Khon Ngai Ngai@#2 re. “Chamlong led a hunger strike in 1992 but he didn’t die” :
Too much should not be made of Chamlong’s ’92 hunger strike, because he barely lasted a week – and when he called it off that was one of the catalysts towards violent confrontation, in which many lost their lives – but not of course, Chamlong.
The real hunger-strike hero of May’92 was Chalard Vorachat, who was the first to hunger-strike – long before Chamlong – and had the guts and determination to carry on hunger-striking right up to the day General Suchinda resigned as unelected PM.
Unlike Chamlong – who claimed he would hunger-strike to death but did n’t – Vorachat did very nearly die.
Khon Ngai Ngai: Somtow’s writing is very entertaining, but isn’t it a bit silly to be looking for an exact, literal reason for the blood-spilling? Blood symbolism is commonly used to promote nationalism (and commitment-or fanaticism) across many cultures.
-Consider the French, Thai and (gulp!) Khmer Rouge national anthems, probably among many others.
-Or this from radical abolitionist John Brown:
Charlestown, Va, 2nd, December, 1859
-I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty, land: will never be purged away; but with Blood. I had as I now think: vainly flattered myself that withought very much bloodshed; it might be done.
(John Brown’s last letter, written on day he hanged. From “John Brown: a Biography,” by Oswald Garrison Villard.)
——————————————————————-
It’s not like this is a novel concept, and neither are the UDD leaders philosophers.
I think the problem with the Asian Studies in the U.S. regarding to the Thai Studies is its lack of theoretical framework in the analysis. As a result, academics offer only description of the event with simple logical reasoning without the ability to explain at the structural theoretical level. For example, comparing Thailand to Singapore, the emergence of the middle class in Singapore has led Singapore to become a developed country. Whereas in Thailand, the emergence of the middle class is not welcome by the old guards, which in effect has made the country remains a “Bureaucratic Authoritarian State,” which is detrimental to the economic development towards a developed country. Also, in Singapore the military and the police have gone through reform process. For example, Singapore military follow the global trend in transforming itself towards “Military New Professionalism,” while the Thai military is still maintain itself a “Military Old Professionalism,” specializing in the suppression of their own progressive citizens.
If we look at other countries around the world, we will see that they are looking for billionaire to become their presidents, i.e. Chile, Argentina, etc. Those countries recognize the essential of adjusting its forms of polity to accommodate the neoclassical economic base with the emphasis on the newly industrializing economy. They recognize the advantage of having billionaire brain at the helm in the age of globalized competition. Countries across the world are fostering “Central-Right Coalition Democracy,” by encouraging “Nouveau Riche Political Participation,” so that they would facilitate the emergence of “Global Industrialists” inside their countries. In short, they see having billionaire leader as a comparative advantage. In Thailand the old guards go across the globe hounding Thaksin, whom grass root people see him as the “Golden Goose” who will make them rich and better their lives. Yet the old guards deny these grass root people to choose their leader.
One of the 9 members in the Supreme Court Judges who deciding the case, has ruled that Thaksin is innocent. Because this judge is the royal family relative, so the old guards apparently dare not tell him how to rule the case. In addition, the best Thai law professor at Thammasart University also explains that Thaksin is innocent.
For the record, I’d far prefer Abhisit to any of the men you mentioned (and don’t forget Samak — the piggest of them all). I’d love to see “Mark” as the rightful PM of Thailand. It’s just that he isn’t, because his party cannot secure a popular mandate. And baying about the awfulness of the alternatives is meaningful only if we accept that the PM should be chosen by a method other than voting.
If the army would simply announce that Thailand is not a democracy and that people who know better will now appoint leaders, and that the kingdom is officially emulating the Chinese model wherein prosperity/stability is a higher value than liberty or self-determination, then at least the hypocrisy would stop. But every major player continues to insist that this is about democratic progress, and so it is reasonable (if unpleasant) to insist that the people’s choice in a fair and free election would be Thaksin and his quasi-populist party.
