The soldiers are being funneled into Bangkok already, apparently in preparation for the protest slated for March 14. I saw about 100 of them lined up in front of the Dusit Zoo last evening. They were sitting in chairs in 3 or 4 rows looking very bored, with a communication tent and a number of military Humvees parked on the sidewalk. I know the zoo is close to the palace, but does anyone have any guesses what is going on?
I totally agree with Andrew Walker’s assessment, namely that “…it is regarded as quite normal that political representatives will derive some private benefit from public office. The key is to maintain this benefit at a level that is appropriate.”
The “cow eats grass” analogy by one of the Supreme Court judges struck me as totally falacious. If the public official uses public funds to plant grass, and his cow eats the grass (along with other people’s cows) this is not evidence per se of corruption. In Thailand the grass, at least that which grows along the roadway, is free for any to take.
The verdict seems one sided and vindictive to me. There would have been some appreciation in value of Shin Corp shares regardless of whatever action Thaksin took as PM, illegal or otherwise.
I genuinely hope the military and the palace listen to the Red grievances. I find the Red Movement so fascinating, the grassroot people is enlightening! The Thai military and the Red have the same intention to see the country progress. Unfortunately, there were no opportunity or channel that the Red, the palace and the military could come face to face to talk to each other. As a result, the third group (the opportunists) benefits from the situation. When I look back to what I had written thus far, I realize that I wrote in support of all sides: Thaksin, Giles Ji, Prem, Jakrapob, and Sirinthorn. I see elements of goodness in these people. I hope they can come face to face and find a solution, the Thai way…easy happy going.
Having Chinese blood, I would like to see Thaksin be pardoned, and the judgment of his assets be carried out without political interference. To take his money the day he became prime minister till the coup date, in my opinion, is simply unfair. The current crisis could easily be solved if each side look at the positive characteristics of each other.
“Second, although there are many unverified claims from dissident groups about covert nuclear sites in Burma, the report said “there remain legitimate reasons to suspect the existence of undeclared nuclear activities in Burma, particularly in the context of North Korean cooperation.”
The report noted that the same company that aided the Syrians in constructing their nuclear facility is active in Burma. The company, Namchongang Trading (NCG), is sanctioned by U.N. Security Council. It is unclear what exactly NCG is doing in Burma, the report said, but its presence there “is bound to increase suspicions about such a sale.” ”
It’s well known that the Burmese are busily constructing reinforced tunnels.
Most military people will tell you that building static fortifications is a waste of time and an invitation to disaster. Ask the French.
Assuming that the SPDC isn’t stupid, we can surmise that they aren’t building the tunnels for a national redoubt in case of invasion.
So, what are they building them for?
I would guess that they’ve learned from watching what happened to Iraq and Syria ( and will possibly happen to Iran) when you build nuclear facilities above ground. They get bombed.
I wonder how long the Thais and Burma’s other neighbors will allow the SPDC to continue along this course. Before it’s all over there will be probably be much hang wringing in the surrounding capitols for not having given [more] support to the various ethnic groups fighting against the SPDC.
While I don’t remember the exact quote, it goes something like, “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, then you’ll keep getting what you’ve always gotten”.
Right now, the Thai’s – and the western powers – are still doing what they’ve always done. How’s that working out for them?
There’s the “peace in our time” crowd that keeps screaming for what they call “constructive engagement” with the SPDC. Again, how’s that working out?
What is needed is a carrot and stick approach, with emphasis on the stick. Offer the SPDC incentives to behave themselves, all the while whipping them like the family mule. They will soon see the error of their ways.
If you think that won’t work, I suggest that you re-read about America’s secret war against Russia in Afghanistan (and yes, I know how we fucked up the endgame).
That’s just my two cents, and worth every penny you paid to read it.
Chris B @ 30: One article, “… last year…” in one of the Thai English newspapers, “… in which they reported the government as warning there was a movement to divide the regions against each other, through-out the whole country – not simply Pattani.” is not sufficient to get me thinking along the lines you have been. Especially when one considers all the other things the government has been suggesting in order to manufacture fear & suspicion amongst the populace.
