You make a very good point indeed. What orthodox and what canon? I try to address both of these questions in chapters three and six. In many ways orthodoxy is always invented as a tool for political and religious power. The “return” is often to something that never actually existed in the first place.
I beg to differ a bit. As soon as the military overthrew the government they broke the law. Legitimizing it after the fact does not make it a non crime.
To use another analogy. My neighbor robs a bank, he owes me and our cop neighbor a huge sum of money which he pays in cash, we both buy a new car. Can we keep that car? No because the initial act was illegal. Although there are other circumstances involved the court should have still been able to see the original crime of overthrowing the government was illegal. IMHO
Benny #36 Madame Sri was rather sarcastically and pompously putting down the self-made gods who, having not enough to do with their time, clutter up the airspace with their trivial and misconceived pronouncements, begging for credibility by pushing forward the length of their connection with Thailand & dropping irrelevant names, or their ‘Thainess’ (notwithstanding the incomprehensibility of their superficially elaborate English). Get it? Got it? Good!
Chris Beale, the issue about with the junta’s fiat was not whether it was legitimate, because, as you noted, it had the King’s signature and had the force of law despite having no constitutional due process. The issue was that it was applied retroactively. As a silly example, let’s say I make an illegal U-turn, knowing full well that the fine is 500 baht (a made up number). Between the time that I make the U-turn and the moment I’m stopped by the police, the military issues a fiat, with the signature of the King, saying that the fine for an illegal U-turn is 1,000,000 baht. Is it legitimate? Yes, because it derives from the sovereign prerogative of the King. But laws are supposed to deter crimes, and not just punish them. Sure, what I did was illegal, but I made the U-turn undeterred by the 500 baht penalty, not the 1,000,000 penalty. I could reasonably argue that, had I known I would be penalized 1,000,000 baht, I would have found legal alternatives to the misdeed.
As to the issue of selling Shincorp to a foreign country, I did not realize that any part of Shincorp actually managed military communications. With the exception of mobile phones used by military personnel on a private basis. And there was uncontroversial precedent for selling Thai mobile phone firms to foreign companies (TAC selling out to Telenor). And note that, to my understanding, neither the junta nor it’s children have tried to reverse the Shincorp sale, i.e., any compromise to military security was not rectified. Please clarify your comments.
Rirkrit wrote”…again it would be easy for us Thais to dismiss most commentaries by foreign scholars, commentators ex-pats and so forth, simply because you do not exist in my space, nor the amount of Thai you study or travel to the furthest ends of god forsaken places get you any closer, really. The Thais will have to slug it out ourselves and no matter how well read and researched one could passionately and scientifically be, there is always the difference of culture”
Yes of course there is a difference of culture, which is not always bad.I have observed that some Thai scholars also love to comment about the West/Western culture and they definitely don’t want what they said to be dismissed easily (and because they are seniors, their juniors of course have to pretend to agree with them, most of the time, or at least not argue against them openly (in everyday Thai contexts)). It’s actually clear that these senior Thai academics want their juniors or students to take their opinions as valid (although at times they appear quite reactionary ). I think it’s fine for you to disagree with criticisms from foreign scholars but I would love to hear your opinion abt defensive Thai sholars who perhaps can create misunderstanding, and unreasonable pride abt Thai culture among Thais more than others.
In Thailand it is censored:
р╕Вр╕нр╕нр╕ар╕▒р╕в р╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Хр╕│р╕гр╕зр╕Ир╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤р╕Вр╕нр╕гр╕░р╕Зр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕зр╕Ър╣Др╕Лр╕Хр╣Мр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й
р╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕бр╕╡р╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╕ар╕▓р╕Ю р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕░р╕кр╕б р╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щ р╕ер╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕нр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕г р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕Щр╕▒р╕Щ
On the question of whether the court has any legal right to judge, given that the Assets Scrutiny Committee was established by junta “fiat”, it does seem Thai law is very clear on this : if it has HMK’s signature then it is law.
Otherwise, all laws passed as a result of the 18 coups since 1932 would not be valid !