As I said before, Thaksin+rural votes+urban working class is just another coalition. Under the agreed-upon rules of parliamentary democracy, that makes Thaksin the PM. To dislodge him you need to either break off one of the coalition partners with a better offer, or unilaterally change the rules. The former would have been real progress for Thailand, but it failed, so the interested powers resorted to the latter through coup and political interference. To point out the injustice and hypocrisy of this action is not to support Thaksin, but to stand on principle.
The true test of principle is whether you defend them when you don’t like the results. If you can’t defend principle in such a case, then you simply don’t have any.
Andrew Johnson – There seem to be two points at issue here and they have not been clearly separated for the point of discussion. For me, the blood collection/pouring is the more important point, and what I believe Thongchai and some others are addressing. The ‘Brahminic’ cursing ceremony was a frill, a sideshow, though of course it adds to the atmospherics.
FWIW, here’s the Pheu Thai Party’s statement on the general matter. It wasn’t very widely circulated in electronic form, at least in English – the sole online version I saw was on the not-so-popular teakdoor.com web board.
PRESS RELEASE FROM THE PHEU THAI PARTY RE: BLOOD DONATIONS
Subject: Blood donations at the main Red Shirt rally.
Pursuant to some doubts and negative opinions expressed by foreign media and foreign visitors in Bangkok regarding the blood donation of 10 cc. by the people to be poured in front of the Government House this evening, the Pheu Thai Party wishes to give underlying explanation for better understanding
of the matter as follows:
1. According to Thai belief, human blood and flesh are the two inseparable components which make up the soul of every Thai and the country. To shed one’s own blood or portion of one’s own flesh means that the soul of the country is being undermined by the government.
2. To donate 10 cc. of the blood is symbolical as losing one’s own blood and flesh. It is an expression of deep discontentment with the government which do not listen to the voice of the people
3. In normal circumstance, a person would wish to donate his blood for philanthropist purpose such as saving the lives of his fellow human beings. In the case of the Red Shirts’ demand for genuine democracy, the blood donation is meant to send a strong message to the government that it is suppressing the people and democracy by not listening to the voice of the people.
4. The first sentence of the Thai National Anthem states:
“Thailand unites blood and flesh of the Thai race”. Therefore, the blood and flesh are considered the soul of the nation. To lose one’s blood means that the government is hurting the country by its intransigence and refusal to dissolve the parliament.
5. If the Prime Minister and his government cross the blood stained gate of the Government House, this is tantamount to stepping on the body of the Thai people or, in other words, suppressing the people.
Professor, what exactly is the deep emotional significance of the blood protest? In today’s Nation (March 18, 2010) purged ex-communist insurgent Surachai Sae Dan from Siam Red Group said the blood pouring campaign was “silly”. From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/16/thailand-human-blood-protest) :
Nattawut Saikur, one Red leader, said the blood showed the movement’s “commitment in calling for democracy”, and was an “important curse ritual”. If Abhisit refuses to step down, Saikur added, “even though he does not have blood on his hands, his feet will be bloodied with our curses”.Another Red leader, Veera Musikapong, said the gesture was “a sacrificial offering . . . to show our love for the nation, to show our sincerity”. A third, Somsak Janprasert, told AFP: “This is a very symbolic way to express that our blood, the people’s blood, is power.”
Experts on Thai culture and beliefs appear no less nonplussed: as SP Somtow, a Thai author and composer, relates on his entertaining and informative blog (somtow.org) that a recent televised debate between an authoritative panel of “Thailand’s leading astrologers and magicians” failed completely to arrive at any meaningful conclusion as to the efficacy – or, indeed, the meaning – of the blood-spattering ceremonies, beyond observing that many Red supporters come from “the superstitious north”.