” If there’s another coup, there’s no more “Thailand” :Isaarn and Lanna break-away.” ;
“THIS is Thailand’s Boston Tea Party. There is no more “Thailand”. Isaarn is an independent state, fighting against monarchist dictatorship.”;
“Make no mistake about this ***** ******* – if there is a coup now there will be no more Thailand. Thailand burns – and Isaarn breaks free : under Chinese protection.” (Sorry about the asterisks – I’m a coward when it comes to LM )
I think you may have been doing a little too much “thinking”. I’m surprised at your sensitivity to the articles of Thai English media in regard to the pronouncements of government. Most of my friends laugh at them.
As to your assertions that “…it is highly likely the PDR would come to Isaarn’s aid.” and that Isaan would break free ” under Chinese protection.”, I think they are fanciful, to say the very least.
When I first travelled in Thailand in 1975 (twice), I was not interested in Southern politics – central politics were far more interesting. (I know this is irrelevant, as is your reference to 2 decades ago, but I couldn’t resist dropping it in, just in case you thought I was impressed with the mantle of expertise you assign yourself due to your not- unusually long connection.) Silly, really!
“rirkrit”: It looks like the moderators have decided not to run my rather snippy original response (probably a good call), so let me provide you with a more measured one.
1. “I am surprised at the level of alarmist rhetoric recounted here by our Harvard scholar.”
If you know anything about this country’s history (not exactly clear from your comments), I don’t think you can make the case that the language I used is especially “alarmist.” The things I was referring to are part of a pattern that has been repeated several times in the past 50 or so years.
2. “But lets just say that, you are correct to be alarmed by the speech of a retired General. And we know that such a speech anticipates the on set of yet another electorally legitimate (question mark always) governments demise. But to make it short, Thailand is on the verge of a great crisis, far greater than the annual / perennial (to be so botanical and lush) coup d’etat we commonly experience every now and again. This land of smiles and ever resilient nation of uncolonised people, is about to face (perhaps as all troupe of colors appear) an identity crisis of epic proportions. But no one seems to be able to address it quite so clearly or rather, just quite yet.”
I don’t know what this means.
3. “Perhaps as an Italian you may have better hindsight into the flux of how turbulent a republic state is formed, and how all parties of the privilege political class aligned and stabbed one another in the back to raise to power?”
I have some insight. But your point is?
4. “I have been voting in this country since I was 21, and believe me I have never seen the result which reflects my beliefs. So, from my personal experience your statement is at best privileged and naive in this case.”
I haven’t voted since 1996. Your point is?
5. “What have your research found then in Indonesia or the Philippines or even in such a great Democratic nation such as India able to speak of about its formation as a republic state, that you seem to imply of the unimaginable remark “are you kidding me!” ”
Again, I don’t know what this means but the remark “are you kidding me” was only directed at Dr. Panitan’s words —in particular, the idea that his government is the embodiment of democracy and the rule of law (something rather ridiculous by the standards of any country).
6. “When you say “hundreds of millions of people around the world” does this actually include Italy?”
For the most part yes. Italy has lots of problems — some seemingly intractable. However, look at most indicators of the quality of life, individual rights, and access to government services. When most people in Thailand enjoy the same rights and opportunities most Italians have, I will probably become as bored with Thailand as I am with Italy and write about something else. I hope that happens sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I don’t question the right of foreign academics to comment on Italian problems on account of their race or nationality. In fact, many of these people know way more about it than I do.
7. “We have always existed in violence, impressed on us by your intellectualism your idealism and your well meaning democracy, well meaning freedom of speech and measure of economic parity.”
Most of the violence Thais have experienced was at the hands of their own masters; my “idealism” has never killed anyone, though several people in Thailand and elsewhere have, indeed, gotten killed by their own government for expressing similar ideas.
