Comments

The problem with Khi Kwai’s analysis of Thai Style Democracy (TSD) is: it’s not quite getting to the heart of the matter. The ‘heart’ or central pillar of TSD is the role of the monarchy, and this is precisely how the Sarit’s regime defined it (notably in a series of articles broadcasted on army radio at the time and also in the preamble to the 1968 Constitution). The two ‘thinkers’ behind the idea were Luang Wichit and Prasert Sapsunthorn. Wichit was Sarit’s speech writer, Prasert the author of the army radio’s articles.

In this sense, I cannot see how TSD is dead. ‘Sick’ and ‘Dying’ – figuratively and even ‘leterally’ – perhaps. But ‘dead’? No, still far from it.

To be Thai is to love the king-or else? Of what value is such enforced reverence and unconditional ‘voluntary servitude’ to a common man born to rule?

For your information, Ubonrat is not “HRH Princess” any more. She relinquished the title upon her marriage to Peter Jensen and since her divorce has not been reinstituted. The best we can do is to call her Madame Ubonrat. The Thais informally refer to her as “Thoon Kramom,” not an official title but a term denoting a high-ranking member of the royal family, here wrongly applied of course. Nor is she privileged to have the royal vocabulary applied to her any longer. Many Thais today are surely confused.

Frank Lee-
The Aussie who couldn’t even spell “CTX” was most likely a link from the link you posted which I went to because your link was pretty much a waste of time.

I see what you mean, the Aussie in question actually provide the following link,
http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/2008/09/22/news_27278542.php?news_id=27278542
later down the page
I give you that link because, as suspected, I dont think you and many people here can read Thai, and I dont think you will believe my raw translation anyway, that’s why I put The Nation link there too just in case people wonder what’s the article in Bangkokbiz said. Sadly you think its a waste of time since the article pretty much proved that the whole CTX corruption case was a hoax to make public believe that the AOT acquire CTX at a higher cost. However, you attitude of simply disregard the article just because the translator misspell CTX to TCX or whatever is deeply disappointing.

In any case, the politics of division is truly alive and well. By now, if anyone asks me in Thai, “Are you a Red Shirt or a Yellow Shirt”, I can be about 90% sure they are a Red Shirt themselves because the mentality this reveals is “If you’re not Red, you’re Yellow.”

Well same goes around, that “anyone” might be yellow and if I said I have not side with neither they will think that I’m red, anyway, if the whole political movement thing didn’t start 4 years ago, we wouldn’t have this kind of rift.

BTW: I’m still waiting for someone to try and explain Thaksin’s infamous statement, “Democracy is not my goal.”

Ah I see you have been visiting thailandvisa, anyway, Thaksin said that early on in 2003, I think no one here can explain better than Thaksin himself, you guess is as good as mine. However, keep in mid that situation is vastly different then and I believe the whole sentence is something like

“Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned,” he said. “Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress

so yeah I think we should make a full quotation just so people dont confuse. Anyway my explanation, Thaksin think Democracy is a tool but not the goal, you might want to intrepid it some other way. Furthermore, I vaguely recall that the amendment in question was something about giving the power to an independent body, which, has the power to even sue the executive branch (its the job of the attorney of state) and that this independent body has to be select every time a project is made, some argument on Thaksin side was that it cost money and time to do just set up the committee.

Furthermore, having committee over see the project doesnt mean that the they themselves will not corrupt, a recent example would be the Sufficient Village project where the committee over seeing the project got discharge from corruption themselves (anyone know whether that guy got sue/charge/ or any court case in motion now??) . However, I might be wrong on this one since The Nation didnt say which amendment they are talking about. Anyhow, let me clear up my stance here, I’m not protecting Thaksin or anything, I simply said another side of the story. I actually disagree with that statement. However, I also think that check and balance is the later stage of democracy, democracy doesnt even start here in Thailand.

Come on Red Shirts! Show some integrity and PUBLICLY reject Thaksin “The ‘Mother of All Dividers” and his lies and his money and his leadership.