Possible theories, Somtow says, include the Cambodian “which states that pouring blood on the headquarters of the government is a Cambodian plot to ensure the return of Thaksin”; the Astrologers, propounded by the chairperson of the Thai astrology society, which holds that blood-spilling is “simple sympathetic magic in order to gain victory, and the sort of thing anyone would do under the circumstances”; and the Historical, which seems based on the legend that the 16th-century Thai king Naresuan once ordered his army to capture and behead the Khmer king Satha so he could “use his victim’s blood to wash his feet in”.
In my opinion, the blood letting (10cc?) exacted little sacrifice from people (a pin prick? hardly a sacrifice). What does the world think about Thai’s voodoo like beliefs (yellow shirts and reds alike) in curse rituals and astrology as a means to topple a government in this day and age? A protest is supposed to make the leaders account for their (bad) actions and feel guilty about it by their superior moral force. My sense is that very few of the Red Shirts who donated their blood understood the significance, much less knowingly agreed on the meaning of their personal act. At the very least, had I been a red shirt, it would have been simply an act of vandalization (Somsak’s symbolic “power”) by using my splattered blood on the gates of government house and the PM’s to question the legitimacy of this government. Why is it that Thai social protest practices has never reached (yet) the level of sacrificing one’s life like the Vietnamese monk Th├нch Quс║гng ─Рс╗йc self-immolation in protest of the Vietnamese regime in 1963? Is it because there are no deeper meanings in Thai belief systems relating to heroism and self-sacrifice for the democratic future of this country? (Chamlong led a hunger strike in 1992 but he didn’t die)
How many academics@10 – yes, I certainly did notice Thaksin’s fascist and other tendencies, and thought the PAD were a good counter-balance until they started adopting extreme measures and policies (eg. Goverrnment House occupation, airport seizures, limiting Parliament to 30% or 50% elected).
What did Thaksin do for the poor ? Plenty : eg. 30 baht health scheme, village fund, OTOP, wider free education, restored Thai economy, the list goes on. Even his war on drugs – though I disagree with it – was popular among some poor, fed up with seeing their kids get hooked on yaa baa.
And very importantly, Thaksin gave the poor a feeling of empowerment – that their votes actually produced results
comparatively swiftly.
Many more foods for thought. Now that the anthropologists are coming I know that it is a serious matter! Maybe the talk of Red Shirt curses and rituals is misplaced… I think it more like a blessing the Irish follower told me:
“May those who love us love us.
And for those who don’t love us,
May the Good Lord turn their hearts.
And for those who hearts won’t turn,
May the Good Lord turn their ankles
So that we may know them by their limping.”
That being so, why do anthropologist not study the Irish anymore? Used to be that they are fit subjects but by becoming Gaelic tiger, they graduated to subject for sociologists. May one day the Thai people be free from anthropologists!
It has been brought to my attention that Karnt Thassanaphak has put together a set of very interesting slideshows. They are available here, here and here.
Thanks Thongchai, antipadisht, Michael, and others. Does it really matter if the rite is “authentic” or “invented”? Does that lessen its impact?
To clarify where I’m coming from – I’m an anthropologist and have done some work on what antipadisht calls “theatrically dressed provincial magician[s]” in the north, so I’m quite interested in political magic – black or white, curses or blessings, etc. Authentic or not… orthodox or not… these terms aren’t really important when it comes down to everyday lives of people. As Thongchai points out, symbols which have arbitrary, invented origins (e.g. national belonging, religious practices, etc.) can nonetheless have great deals of meaning. The blood-pouring is very evocative on a poetic level, as a political symbol (e.g. “you have to tread on our blood if you want to go back to work here”), etc., but I was wondering (as Michael suggests) what links it might have to other such rituals elsewhere. I remember a similar sort of thing involving a cursing of high-rise construction in Chiang Mai during the 1990s… So I suppose I was asking the basic questions: what language was used (Pali, Sanskrit, Central Thai, Lao, Northern)? what Buddha image was used? etc., etc.
Suwicha gets 10 years – for a digital image.