8. “Fascism or speak of fascism is as oppressive on your opponents freedom to express their ideology as your interpretation of their oppressive speech”
I simply pointed out the similarity in the doctrines by citing a specific passage in a well-known writing. How this is “oppressive” I don’t know.
9. “What I am not so thrill with is having Italian scholars tell us what we are and what we are not.”
Well, that you are not “thrill” is apparent, but you will have to deal with the lack of “thrill” because this is the kind of thing I am paid to do. I wasn’t aware there was a citizenship test one needs to pass to study a particular country, nor that you were qualified to administer such test. Besides, it looks like the translation of my remarks into Thai (see comment 28 above) didn’t meet with the sort of hissy fit you have thrown here. So perhaps the problem here is your xenophobia more than it is my insolence.
10. “Correctly the notion of double standard should be pressed by the people, but not as a tactic to evade the wrongs one has perpetuated.”
If you are referring to Thaksin here, I agree.
11. “Perhaps not the people you have met…”
The people I have met tend to be pissed — unlike you, they tend to be rather more concerned with the injustices perpetrated by their own rulers than they are with speeches given by foreign academics.
The right and wrong implied in the discourse of corruption is always going to be selective and relative. It really does not matter whether or to what quantitative extent Thaksin was ‘corrupt’ if you want to understand the viewpoints of his supporters without writing them of as ‘ignorant’ precisely because practices that can be selectively branded as corrupt are commonplace elements characterizing the political landscape even, or perhaps especially, among those doing the branding. It is condescending to then brand Thaksin supporters as ignorant and it is the fuel of the great divisions emerging in Thai society and the militancy and mayhem that is promised by people who feel like they are not only ‘not’ being listened to, but removed from a system of benefits that is acceptable for the detractors of their leader but not for them.
Patiwat – I believe you are correct that the judges referred to orders issued by the junta in justifying their ruling. I cannot recall for sure if that was true for this particular matter, but it did apply for some of their rulings, as several commentators have noted. If this is true – that they chose to refer to a junta order rather than an established (civilian) criminal statute – it is perhaps even more dismaying.
[…] does it mean? Posted on March 2, 2010 by stangoesagain I feel I need to go back to this SOAS presentation by Peter Leyland before saying anything about Thaksin’s court verdict or […]
I noted in that “The court also ruled that it had the authority to seize assets, based on the announcements of the junta (this authority had not existed prior to the 2006 coup).”
chris beale, the context for many of the telecoms changes was the liberalization of the telecoms sector and the intended privatization and IPO of TOT/CAT.
It’s quite awkward for a publicly listed firm to receive concession payments from other firms. Thus the government tried to convert the concession payments into some other revenue scheme for the government, while providing a level playing field to both the private operators as well as the soon-to-be-privatized operators.
Of course, the unions of TOT/CAT didn’t want to be privatized for various reasons, so they joined forces with the Yellow Shirts and opposed Thaksin. They did this despite the fact, which was acknowledged by the Supreme Court, that the government, the people, the industry, and TOT/CAT benefited from the changes.
So Andrew, I take it the arguments are going to be about, not whether there was corruption, but double standards and even the wrong amount being taken. It was always going to take considerable inventiveness to argue in favour of Thaksin once the cat was out of the bag. Unless you believe two wrongs do make a right, it’s a bit pointless bringing others into the argument or showing graphs of the SET index.
“WHAT part of the ‘crimes’ are offensive to your sense of justice then?”
I’ve always felt Thai public office holders (both elected and appointed) had business affairs too intermingled with their official activities.
Thaksin is just one who played that game.
What do I find offensive?
As with the Pojaman land deal (see here for a good summary http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/), the thing I find offensive about this latest verdict is the clearly excessive penalty.
I would not mind so much if it became a deterrent to others, but that is just a pipe dream while the thai judiciary are under the current ‘instructions’.
