarchy as grounds for the army to clear the protesters from Bangkok’s streets. But the army has maintained its support for Gen Anupong’s position that a political resolution is the only way out of the crisis.”
Thai military intelligence in action
Wow, Thai MI is so sophisticated and understanding, I am amazed.
Burmese MI would just grab their targets and chop their ears off well before the victims are even asked any crude question!
Psychological warfare not torture, their motto might be?
Abhisit’s offer
Another election, another coaltion of the usual suspects.
Another government comprised of self-serving, corrupt ”representatives” of the people.
Another round of empty promises, quick fix policies and sops for the people.
Another year of pointless, failed political debate and argument.
Another crisis.
Despair.
Addendum:
Banharn (insert name of your choice) is already saying that his previous banning from politics should be reversed, so he can return to politics. (I imagine because he loves Thailand, the king…and the people have already voiced their mandate for him to unite Thailand etc.)
Abhisit’s offer
An interesting difference of translation:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/PM-announces-next-election-will-be-held-on-Nov-14-30128502.html
”The government will ensure that the media will function as a constructive tool.”
or, as the BP puts it:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/36750/pm-proposes-nov-14-poll-date
”…the media must refrain from reports which exacerbate social or political conflicts…”
Any thoughts?
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
To Aladdin #18 and 40: two answers
1) Actually I agree with your comments, almost entirely. But if you have problem with my statement that anti-monarchy was a “bogus” allegation, I would like to call Somsak, the same authority you cite as the critic of invisibility of anti-monarchy, to my support.
“р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕лр╕▓р╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ер╣Ир╕зр╕Зр╕ер╕░р╣Ар╕бр╕┤р╕Фр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕лр╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╕в … р╣Гр╕Щр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Ир╕Ир╕╕р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щ р╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡ “р╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Вр╣Ир╕▓р╕в” р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕г “р╕ер╣Йр╕бр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓” р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Гр╕Ф,” from “р╕кр╕бр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣М р╣Ар╕Ир╕╡р╕вр╕бр╕Шр╕╡р╕гр╕кр╕Бр╕╕р╕е: “р╕нр╕ар╕┤р╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣М р╣Ар╕зр╕Кр╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕░: р╕Бр╕│р╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Зр╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕ер╕░р╕Др╕гр╣Бр╕Вр╕зр╕Щр╕Др╕н” Prachatai, 28 Apr.
If you understand and accept his statement, then you should understand mine as well. If you don’t accept, esp. to the first sentence, would you say to him, “this invisibility of anti-monarchy sentiment may distort the understanding we have of the situation” (Aladdin #40)? I hope you find his answer to your criticism.
2) You and I may evaluate the extent of anti-monarchy in the Reds movement differently. But actually I didn’t avoid talking about it. Here it is what I think, from the article.
“Even as some quarters among the Reds are critical of the monarchy, …the mass base of the Reds is people who remain deeply religious, nationalistic, and royalist, although with some disappointment at the royals. The leaders of the UDD reflect the politics of their people. They have not shown any signs of anti-monarchy but to the contrary. The strongest comment is disappointment and they beg for some royal sympathy.” (Note: By “the strongest comment”, I mean Nattawut’s famous speech on “Sky and Soil/Earth” 200?.)
Please read it carefully. You may disagree with me. That’s fine. I don’t think the Reds movement is an anti-monarchy one as the govt tried to suggest. I don’t think most of the names mentioned in the govt’s diagram are anti-monarchy at all, except a few such as Ji. I don’t think there is a “network” either.
BTW this is not an article about the anti-monarchy in Thailand and it is not the subject of my interest. I hope people who are interested in this subject, or very much engaged with it, write it. Should I wonder why many people who are so deeply interested in writing about the monarchy in recent years don’t make the anti-monarchy visible? Perhaps you, Aladdin, can enlighten me why don’t they do it.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
To Somsak #39: I agree with the comments/criticism on the decision-making process. A concrete suggestion how should it be done would be nice.
What I disagree is the jump from that (the questionable or inadequate decision-making process) to the implicit and explicit allegations that the leaders (ab)use people, using them as pawns for a higher or hidden agenda, that there is a secret deal or collusion or conspiracy, without care for people’s life because they are simply bad old politicians who never care fore people’s life, and so on.