A group of arms smugglers/ traders – with a massive plane-load of weapons get let off in under a week.
Double standards in Thailand ? Naah. Never.
And anyhow – obviously the Thai ruling class fearfully believe Voltaire’s dictum, prior to the French revolution, that the pen is mightier than the sword.
It would be very interesting indeed to see an article like this about how the Chinese view Lao PDR relations with Thailand currently – eg. how stable are they, how at risk, etc.
My personal observation is that Lao people generally view China as their Big Brother protector, more favourably than they do Thailand currently.
The 1932 Coup d’état Military Leaders, had staged a coup with the vision that Siam be structured upon the tripartite principle of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, it is now a quest of majority of Thais to the point that they are willing to sacrifice their bloods as a symbol of their genuine desire. Resisting the reality of timely change would only lead to unnecessarily cost of domestic unrest.
Of course it’s hard for anyone to match up with the unified forces of 4 former Army Commanders: General Prawit, General Prem, General Surayudh, General Anupong, in their maneuvering to consolidate their control over disparate internal competitors. However, they should recognize that the Thai society has been undergone structural change, and their pursuing policy of maintaining status quo is seemingly in itself weakened the national security. I personally in agreement with their preferences of Sirinthorn, I just sincerely hope they could positively response to the grass root Red Movement fair demands at the same time.
I agree with WLH@#4 that “Thailand is undervalued because its politics overshadow its assets”.
On Macondo’s point @#2 re. Indonesian-style mayhem, the two huge moderate, liberal Muslim organisations – Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah – which had a major stabilising influence in the transistion from Suharto, seem to have no Thai equivalent.
“We are ready for talks, but, most important of all, Mr Thaksin must first show a clear stance. If Mr Thaksin orders it, we can talk with his men…
He felt pity seeing the red-shirts resort to their blood-spilling tactic, because this would only cause the world to believe that some Thai people were still superstitious and followers of black magic.
The blood ritual the red-shirts performed at the Democrat Party head office had hurt the feelings of the Democrats and Government House officials, Mr Suthep said.
clever bastard ! 🙂
he implies that there is no point of talking with UDD leaders, since he doesn’t consider them seriously – no more than a servants of their master (Thaksin)
meanwhile though Parliament didn’t have a quorum already second time – and again, due to Democrat MPs absent.
and of course neither Abhisit nor Suthep has bothered even explain that – although here Suthep claims that he is ready to talk.
demagoguery and more demagoguery…
although now it looks like he is already prepared to unleash his “third-hand” dogs (would it be blue-shirts again or some other color?) – he mentioned about “spossible sabotage” intel.
He abused his position for sure, but don’t ever forget, when Prime Minister, he couldn’t have done what he did without the support and conivance of the cabinet and party, senior members of the civil service and other dubious characters of ‘influence’.
The fact that he did what he did – Tak Bai, ‘war on drugs’, etc. etc. -with absolute impunity and with such ease – is an appalling testament to the absence of any moral integrity at the core of Thai politics and the gutless weakness of the Thai legal system, plain and simple.
Baying for Thaksin’s blood may be a noble pursuit for some on here but, but imagine – if you can – taking him out the political equation.
What possible leader do the Red Shirts have in mind to lead them to their imagined, glorious future as the righteous representatives of democracy and fairness in Thailand.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Red soi, Red city: A brief commentary from the streets
Allan Beesey: How about if I modify it to “not ONLY of the Reds”
” they tend to squeeze out every other opinions and beliefs via social pressure rather than arguments and debates“
If you still dont get it, then don’t ask Professor Stephen Young, as he doesn’t get it either 🙂
Keyes on Thailand’s blood protests
Khon Ngai Ngai@#2 re. “Chamlong led a hunger strike in 1992 but he didn’t die” :
Too much should not be made of Chamlong’s ’92 hunger strike, because he barely lasted a week – and when he called it off that was one of the catalysts towards violent confrontation, in which many lost their lives – but not of course, Chamlong.