There is an unmistakable pattern to the way the big court cases have been decided since April 2006, and anyone who cares to open their eyes will see who is being persecuted, and who is untouchable.
“When the boot is on the other foot” is the only real precedent that has been established – Thaksin did it to some extent, but the royalist network are perfecting it!
“Clearly nothing Thaksin Shiniwatra does offends you, and that is just sad.
I’m sure anyone who has been visiting this site for the long haul (since 2006/07) will be ROFLTAO with me on that one 🙂
[…] I suspect, is that local evaluations of corruption are subtle. In my 2008 article on the “rural constitution”, I addressed this issue in the following terms: One of the most damaging aspects of corruption […]
…As usual when it comes to Thaksin (and others that are not on the ‘untouchable’ list), the penalty is disproportionately excessive for the ‘crime’.
WHAT part of the ‘crimes’ are offensive to your sense of justice then?
Thaksin’s intentional and multiplicitous ‘shell and layering games’ used to retain control in his companies — after already being warned of such behaviour before coming to office?
Or was it his obvious and grossly unavoidable conflict of interests while serving the nation?
Or was it just his repeated lies and deception to everyone — the people he is serving, as the head of state of the nation, and his family — as the PM of the nation?
Or was it simply that he made criminals out of his own children?
Clearly nothing Thaksin Shiniwatra does offends you, and that is just sad.
You must be kidding! Is correct, I must retort back, “YOU must be kidding” Federico Ferrera! I am surprised at the level of alarmist rhetoric recounted here by our Harvard scholar… sorry I’m too far away in the provincial smoked out valleys of Lanna to ever have a chance to attend such a well casted panel discussion.
But lets just say that, you are correct to be alarmed by the speech of a retired General. And we know that such a speech anticipates the on set of yet another electorally legitimate (question mark always) governments demise. But to make it short, Thailand is on the verge of a great crisis, far greater than the annual / perennial (to be so botanical and lush) coup d’etat we commonly experience every now and again. This land of smiles and ever resilient nation of uncolonised people, is about to face (perhaps as all troupe of colors appear) an identity crisis of epic proportions. But no one seems to be able to address it quite so clearly or rather, just quite yet.
Perhaps as an Italian you may have better hindsight into the flux of how turbulent a republic state is formed, and how all parties of the privilege political class aligned and stabbed one another in the back to raise to power? Is it only the generals and soldiers or perhaps people with guns in their hands who we should fear and or distrust? What have your research found then in Indonesia or the Philippines or even in such a great Democratic nation such as India able to speak of about its formation as a republic state, that you seem to imply of the unimaginable remark “are you kidding me!” here in this undemocratic nepotistic elitist out of touch with the state of the people’s such as Thailand?
But touch or to be in touch, is the privilege of an academic, a scholar as supposed to bureaucrats self-serving interests, or a Prime Minister and or businessman or government spokesperson. But to say “I will confess that I believe in procedural democracy, freedom of speech, and a measure of economic opportunity. The same things, I might add, that hundreds of millions of people around the world already enjoy; not to mention the same things thousands of people in Thailand and elsewhere gave their lives to achieve. I know; it’s so laughably idealistic on my part to stand up for these things…” is your privilege.
I have been voting in this country since I was 21, and believe me I have never seen the result which reflects my beliefs. So, from my personal experience your statement is at best privileged and naive in this case. When you say “hundreds of millions of people around the world” does this actually include Italy? Again, that’s simply out of touch and as you say laughably idealistic. But 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. So, yes, YOU MUST BE KIDDING. We have always existed in violence, impressed on us by your intellectualism your idealism and your well meaning democracy, well meaning freedom of speech and measure of economic parity.