As I recall, Thaksin quickly gained a well-earned reputation as a shifty, second-rate political operator pretty much as soon as he first entered politics. As a failed businessman who finally gained success through the “ugly crony capitalism” which became both his business and political hallmark (along with galloping hubris and world-class chutzpah) he became the newest big fish in the pond.
So what about double-standards and other big fish? Well, let’s take three other veteran political operators. On the one hand, as Barnharn’s nickname, ‘the eel’, suggests, he’s been too slippery to get caught at anything too big – to at least plausibly deny anyway – and bankrupting the country as PM certainly shortened his opportunities. The plausible denial line of course applies to both Gen. Chavalit and Gen. Sanan as well – although a temple stint obviously helped restore “Chao Por” Chavalit’s influence after the deaths of protesters on his Ministerial watch recently, and of course Sanan lost his position as Sec. Gen. of the Democrat Party for good reason. Then of course, there’s the best of them all, the late, great Montri Pongpanich, the Master, who couldn’t cheat death, but used death to cheat justice: a brilliant career move.
In contrast to these career political operators, Thaksin always seemed to be far better at greasing the wheels and sucking the life out of opponents and benefactors alike and greasing the wheels, and far less adept at politics as the art of compromise, and hence became a bigger and bigger political target. Of course, the tsunami created a sense of national tragedy and, coming as it did in the middle of his first election campaign as PM, had the effect (like Sept. 11 in the U.S.) of silencing all but a few of his growing legion of academic and intellectual critics – many of them disillusioned former supporters. And so it was that an accident was largely responsible for Thaksin’s “landslide victory” over opponents who had raised a concerted effort to (from memory) prevent Thaksin winning a majority big enough to make him personally invulnerable to censure in parliament and thereby almost unaccountable to it.
And so it was that Thaksin passed all the exits that could have avoided his downfall, notably by not entrusting anyone to run the show while he took a back seat for a while (Thaksin’s “biggest mistake” according to ex-Deputy PM Chaturon) and by his blindness to the amount of animosity his forceful and unabated push to monopolize state power had aroused. Ironically, Thaksin was calling for “revolution” against the state just hours after the Supreme Court verdict last Friday and, Monday morning on cue, one of my rabid red-shirt colleagues (at work) was cheering the weekend’s bomb blasts downtown.
In case anyone is interested, I have recently accepted an offer from the University of Wisconsin to take up this position. I will be located within the Geography Department. People interested in doing graduate studies related to upland peoples in mainland Southeast Asia should consider coming to the University of Wisconsin to study!
Patiwat – thank you very much for your informative comments.
Judging by what you say, I would have thought Thaksin had some grounds for appeal – and could argue strongly against the prosecution case that he “damaged” TOT, at least in some respects.
I would have thought TOT were at least somewhat compensated by increased telecommunications through-put, and therefore
increased tax revenue.
But this is simply my question.
It does seem to me a separate issue from Thaksin’s Shin sale – which was inviting trouble, not least because it risked selling Thai military communications to a foreign country – and should never have been done. Certainly not in the way it was.
Less Abbey – former US Presieent Richard Nixon once said :
“if two wrongs don’t make a right – try a third”.
From my experience, this tends to be how it works in Thailand.
Perhaps you should be less abacious .
Without Thaksin S. as their leader, the Red Shirts easily gets adrift without direction. The Thaksin asset case resolution thus shatter the hope of a Thaksin return some day.
Understandbly Giles U. is very upset. The left-leaning liberals of Thailand could not find a replacement leader for the rapidly diminishing (whether in stature, clout or wealth) Thaksin.
I remain suspicious of left-leaning liberals who espouse ‘perfect democracy’ for Thailand.
“This thread really is an apotheosis of the commentariat…”
I looked up the definition of apothesis and I still don’t know what you mean, Sri. It sounds quite a pertinent comment but could you be more explanatory. Could you be
less succinct and more verbose, please?