The real hunger-strike hero of May’92 was Chalard Vorachat, who was the first to hunger-strike – long before Chamlong – and had the guts and determination to carry on hunger-striking right up to the day General Suchinda resigned as unelected PM.
Unlike Chamlong – who claimed he would hunger-strike to death but did n’t – Vorachat did very nearly die.
Keyes on Thailand’s blood protests
Khon Ngai Ngai: Somtow’s writing is very entertaining, but isn’t it a bit silly to be looking for an exact, literal reason for the blood-spilling? Blood symbolism is commonly used to promote nationalism (and commitment-or fanaticism) across many cultures.
-Consider the French, Thai and (gulp!) Khmer Rouge national anthems, probably among many others.
-Consider this Palestinian call to irrigate their land with blood:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890331&id=cbkTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YZADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5265,4328115
-Or this from radical abolitionist John Brown:
Charlestown, Va, 2nd, December, 1859
-I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty, land: will never be purged away; but with Blood. I had as I now think: vainly flattered myself that withought very much bloodshed; it might be done.
(John Brown’s last letter, written on day he hanged. From “John Brown: a Biography,” by Oswald Garrison Villard.)
——————————————————————-
It’s not like this is a novel concept, and neither are the UDD leaders philosophers.
Keyes on Thailand’s blood protests
I think the problem with the Asian Studies in the U.S. regarding to the Thai Studies is its lack of theoretical framework in the analysis. As a result, academics offer only description of the event with simple logical reasoning without the ability to explain at the structural theoretical level. For example, comparing Thailand to Singapore, the emergence of the middle class in Singapore has led Singapore to become a developed country. Whereas in Thailand, the emergence of the middle class is not welcome by the old guards, which in effect has made the country remains a “Bureaucratic Authoritarian State,” which is detrimental to the economic development towards a developed country. Also, in Singapore the military and the police have gone through reform process. For example, Singapore military follow the global trend in transforming itself towards “Military New Professionalism,” while the Thai military is still maintain itself a “Military Old Professionalism,” specializing in the suppression of their own progressive citizens.
If we look at other countries around the world, we will see that they are looking for billionaire to become their presidents, i.e. Chile, Argentina, etc. Those countries recognize the essential of adjusting its forms of polity to accommodate the neoclassical economic base with the emphasis on the newly industrializing economy. They recognize the advantage of having billionaire brain at the helm in the age of globalized competition. Countries across the world are fostering “Central-Right Coalition Democracy,” by encouraging “Nouveau Riche Political Participation,” so that they would facilitate the emergence of “Global Industrialists” inside their countries. In short, they see having billionaire leader as a comparative advantage. In Thailand the old guards go across the globe hounding Thaksin, whom grass root people see him as the “Golden Goose” who will make them rich and better their lives. Yet the old guards deny these grass root people to choose their leader.
One of the 9 members in the Supreme Court Judges who deciding the case, has ruled that Thaksin is innocent. Because this judge is the royal family relative, so the old guards apparently dare not tell him how to rule the case. In addition, the best Thai law professor at Thammasart University also explains that Thaksin is innocent.
It’s time to put our loyalty to the truth!
Open thread on red protests
Allan Beesey:
For the record, I’d far prefer Abhisit to any of the men you mentioned (and don’t forget Samak — the piggest of them all). I’d love to see “Mark” as the rightful PM of Thailand. It’s just that he isn’t, because his party cannot secure a popular mandate. And baying about the awfulness of the alternatives is meaningful only if we accept that the PM should be chosen by a method other than voting.
If the army would simply announce that Thailand is not a democracy and that people who know better will now appoint leaders, and that the kingdom is officially emulating the Chinese model wherein prosperity/stability is a higher value than liberty or self-determination, then at least the hypocrisy would stop. But every major player continues to insist that this is about democratic progress, and so it is reasonable (if unpleasant) to insist that the people’s choice in a fair and free election would be Thaksin and his quasi-populist party.