But I have been to Napoli and Calabria, and I felt the same raise of passion in Italy, and questions of existence without the oppression of violence with out oppressive disposition of privileges and class structures, but I will not pretend to even begin to give a lecture to Italians about my feelings, we have our own problems and our own crisis to resolve. Fascism or speak of fascism is as oppressive on your opponents freedom to express their ideology as your interpretation of their oppressive speech, this has been the problem of all sides in this battle of democracy, battle of free speech, battle to end economic disparity, you speak of fascism to oppress the others speech! We should listen and form our opinion and make choices and in the end we go to vote and we hope that our rights are not trampled on by vote buying, by rigged electoral districts, by political mafias in all strata of life, by old generals and higher institutions.
I am happy there are red shirts and yellow shirts and green shirts and pink shirts, they are all expressing their right to make their opinion heard, what I am not so thrill with is having Italian scholars tell us what we are and what we are not, or that one opinion is more or less supportable or that one demand of democracy is more democratic that the other. For the first time I am happy to see communists walking next to fascists (a matter of opinion), when not too long ago it was unmentionable to be one and not the other, or to have such a website which continues to thrive unhindered (so far). The rule of law, which some made comments on are not a matter to skirt off, even though one rightly observes and hopes that all will be brought to stand and answer to the rule of law.
Correctly the notion of double standard should be pressed by the people, but not as a tactic to evade the wrongs one has perpetuated, and I would say that in this country everyone is implicated and implicit. (Sounds like Italy, no?) But to conclude, its like being in a scenario of a Tarantino or a John Woo moment when everyone is pointing their guns at each other (the gangsters, the police, the corrupted officials, and people with their colored shirts), and a lot of us (perhaps not the people you have met) are ready to sit down (out here in the provincial outback of dark skinned and oppressed people) and wait out the gun fight where at the end of it all we will emerge, and realize the republic that is by the people for the people.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
English version blocked when accessed by Loxinfo. Thai version accessible as of this minute.
No ordinary government?
The soldiers are being funneled into Bangkok already, apparently in preparation for the protest slated for March 14. I saw about 100 of them lined up in front of the Dusit Zoo last evening. They were sitting in chairs in 3 or 4 rows looking very bored, with a communication tent and a number of military Humvees parked on the sidewalk. I know the zoo is close to the palace, but does anyone have any guesses what is going on?
Are you kidding me?
This thread really is an apotheosis of the commentariat…
The moral economy of corruption
I totally agree with Andrew Walker’s assessment, namely that “…it is regarded as quite normal that political representatives will derive some private benefit from public office. The key is to maintain this benefit at a level that is appropriate.”
The “cow eats grass” analogy by one of the Supreme Court judges struck me as totally falacious. If the public official uses public funds to plant grass, and his cow eats the grass (along with other people’s cows) this is not evidence per se of corruption. In Thailand the grass, at least that which grows along the roadway, is free for any to take.
The verdict seems one sided and vindictive to me. There would have been some appreciation in value of Shin Corp shares regardless of whatever action Thaksin took as PM, illegal or otherwise.
The moral economy of corruption
I genuinely hope the military and the palace listen to the Red grievances. I find the Red Movement so fascinating, the grassroot people is enlightening! The Thai military and the Red have the same intention to see the country progress. Unfortunately, there were no opportunity or channel that the Red, the palace and the military could come face to face to talk to each other. As a result, the third group (the opportunists) benefits from the situation. When I look back to what I had written thus far, I realize that I wrote in support of all sides: Thaksin, Giles Ji, Prem, Jakrapob, and Sirinthorn. I see elements of goodness in these people. I hope they can come face to face and find a solution, the Thai way…easy happy going.
Having Chinese blood, I would like to see Thaksin be pardoned, and the judgment of his assets be carried out without political interference. To take his money the day he became prime minister till the coup date, in my opinion, is simply unfair. The current crisis could easily be solved if each side look at the positive characteristics of each other.
Links between Burma and North Korea
Two paragraphs from that article:
“Second, although there are many unverified claims from dissident groups about covert nuclear sites in Burma, the report said “there remain legitimate reasons to suspect the existence of undeclared nuclear activities in Burma, particularly in the context of North Korean cooperation.”