These are serious accusations. Then we should be careful. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused to prove their innocence. As far as I see (not only yours but also similar others such as those who are suspicious of secret deals between UDD leaders and the gocrnment), the allegations are not based even on circumstantial evidence. They arethe result of suspicion + deductive logics, both of which are framed by conspiratorial approach to a political conflict. These thinkings then make a stretch out of inadequate circumstantial evidence and a lot of “they said”, “it is said”.
Yes, a dubious decision by leaders or people can/should be criticised. But why can’t a dubious decision be just that, a dubious or bad decision? Why must it be the result of a conspiratorial hidden agenda (with Thaksin) or secret deal (with government)? Why can’t the leaders make a poor decision despite their care for life and their close relations with people, but because of their views of life, risk, weapons, peace, non-violence, because of their ideology and politics? Why a poor decision must be due to a conpriatorial factor (although I don’t rule it out)?
I have no illusion what the UDD leaders think about Thaksin’s war on drugs or the crisis in the south. They said it so many times. I think I said it too (in the article?) that the Reds are typical people who are nationalistic, conservative, religious, royalist (although more ciritical and with lots of disappointment). I don’t think the Reds movement is primarily an ideologial movement either. This conflict is not about a great ideological divide inThai society. Their decisions look bad to you could very well because they don’t think like you. Their morals are different from yours. Their views of life, risk, weapons, paeace, non-violence are different from yours. Plain and straightforward. If you try to understand who they are, how they think, the general characteristics and culture of this movement, you probably can explain those decisions you disagree without having to jump to accusations by a conspiratorial thinking.
Of course, we still can/ should comment and criticise their views of life, risk, justice, and so on, if we want to. Why is a reaction to your criticism = making the UDD leaders angels (and who used to criticise Thaksin now turn opposite, bla bla bla, irrelevance)? My disagreement with a conspiratorial accusation does not mean I endorse the UDD decisions or their views about Thaksin, wars on drigs, the south, many more in fact.
I don’t think the concept of agency is for practical matters of a social movement. But like nakleng, agency, a conspiratorial approach to a political conflict does have limits too. (Well, what doesn’t have?) Even if some of the allegations of conspiracy are true, the limits of the conspiratorial approach remain there, still misses many important points, and can still be misleading. As a matter of fact, it is the commonly known, popular and sensational approach to a political conflict. The contention of these different approaches are well known. No need to elaborate.
Sure, Thaksin is an elephant in the room. Sure, elite conflicts are inseparable from any analysis of the crisis. For such a huge crisis like this one, there must be so many dimensions to sort out. But there is no single one that can explain the whole crisis adequately. I don’t dismiss those other approaches. In my opinion, however, among the typical approaches now include the conspiratorial one. Yours is one of them. I would like to offer one. If it is a reminder to your readers/ fans of the limits of your approach, that’s a bonus. thinking.
Abhisit’s offer
Thanks A.W. #25, for updating with the FM’s summary. It reads very well & contains several attractive proposals (e.g. improved education, welfare & employment opportunities for all Thais, an independent media watchdog, an independent tribunal to investigate the recent violence, etc.,etc.). However, it raises a few small problems:
1. Improvements based on broader interpretations of justice/injustice which are in areas of fundamental rights and egalitarian concerns are impossible unless it is recognised that the justice system must be entirely remodelled. Without courts that are in a position to slap the government’s wrists as soon as they step out of line, injustice will continue because it can (see my # 31);
2. The flaky generalisations about media responsibility (e.g. it must “operate in a constructive manner”) are useless. There are laws about inciting violence, organising seditious movements, etc. If they are not good enough, re-write them so that they specifically state what is not allowed;
3. How on earth does a man who can’t even bring the selection of a police chief to a satisfactory conclusion, or buy a fleet of buses without seemingly credible allegations of open, bare-faced corruption, think he can implement such an ambitious project? In 6 months! AND WHO WILL HELP HIM? Look at the people he has to keep happy in the coalition: a motley group, largely composed of greedy, parasitic fools, human rights abusers, criminal consorts & brothel-keepers.
4. The military reshuffle in September.
Perhaps he should sit down with the Redshirt leaders and negotiate a similar proposal to be the aim of the next government, they should all sign it & take an oath of commitment to it in front of HMK. Then the parliament should be dissolved, with a caretaker govt, composed of both sides. Call elections for the end of July, & everyone go away to work on specific strategies for achieving the goals they have mutually committed to (because the electorate will surely want details), and the election process.