As I said before, Thaksin+rural votes+urban working class is just another coalition. Under the agreed-upon rules of parliamentary democracy, that makes Thaksin the PM. To dislodge him you need to either break off one of the coalition partners with a better offer, or unilaterally change the rules. The former would have been real progress for Thailand, but it failed, so the interested powers resorted to the latter through coup and political interference. To point out the injustice and hypocrisy of this action is not to support Thaksin, but to stand on principle.
The true test of principle is whether you defend them when you don’t like the results. If you can’t defend principle in such a case, then you simply don’t have any.
Crispin on Thailand’s bloody feud
Andrew Johnson – There seem to be two points at issue here and they have not been clearly separated for the point of discussion. For me, the blood collection/pouring is the more important point, and what I believe Thongchai and some others are addressing. The ‘Brahminic’ cursing ceremony was a frill, a sideshow, though of course it adds to the atmospherics.
FWIW, here’s the Pheu Thai Party’s statement on the general matter. It wasn’t very widely circulated in electronic form, at least in English – the sole online version I saw was on the not-so-popular teakdoor.com web board.
PRESS RELEASE FROM THE PHEU THAI PARTY RE: BLOOD DONATIONS
Subject: Blood donations at the main Red Shirt rally.
Pursuant to some doubts and negative opinions expressed by foreign media and foreign visitors in Bangkok regarding the blood donation of 10 cc. by the people to be poured in front of the Government House this evening, the Pheu Thai Party wishes to give underlying explanation for better understanding
of the matter as follows:
1. According to Thai belief, human blood and flesh are the two inseparable components which make up the soul of every Thai and the country. To shed one’s own blood or portion of one’s own flesh means that the soul of the country is being undermined by the government.
2. To donate 10 cc. of the blood is symbolical as losing one’s own blood and flesh. It is an expression of deep discontentment with the government which do not listen to the voice of the people
3. In normal circumstance, a person would wish to donate his blood for philanthropist purpose such as saving the lives of his fellow human beings. In the case of the Red Shirts’ demand for genuine democracy, the blood donation is meant to send a strong message to the government that it is suppressing the people and democracy by not listening to the voice of the people.
4. The first sentence of the Thai National Anthem states:
“Thailand unites blood and flesh of the Thai race”. Therefore, the blood and flesh are considered the soul of the nation. To lose one’s blood means that the government is hurting the country by its intransigence and refusal to dissolve the parliament.
5. If the Prime Minister and his government cross the blood stained gate of the Government House, this is tantamount to stepping on the body of the Thai people or, in other words, suppressing the people.
The Pheu Thai Party
16 March 2010
Keyes on Thailand’s blood protests
Professor, what exactly is the deep emotional significance of the blood protest? In today’s Nation (March 18, 2010) purged ex-communist insurgent Surachai Sae Dan from Siam Red Group said the blood pouring campaign was “silly”. From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/16/thailand-human-blood-protest) :
Nattawut Saikur, one Red leader, said the blood showed the movement’s “commitment in calling for democracy”, and was an “important curse ritual”. If Abhisit refuses to step down, Saikur added, “even though he does not have blood on his hands, his feet will be bloodied with our curses”.Another Red leader, Veera Musikapong, said the gesture was “a sacrificial offering . . . to show our love for the nation, to show our sincerity”. A third, Somsak Janprasert, told AFP: “This is a very symbolic way to express that our blood, the people’s blood, is power.”
Experts on Thai culture and beliefs appear no less nonplussed: as SP Somtow, a Thai author and composer, relates on his entertaining and informative blog (somtow.org) that a recent televised debate between an authoritative panel of “Thailand’s leading astrologers and magicians” failed completely to arrive at any meaningful conclusion as to the efficacy – or, indeed, the meaning – of the blood-spattering ceremonies, beyond observing that many Red supporters come from “the superstitious north”.