The report noted that the same company that aided the Syrians in constructing their nuclear facility is active in Burma. The company, Namchongang Trading (NCG), is sanctioned by U.N. Security Council. It is unclear what exactly NCG is doing in Burma, the report said, but its presence there “is bound to increase suspicions about such a sale.” ”
It’s well known that the Burmese are busily constructing reinforced tunnels.
Most military people will tell you that building static fortifications is a waste of time and an invitation to disaster. Ask the French.
Assuming that the SPDC isn’t stupid, we can surmise that they aren’t building the tunnels for a national redoubt in case of invasion.
So, what are they building them for?
I would guess that they’ve learned from watching what happened to Iraq and Syria ( and will possibly happen to Iran) when you build nuclear facilities above ground. They get bombed.
I wonder how long the Thais and Burma’s other neighbors will allow the SPDC to continue along this course. Before it’s all over there will be probably be much hang wringing in the surrounding capitols for not having given [more] support to the various ethnic groups fighting against the SPDC.
While I don’t remember the exact quote, it goes something like, “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, then you’ll keep getting what you’ve always gotten”.
Right now, the Thai’s – and the western powers – are still doing what they’ve always done. How’s that working out for them?
There’s the “peace in our time” crowd that keeps screaming for what they call “constructive engagement” with the SPDC. Again, how’s that working out?
What is needed is a carrot and stick approach, with emphasis on the stick. Offer the SPDC incentives to behave themselves, all the while whipping them like the family mule. They will soon see the error of their ways.
If you think that won’t work, I suggest that you re-read about America’s secret war against Russia in Afghanistan (and yes, I know how we fucked up the endgame).
That’s just my two cents, and worth every penny you paid to read it.
Are you kidding me?
Chris B @ 30: One article, “… last year…” in one of the Thai English newspapers, “… in which they reported the government as warning there was a movement to divide the regions against each other, through-out the whole country – not simply Pattani.” is not sufficient to get me thinking along the lines you have been. Especially when one considers all the other things the government has been suggesting in order to manufacture fear & suspicion amongst the populace.
I don’t have time to go through all your posts for the last few months in order to find the one I referred to re. joining up with Laos, however in the thread http://www.newmandala.org/2010/01/19/the-return-of-thailands-old-friend/ , I’ve picked out the following from your various posts:
” If there’s another coup, there’s no more “Thailand” :Isaarn and Lanna break-away.” ;
“THIS is Thailand’s Boston Tea Party. There is no more “Thailand”. Isaarn is an independent state, fighting against monarchist dictatorship.”;
“Make no mistake about this ***** ******* – if there is a coup now there will be no more Thailand. Thailand burns – and Isaarn breaks free : under Chinese protection.” (Sorry about the asterisks – I’m a coward when it comes to LM )
I think you may have been doing a little too much “thinking”. I’m surprised at your sensitivity to the articles of Thai English media in regard to the pronouncements of government. Most of my friends laugh at them.
As to your assertions that “…it is highly likely the PDR would come to Isaarn’s aid.” and that Isaan would break free ” under Chinese protection.”, I think they are fanciful, to say the very least.
When I first travelled in Thailand in 1975 (twice), I was not interested in Southern politics – central politics were far more interesting. (I know this is irrelevant, as is your reference to 2 decades ago, but I couldn’t resist dropping it in, just in case you thought I was impressed with the mantle of expertise you assign yourself due to your not- unusually long connection.) Silly, really!
Are you kidding me?
“rirkrit”: It looks like the moderators have decided not to run my rather snippy original response (probably a good call), so let me provide you with a more measured one.
1. “I am surprised at the level of alarmist rhetoric recounted here by our Harvard scholar.”
If you know anything about this country’s history (not exactly clear from your comments), I don’t think you can make the case that the language I used is especially “alarmist.” The things I was referring to are part of a pattern that has been repeated several times in the past 50 or so years.