Thai military intelligence in action
I think the main purpose of such questioning was – to try figure out the potential for a more massive students’ involvement at this period of time. because so far, unlike in 73, 76, and even in 92, students are mostly inert mass seemingly indifferent to politics. present time students are engrossed in consumerism very much, rather preferring to spend time socializing, having all sorts of fun and CONSUMING (whatever – from pretty toys as latest models of mobile phones, to alcohol). personally I have been living in areas where many students reside and even had them as neighbors – so, I can tell with confidence what they are mostly interested in.
however in many countries in the past, as well as even here in Thailand, students has always been as one of the most active layers of society, and quite powerful too. they are “fresh”, open to change in life, to challenges, have much less attachments than adults, and are clever, as well as eager to learn something new. so, all this makes students as a big potential fuel for any sort of political movement. that’s why often students have been distracted by all sorts of tricks – like during Vietnam war in US it was hippy revolution, “free love” and LSD. now Consumerism is bigger and more addictive drug than all those combined.
therefore army intel were trying to check the state of students’ mass in current period of time and figure out the potential of and consequences if students join in the whole mess Thailand now in. it was a recon task, assessment of forces so to say.
therefore the author of the OP is perhaps too naive thinking :
they are very functional, alright. it is just modern students are a bit less clever than they used to be, to put it mildly. or otherwise all their whatever cleverness is being more cleverly directed towards some other things, deviating their attention from the events which are shaping their lives, as a future generation who is gonna live in here.
perhaps army intel were pleased to find them so, “bored”, and perhaps that was the whole idea : “politics are bored, better go and have some sanook (fun) – shopping, partying, consuming … ”
and it is much more INTELLIGENT than intimidation, because … it achieves the EXACT desired reaction ! intimidation might have caused reaction to stand up for a challenge. but what is the reaction to being bored ? 😉 to go and have fun of course ! 😀
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Re: Tarrin’s belief that some patients may have been refused treatment at Chula Hospital
It seems very unlikely that actually anyone was refused treatment. Dr. Suthep who led the initiative at Chula Hospital issued public apology for his remarks about not treating police and affirmed that he never refused treatment to anyone.
The incident also seemed to cause quite an uproar in the medical community causing the Medical Council, Red Cross Society of Thailand, Ministry of Health and Chula Hospital itself to come out publicly to say that they affirm treatment to all patients equally. The Medical Council also said it would investigate the issue.
So looking at the circumstances as describe, it seems very unlikely that any police was in fact denied treatment.
Suggest for Tarrin to read this news report:
http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=6711
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
I have no problems with defending the Red Shirt movement against the attack by Bangkok snobs, the royalists, the government, etc, the kind of defense Thongchai’s done so well here (as do many others recently). I had myself done it too since 2007 when the ‘Red Shirts’ still wore Yellow Shirts!. But to stop here, with only such defense, would be a mistake.
In my view, the major problem this kind of defense, that many academics/activists are now doing, is to see the Red Shirts as simply a kind of modern day ‘Peasant Rebellion’ (р╕Бр╕Ър╕Пр╕Кр╕▓р╕зр╕Щр╕▓). In a sense, it’s certainly is: broadly speaking, a revolt by rural-based masses against the injustice suffered from the ‘center’, the government and all its aristocratic and middle classes bakers.
But this is also a modern day ‘Peasant Rebellion’, under the leadership / hegemony of the neo/big bourgeoisie. To simply ignore this, is to abandon social analysis entirely, and retreat to a kind of romanticized populism.
(Of course, I insisted since before the coup and still do, that hegemony/leadership of the neo/big bourgeoisie is incomparably better, from democratic standpoint, than hegemony/leadership of the unelected, unaccountable forces that were behind the coup and are now behind the government.)
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/05/03/thongchai-winichakul-on-the-red-germs/ […]
Thai military intelligence in action
This should all have been done with a lawyer. Not allowing it was unlawful and improper.
The speech that wasn’t televised
[…] giving an inspiring speech called “From the Earth to the Sky” To read the speech click here. There has also been a warrant issued for his […]
Abhisit’s offer
I don’t understand how Abhisit can state the first pointer when he has himself allowed exactly what he is speaking against: by allowing the anti-monarchy allegations surface and promising in second or third point to investigate them he is doing exactly what he is saying has to stop:dealing at all issues (artificially) related to royalty.