Vladimir Ungpakorn, of the Sabai party, announced to adoring masses the establishment of a new utopist system of governance in Thailand. After the serfs marched upon Government House yesterday to overthrow Tsar Vajiralongkorn and his whippet, Bruce, foreign experts predicted anarchy would erupt in the Land of Smiles. However, today, Vladimir allayed those fears and announced there would be cow-pat for all daily (referring to previously only having free cow-pat on the King’s birthday) – much to the delight of heavy-set wok-weilding Aunties on street corners. The free, daily cow-pat would instil unity in Thai society as well as give the Duma total control over the recently nationalised rice industry. Ungpakorn told crowds that the people should not fear change and left quickly to be escorted to his new accommodation at Chitralada.
The Thai military should listen to what Giles Ji is conveying because he’s reflecting the feelings of the majority of Thais across the country from the south, the northeast, the north and central region. He is expressing the genuine desire of the majority of Thais for democracy, liberty, and equal opportunity to better oneself. Open forum of talk is definitely better than having escalated unrest.
Thais are demanding to have a say in decisions about their lives. In a democracy, citizens have a voice in their government. Thus far Thais are against biased judges, manipulative Aphisit, enormous economic disparity, foreign policy hostile against Cambodia and Burma, treating Thai Laos and Thai Malay people as second class citizens, unfair to Thai Chinese descendant Thaksin, suppress the Red Movement democratization process, etc.
The military and the palace should understand the uncomfortable feeling of Thais toward Wachiralongkorn. If republic were the solution to the problem, we should have a public discuss so that Siam could have a peaceful transition.
These vague, open-ended judgements on government seizure of people’s property set precedents for future governments (whoever they will be) to seize the property of their political enemies. Even Crown Property is probably less safe from populist generals than it was.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The scourge of Burma, Part 1
Brilliant writing U Hla Oo. Many thanks for posting your memoirs. Endlessly fascinating.
Review of McDaniel
You make a very good point indeed. What orthodox and what canon? I try to address both of these questions in chapters three and six. In many ways orthodoxy is always invented as a tool for political and religious power. The “return” is often to something that never actually existed in the first place.
Making sense of the verdict
I beg to differ a bit. As soon as the military overthrew the government they broke the law. Legitimizing it after the fact does not make it a non crime.
To use another analogy. My neighbor robs a bank, he owes me and our cop neighbor a huge sum of money which he pays in cash, we both buy a new car. Can we keep that car? No because the initial act was illegal. Although there are other circumstances involved the court should have still been able to see the original crime of overthrowing the government was illegal. IMHO
This is Rule by law not rule of law.
Are you kidding me?
Benny #36 Madame Sri was rather sarcastically and pompously putting down the self-made gods who, having not enough to do with their time, clutter up the airspace with their trivial and misconceived pronouncements, begging for credibility by pushing forward the length of their connection with Thailand & dropping irrelevant names, or their ‘Thainess’ (notwithstanding the incomprehensibility of their superficially elaborate English). Get it? Got it? Good!
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
No, I’m accessing it from Thailand now.
I’m at a government school’s connection.
Making sense of the verdict
Chris Beale, the issue about with the junta’s fiat was not whether it was legitimate, because, as you noted, it had the King’s signature and had the force of law despite having no constitutional due process. The issue was that it was applied retroactively. As a silly example, let’s say I make an illegal U-turn, knowing full well that the fine is 500 baht (a made up number). Between the time that I make the U-turn and the moment I’m stopped by the police, the military issues a fiat, with the signature of the King, saying that the fine for an illegal U-turn is 1,000,000 baht. Is it legitimate? Yes, because it derives from the sovereign prerogative of the King. But laws are supposed to deter crimes, and not just punish them. Sure, what I did was illegal, but I made the U-turn undeterred by the 500 baht penalty, not the 1,000,000 penalty. I could reasonably argue that, had I known I would be penalized 1,000,000 baht, I would have found legal alternatives to the misdeed.
As to the issue of selling Shincorp to a foreign country, I did not realize that any part of Shincorp actually managed military communications. With the exception of mobile phones used by military personnel on a private basis. And there was uncontroversial precedent for selling Thai mobile phone firms to foreign companies (TAC selling out to Telenor). And note that, to my understanding, neither the junta nor it’s children have tried to reverse the Shincorp sale, i.e., any compromise to military security was not rectified. Please clarify your comments.
Are you kidding me?