2. “But lets just say that, you are correct to be alarmed by the speech of a retired General. And we know that such a speech anticipates the on set of yet another electorally legitimate (question mark always) governments demise. But to make it short, Thailand is on the verge of a great crisis, far greater than the annual / perennial (to be so botanical and lush) coup d’etat we commonly experience every now and again. This land of smiles and ever resilient nation of uncolonised people, is about to face (perhaps as all troupe of colors appear) an identity crisis of epic proportions. But no one seems to be able to address it quite so clearly or rather, just quite yet.”
I don’t know what this means.
3. “Perhaps as an Italian you may have better hindsight into the flux of how turbulent a republic state is formed, and how all parties of the privilege political class aligned and stabbed one another in the back to raise to power?”
I have some insight. But your point is?
4. “I have been voting in this country since I was 21, and believe me I have never seen the result which reflects my beliefs. So, from my personal experience your statement is at best privileged and naive in this case.”
I haven’t voted since 1996. Your point is?
5. “What have your research found then in Indonesia or the Philippines or even in such a great Democratic nation such as India able to speak of about its formation as a republic state, that you seem to imply of the unimaginable remark “are you kidding me!” ”
Again, I don’t know what this means but the remark “are you kidding me” was only directed at Dr. Panitan’s words —in particular, the idea that his government is the embodiment of democracy and the rule of law (something rather ridiculous by the standards of any country).
6. “When you say “hundreds of millions of people around the world” does this actually include Italy?”
For the most part yes. Italy has lots of problems — some seemingly intractable. However, look at most indicators of the quality of life, individual rights, and access to government services. When most people in Thailand enjoy the same rights and opportunities most Italians have, I will probably become as bored with Thailand as I am with Italy and write about something else. I hope that happens sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I don’t question the right of foreign academics to comment on Italian problems on account of their race or nationality. In fact, many of these people know way more about it than I do.
7. “We have always existed in violence, impressed on us by your intellectualism your idealism and your well meaning democracy, well meaning freedom of speech and measure of economic parity.”
Most of the violence Thais have experienced was at the hands of their own masters; my “idealism” has never killed anyone, though several people in Thailand and elsewhere have, indeed, gotten killed by their own government for expressing similar ideas.
8. “Fascism or speak of fascism is as oppressive on your opponents freedom to express their ideology as your interpretation of their oppressive speech”
I simply pointed out the similarity in the doctrines by citing a specific passage in a well-known writing. How this is “oppressive” I don’t know.
9. “What I am not so thrill with is having Italian scholars tell us what we are and what we are not.”
Well, that you are not “thrill” is apparent, but you will have to deal with the lack of “thrill” because this is the kind of thing I am paid to do. I wasn’t aware there was a citizenship test one needs to pass to study a particular country, nor that you were qualified to administer such test. Besides, it looks like the translation of my remarks into Thai (see comment 28 above) didn’t meet with the sort of hissy fit you have thrown here. So perhaps the problem here is your xenophobia more than it is my insolence.
10. “Correctly the notion of double standard should be pressed by the people, but not as a tactic to evade the wrongs one has perpetuated.”
If you are referring to Thaksin here, I agree.
11. “Perhaps not the people you have met…”
The people I have met tend to be pissed — unlike you, they tend to be rather more concerned with the injustices perpetrated by their own rulers than they are with speeches given by foreign academics.
The moral economy of corruption
The right and wrong implied in the discourse of corruption is always going to be selective and relative. It really does not matter whether or to what quantitative extent Thaksin was ‘corrupt’ if you want to understand the viewpoints of his supporters without writing them of as ‘ignorant’ precisely because practices that can be selectively branded as corrupt are commonplace elements characterizing the political landscape even, or perhaps especially, among those doing the branding. It is condescending to then brand Thaksin supporters as ignorant and it is the fuel of the great divisions emerging in Thai society and the militancy and mayhem that is promised by people who feel like they are not only ‘not’ being listened to, but removed from a system of benefits that is acceptable for the detractors of their leader but not for them.