Possible theories, Somtow says, include the Cambodian “which states that pouring blood on the headquarters of the government is a Cambodian plot to ensure the return of Thaksin”; the Astrologers, propounded by the chairperson of the Thai astrology society, which holds that blood-spilling is “simple sympathetic magic in order to gain victory, and the sort of thing anyone would do under the circumstances”; and the Historical, which seems based on the legend that the 16th-century Thai king Naresuan once ordered his army to capture and behead the Khmer king Satha so he could “use his victim’s blood to wash his feet in”.
In my opinion, the blood letting (10cc?) exacted little sacrifice from people (a pin prick? hardly a sacrifice). What does the world think about Thai’s voodoo like beliefs (yellow shirts and reds alike) in curse rituals and astrology as a means to topple a government in this day and age? A protest is supposed to make the leaders account for their (bad) actions and feel guilty about it by their superior moral force. My sense is that very few of the Red Shirts who donated their blood understood the significance, much less knowingly agreed on the meaning of their personal act. At the very least, had I been a red shirt, it would have been simply an act of vandalization (Somsak’s symbolic “power”) by using my splattered blood on the gates of government house and the PM’s to question the legitimacy of this government. Why is it that Thai social protest practices has never reached (yet) the level of sacrificing one’s life like the Vietnamese monk Th├нch Quс║гng ─Рс╗йc self-immolation in protest of the Vietnamese regime in 1963? Is it because there are no deeper meanings in Thai belief systems relating to heroism and self-sacrifice for the democratic future of this country? (Chamlong led a hunger strike in 1992 but he didn’t die)
Red soi, Red city: A brief commentary from the streets
Nganadeeleg
I also think Stan G has made an apt description, but I do not see why it is “NOT of the Reds”
Red soi, Red city: A brief commentary from the streets
How many academics@10 – yes, I certainly did notice Thaksin’s fascist and other tendencies, and thought the PAD were a good counter-balance until they started adopting extreme measures and policies (eg. Goverrnment House occupation, airport seizures, limiting Parliament to 30% or 50% elected).
What did Thaksin do for the poor ? Plenty : eg. 30 baht health scheme, village fund, OTOP, wider free education, restored Thai economy, the list goes on. Even his war on drugs – though I disagree with it – was popular among some poor, fed up with seeing their kids get hooked on yaa baa.
And very importantly, Thaksin gave the poor a feeling of empowerment – that their votes actually produced results
comparatively swiftly.
Keyes on Thailand’s blood protests
Many more foods for thought. Now that the anthropologists are coming I know that it is a serious matter! Maybe the talk of Red Shirt curses and rituals is misplaced… I think it more like a blessing the Irish follower told me:
“May those who love us love us.
And for those who don’t love us,
May the Good Lord turn their hearts.
And for those who hearts won’t turn,
May the Good Lord turn their ankles
So that we may know them by their limping.”
That being so, why do anthropologist not study the Irish anymore? Used to be that they are fit subjects but by becoming Gaelic tiger, they graduated to subject for sociologists. May one day the Thai people be free from anthropologists!
Red soi, Red city: A brief commentary from the streets
” they tend to squeeze out every other opinions and beliefs via social pressure rather than arguments and debates“.
Thanks StanG – thats a very apt description…..but NOT of the Reds.
Another view from the streets of Bangkok
It has been brought to my attention that Karnt Thassanaphak has put together a set of very interesting slideshows. They are available here, here and here.
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
[…] Professor Charles Keyes, quoted in Olivia Ward, “Thai protesters spill own blood”, The Star, 17 March […]
Crispin on Thailand’s bloody feud
Thanks Thongchai, antipadisht, Michael, and others. Does it really matter if the rite is “authentic” or “invented”? Does that lessen its impact?