I wouldnt go so far as calling him “The Mother of All Dividers” since I think Sondhi Lim and his PAD play an equally big role in creating this division by calling people who vote for Thaksin poor, stupid, and uneducated, I would be really piss at the PAD if they called me that. Furthermore, rejecting Thaksin simply because someone said he is a liar doesnt mean that the red will have more integrity but to show that the red can demand something more important than Thaksin and move above and beyond him, which is to ask for returning of the power to the people, I’m not talking about house dissolution or new election, but political system where people determined the future of their country and not some “hidden hand” from behind the curtain. Which is the topic of this section “Thai Style Democracy”

Interesting story, I look forward to the next instalment. As anAustralian now living in Thailand, who has also lived and worked in Southern Africa for many years I’m afraid the phobias of many S.African whites will take a couple of generations to become eradicated. I should also like to add that I worked with many Burmese people in Australia and found them to be delightful.

Kind of hard to measure public opinion of the king when there’s a lese majesté law, no?

The writers conclude that the transitions from subsistence to commercial agriculture since 1960s, with the role of the State in cooperation with the bilateral and multilateral countries, have created conflict in various forms of agrarian resistance in Southeast Asia. However, the conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence.

First, the writers argue that rural agrarian populations resist the introduction of a market economy into their communities. In fact, the argument is entirely irrelevant to the reality of Southeast Asia. For example, the Red Movement which is composed of the rural population from the north, the northeast, and the lower central region of Siam are rallying now in Bangkok demanding change toward more modern economic structure based on the rule of law, equal opportunity, and liberty for all. Likewise, in Myanmar the rural and urban population is aspiring toward the same objectives as in Siam.

Second, the writers misplaced the issue in their arguments. For example, they argue, “Agrarian resistance in socialist Vietnam was transformed from covert acts of defiance toward collectivization into more overt resistance after the 1986 reforms.” In fact, the issue was the rural Vietnamese were demanding to have more ownership and profit in their works and lands. This, in effect, has led the government to adopt economic strategies similar to those of China’s Deng Xiaoping in introducing a mixed economy of private and public sectors, which was called “Doi Moi”. The introduction of “Doi Moi” occurred because the rural agrarian population was demanding change.

In conclusion, the empirical evidences in Southeast Asian countries are in contradiction with the book’s arguments and premises because Southeast Asian agrarian population are resisting status quo and demanding change.

Sorry AP, this is my position about Burma.

1) No more civil war.

2) Lifting of all the economic sanctions.

2) Democratic political system similar to Australia with initial involvement of the military with the condition that army will go back to the barracks in a fixed period, say 10 years.

3) I do not accept ASSK as the elected leader of Burma.

I am now writing a political essay about my reason for not accepting
ASSK and also blaming her father General Aung San for all our sufferings since the British left Burma in the hands of his cronies, U Nu and Ne Win.

The essay title is “Burma in Limbo – Aung San, his army, and his daughter.” It is a radical manifesto.

My grand father fought against British. My father fought against both British and Japanese and the in the civil war. I did fight in the civil war too. The only reason my son is not fighting in this bloody civil war now is he was born an Australian.

Three generations of us put our lives on the line and shed blood and tears for Burma. For what? Nothing it seems. But I still have a huge emotional attachment to Burma and that’s why I am writing for the New Mandala.

Lek@14 – 1) “the great father who suffers his children to rot in jails for lese majeste”.
Bumiphol, to his credit, in his 2005 Birthday speach spoke in favour of himself, the King, being criticised – and has pardoned quite a few, though not nearly enough, for supposed “crimes” under what is a blatantly unjust law.
But as a “constitutional monarch” – of the approximately 10 Thai constitutions since he came to the throne ! – he has always been bound to act on the Prime Minister’s advice.
In the absence of a significant international campaign against Thailand’s criminal LM laws, it’s difficult to see how Bumiphol could have done much more.
Such a campaign is now developing, as the world focuses more and more on Thailand. And Thailand’s ruling elite now have a lot to worry about regarding their bank accounts, given what has happened to Lichtenstein’s Royal Family recently !

2)”young charismatic leader who could have single-handedly fostered the legacy of a functional democracy”.
The young Bumiphol was in no position to “SINGLE-HANDEDLY” foster democracy, given how captive he was to the Thai military, and given what had happened to his brother.

3) “But he chose instead to devote his long reign to the preservation of a rich autocratic society of pomp, privilege and corruption, with the profound trappings of an absolute monarchy in all but name.”
This is simply Paul Handley nonsense. When he had the power to do so – after May’92 – Bumiphol, via Anand, moved decisively
to trim Thailand’s military, “privilege and corruption”.