Rirkrit wrote”…again it would be easy for us Thais to dismiss most commentaries by foreign scholars, commentators ex-pats and so forth, simply because you do not exist in my space, nor the amount of Thai you study or travel to the furthest ends of god forsaken places get you any closer, really. The Thais will have to slug it out ourselves and no matter how well read and researched one could passionately and scientifically be, there is always the difference of culture”
Yes of course there is a difference of culture, which is not always bad.I have observed that some Thai scholars also love to comment about the West/Western culture and they definitely don’t want what they said to be dismissed easily (and because they are seniors, their juniors of course have to pretend to agree with them, most of the time, or at least not argue against them openly (in everyday Thai contexts)). It’s actually clear that these senior Thai academics want their juniors or students to take their opinions as valid (although at times they appear quite reactionary ). I think it’s fine for you to disagree with criticisms from foreign scholars but I would love to hear your opinion abt defensive Thai sholars who perhaps can create misunderstanding, and unreasonable pride abt Thai culture among Thais more than others.
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
In Thailand it is censored:
р╕Вр╕нр╕нр╕ар╕▒р╕в р╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Хр╕│р╕гр╕зр╕Ир╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤р╕Вр╕нр╕гр╕░р╕Зр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕зр╕Ър╣Др╕Лр╕Хр╣Мр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й
р╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕бр╕╡р╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╕ар╕▓р╕Ю р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕░р╕кр╕б р╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щ р╕ер╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕нр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕г р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕Щр╕▒р╕Щ
Making sense of the verdict
On the question of whether the court has any legal right to judge, given that the Assets Scrutiny Committee was established by junta “fiat”, it does seem Thai law is very clear on this : if it has HMK’s signature then it is law.
Otherwise, all laws passed as a result of the 18 coups since 1932 would not be valid !
The moral economy of corruption
Re Double Standards and Plausible Denial
As I recall, Thaksin quickly gained a well-earned reputation as a shifty, second-rate political operator pretty much as soon as he first entered politics. As a failed businessman who finally gained success through the “ugly crony capitalism” which became both his business and political hallmark (along with galloping hubris and world-class chutzpah) he became the newest big fish in the pond.
So what about double-standards and other big fish? Well, let’s take three other veteran political operators. On the one hand, as Barnharn’s nickname, ‘the eel’, suggests, he’s been too slippery to get caught at anything too big – to at least plausibly deny anyway – and bankrupting the country as PM certainly shortened his opportunities. The plausible denial line of course applies to both Gen. Chavalit and Gen. Sanan as well – although a temple stint obviously helped restore “Chao Por” Chavalit’s influence after the deaths of protesters on his Ministerial watch recently, and of course Sanan lost his position as Sec. Gen. of the Democrat Party for good reason. Then of course, there’s the best of them all, the late, great Montri Pongpanich, the Master, who couldn’t cheat death, but used death to cheat justice: a brilliant career move.
In contrast to these career political operators, Thaksin always seemed to be far better at greasing the wheels and sucking the life out of opponents and benefactors alike and greasing the wheels, and far less adept at politics as the art of compromise, and hence became a bigger and bigger political target. Of course, the tsunami created a sense of national tragedy and, coming as it did in the middle of his first election campaign as PM, had the effect (like Sept. 11 in the U.S.) of silencing all but a few of his growing legion of academic and intellectual critics – many of them disillusioned former supporters. And so it was that an accident was largely responsible for Thaksin’s “landslide victory” over opponents who had raised a concerted effort to (from memory) prevent Thaksin winning a majority big enough to make him personally invulnerable to censure in parliament and thereby almost unaccountable to it.
And so it was that Thaksin passed all the exits that could have avoided his downfall, notably by not entrusting anyone to run the show while he took a back seat for a while (Thaksin’s “biggest mistake” according to ex-Deputy PM Chaturon) and by his blindness to the amount of animosity his forceful and unabated push to monopolize state power had aroused. Ironically, Thaksin was calling for “revolution” against the state just hours after the Supreme Court verdict last Friday and, Monday morning on cue, one of my rabid red-shirt colleagues (at work) was cheering the weekend’s bomb blasts downtown.