To clarify where I’m coming from – I’m an anthropologist and have done some work on what antipadisht calls “theatrically dressed provincial magician[s]” in the north, so I’m quite interested in political magic – black or white, curses or blessings, etc. Authentic or not… orthodox or not… these terms aren’t really important when it comes down to everyday lives of people. As Thongchai points out, symbols which have arbitrary, invented origins (e.g. national belonging, religious practices, etc.) can nonetheless have great deals of meaning. The blood-pouring is very evocative on a poetic level, as a political symbol (e.g. “you have to tread on our blood if you want to go back to work here”), etc., but I was wondering (as Michael suggests) what links it might have to other such rituals elsewhere. I remember a similar sort of thing involving a cursing of high-rise construction in Chiang Mai during the 1990s… So I suppose I was asking the basic questions: what language was used (Pali, Sanskrit, Central Thai, Lao, Northern)? what Buddha image was used? etc., etc.
Baby elephants and lese majeste
Suwicha gets 10 years – for a digital image.
A group of arms smugglers/ traders – with a massive plane-load of weapons get let off in under a week.
Double standards in Thailand ? Naah. Never.
And anyhow – obviously the Thai ruling class fearfully believe Voltaire’s dictum, prior to the French revolution, that the pen is mightier than the sword.
A Chinese analysis of Thai politics
It would be very interesting indeed to see an article like this about how the Chinese view Lao PDR relations with Thailand currently – eg. how stable are they, how at risk, etc.
My personal observation is that Lao people generally view China as their Big Brother protector, more favourably than they do Thailand currently.
A Chinese analysis of Thai politics
The 1932 Coup d’état Military Leaders, had staged a coup with the vision that Siam be structured upon the tripartite principle of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, it is now a quest of majority of Thais to the point that they are willing to sacrifice their bloods as a symbol of their genuine desire. Resisting the reality of timely change would only lead to unnecessarily cost of domestic unrest.
Of course it’s hard for anyone to match up with the unified forces of 4 former Army Commanders: General Prawit, General Prem, General Surayudh, General Anupong, in their maneuvering to consolidate their control over disparate internal competitors. However, they should recognize that the Thai society has been undergone structural change, and their pursuing policy of maintaining status quo is seemingly in itself weakened the national security. I personally in agreement with their preferences of Sirinthorn, I just sincerely hope they could positively response to the grass root Red Movement fair demands at the same time.
Profits to be made?
I agree with WLH@#4 that “Thailand is undervalued because its politics overshadow its assets”.
On Macondo’s point @#2 re. Indonesian-style mayhem, the two huge moderate, liberal Muslim organisations – Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah – which had a major stabilising influence in the transistion from Suharto, seem to have no Thai equivalent.
A red show of strength, but then what?
more demagoguery & spin from Suthep !
Suthep: We’ll talk, if Thaksin okays it
clever bastard ! 🙂
he implies that there is no point of talking with UDD leaders, since he doesn’t consider them seriously – no more than a servants of their master (Thaksin)
meanwhile though Parliament didn’t have a quorum already second time – and again, due to Democrat MPs absent.
and of course neither Abhisit nor Suthep has bothered even explain that – although here Suthep claims that he is ready to talk.
demagoguery and more demagoguery…
although now it looks like he is already prepared to unleash his “third-hand” dogs (would it be blue-shirts again or some other color?) – he mentioned about “spossible sabotage” intel.
Open thread on red protests
Thaksin didn’t act alone when in power.
He abused his position for sure, but don’t ever forget, when Prime Minister, he couldn’t have done what he did without the support and conivance of the cabinet and party, senior members of the civil service and other dubious characters of ‘influence’.
The fact that he did what he did – Tak Bai, ‘war on drugs’, etc. etc. -with absolute impunity and with such ease – is an appalling testament to the absence of any moral integrity at the core of Thai politics and the gutless weakness of the Thai legal system, plain and simple.
Baying for Thaksin’s blood may be a noble pursuit for some on here but, but imagine – if you can – taking him out the political equation.
What possible leader do the Red Shirts have in mind to lead them to their imagined, glorious future as the righteous representatives of democracy and fairness in Thailand.
Chalerm?