Hmong studies professor for University of Wisconsin – Madison
In case anyone is interested, I have recently accepted an offer from the University of Wisconsin to take up this position. I will be located within the Geography Department. People interested in doing graduate studies related to upland peoples in mainland Southeast Asia should consider coming to the University of Wisconsin to study!
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
Re “Seize it all”
Couldn’t open the link to the text, but I get the drift:
‘Burn baby, burn!’
‘Eat the rich!’
‘Victory to the Khmer Rouge’
“Four legs good, two legs bad.”
“Four legs good, two legs better.”
I’m with you, right or wrong, Comrade Giles!
(It’s amazing how you manage to channel Brother Number One like that.
Making sense of the verdict
Patiwat – thank you very much for your informative comments.
Judging by what you say, I would have thought Thaksin had some grounds for appeal – and could argue strongly against the prosecution case that he “damaged” TOT, at least in some respects.
I would have thought TOT were at least somewhat compensated by increased telecommunications through-put, and therefore
increased tax revenue.
But this is simply my question.
It does seem to me a separate issue from Thaksin’s Shin sale – which was inviting trouble, not least because it risked selling Thai military communications to a foreign country – and should never have been done. Certainly not in the way it was.
The moral economy of corruption
Less Abbey – former US Presieent Richard Nixon once said :
“if two wrongs don’t make a right – try a third”.
From my experience, this tends to be how it works in Thailand.
Perhaps you should be less abacious .
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
Without Thaksin S. as their leader, the Red Shirts easily gets adrift without direction. The Thaksin asset case resolution thus shatter the hope of a Thaksin return some day.
Understandbly Giles U. is very upset. The left-leaning liberals of Thailand could not find a replacement leader for the rapidly diminishing (whether in stature, clout or wealth) Thaksin.
I remain suspicious of left-leaning liberals who espouse ‘perfect democracy’ for Thailand.
Are you kidding me?
“This thread really is an apotheosis of the commentariat…”
I looked up the definition of apothesis and I still don’t know what you mean, Sri. It sounds quite a pertinent comment but could you be more explanatory. Could you be
less succinct and more verbose, please?
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
A short just in from the future:
October 2017
by John Rawls II in Dusit
Vladimir Ungpakorn, of the Sabai party, announced to adoring masses the establishment of a new utopist system of governance in Thailand. After the serfs marched upon Government House yesterday to overthrow Tsar Vajiralongkorn and his whippet, Bruce, foreign experts predicted anarchy would erupt in the Land of Smiles. However, today, Vladimir allayed those fears and announced there would be cow-pat for all daily (referring to previously only having free cow-pat on the King’s birthday) – much to the delight of heavy-set wok-weilding Aunties on street corners. The free, daily cow-pat would instil unity in Thai society as well as give the Duma total control over the recently nationalised rice industry. Ungpakorn told crowds that the people should not fear change and left quickly to be escorted to his new accommodation at Chitralada.
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
I’d like to see them try. Pie in the Sky rhetoric which can only get the publisher into very deep trouble.
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
The Thai military should listen to what Giles Ji is conveying because he’s reflecting the feelings of the majority of Thais across the country from the south, the northeast, the north and central region. He is expressing the genuine desire of the majority of Thais for democracy, liberty, and equal opportunity to better oneself. Open forum of talk is definitely better than having escalated unrest.
Thais are demanding to have a say in decisions about their lives. In a democracy, citizens have a voice in their government. Thus far Thais are against biased judges, manipulative Aphisit, enormous economic disparity, foreign policy hostile against Cambodia and Burma, treating Thai Laos and Thai Malay people as second class citizens, unfair to Thai Chinese descendant Thaksin, suppress the Red Movement democratization process, etc.
The military and the palace should understand the uncomfortable feeling of Thais toward Wachiralongkorn. If republic were the solution to the problem, we should have a public discuss so that Siam could have a peaceful transition.
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
These vague, open-ended judgements on government seizure of people’s property set precedents for future governments (whoever they will be) to seize the property of their political enemies. Even Crown Property is probably less safe from populist generals than it was.