Are you kidding me?
Rirkrit: Are you advocating limiting peoples access to information?
That’s been tried already (still is), but its obviously a losing battle in this age of ommunication.
As you say, Thai’s are resilient/uncolonised etc – so why blame the farang for your own problems?
Making sense of the verdict
Patiwat – I believe you are correct that the judges referred to orders issued by the junta in justifying their ruling. I cannot recall for sure if that was true for this particular matter, but it did apply for some of their rulings, as several commentators have noted. If this is true – that they chose to refer to a junta order rather than an established (civilian) criminal statute – it is perhaps even more dismaying.
Report on SOAS event, part II
[…] does it mean? Posted on March 2, 2010 by stangoesagain I feel I need to go back to this SOAS presentation by Peter Leyland before saying anything about Thaksin’s court verdict or […]
Making sense of the verdict
I noted in that “The court also ruled that it had the authority to seize assets, based on the announcements of the junta (this authority had not existed prior to the 2006 coup).”
But Fringer points me to the 1999 Law (http://www.pub-law.net/library/org_pcp.html), where Section 3 talks about how assets can be seized.
So, did I misreport/misinterpret the Court? Did the Court derive its authority to seize the assets from the junta’s fiat or from a proper law?
Making sense of the verdict
chris beale, the context for many of the telecoms changes was the liberalization of the telecoms sector and the intended privatization and IPO of TOT/CAT.
It’s quite awkward for a publicly listed firm to receive concession payments from other firms. Thus the government tried to convert the concession payments into some other revenue scheme for the government, while providing a level playing field to both the private operators as well as the soon-to-be-privatized operators.
Of course, the unions of TOT/CAT didn’t want to be privatized for various reasons, so they joined forces with the Yellow Shirts and opposed Thaksin. They did this despite the fact, which was acknowledged by the Supreme Court, that the government, the people, the industry, and TOT/CAT benefited from the changes.
The moral economy of corruption
So Andrew, I take it the arguments are going to be about, not whether there was corruption, but double standards and even the wrong amount being taken. It was always going to take considerable inventiveness to argue in favour of Thaksin once the cat was out of the bag. Unless you believe two wrongs do make a right, it’s a bit pointless bringing others into the argument or showing graphs of the SET index.
Making sense of the verdict
Nganadeeleg // Mar 2, 2010 at 10:07 am
“Clearly nothing Thaksin Shiniwatra does offends you, and that is just sad.
I’m sure anyone who has been visiting this site for the long haul (since 2006/07) will be ROFLTAO with me on that one 🙂
You may have me on that point 😉 Cheers
Making sense of the verdict
“WHAT part of the ‘crimes’ are offensive to your sense of justice then?”
I’ve always felt Thai public office holders (both elected and appointed) had business affairs too intermingled with their official activities.
Thaksin is just one who played that game.
What do I find offensive?
As with the Pojaman land deal (see here for a good summary http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/), the thing I find offensive about this latest verdict is the clearly excessive penalty.
I would not mind so much if it became a deterrent to others, but that is just a pipe dream while the thai judiciary are under the current ‘instructions’.
There is an unmistakable pattern to the way the big court cases have been decided since April 2006, and anyone who cares to open their eyes will see who is being persecuted, and who is untouchable.
“When the boot is on the other foot” is the only real precedent that has been established – Thaksin did it to some extent, but the royalist network are perfecting it!
“Clearly nothing Thaksin Shiniwatra does offends you, and that is just sad.
I’m sure anyone who has been visiting this site for the long haul (since 2006/07) will be ROFLTAO with me on that one 🙂
Revisiting the rural constitution
[…] I suspect, is that local evaluations of corruption are subtle. In my 2008 article on the “rural constitution”, I addressed this issue in the following terms: One of the most damaging aspects of corruption […]
Making sense of the verdict
Nganadeeleg // Mar 1, 2010 at 9:20 pm
…As usual when it comes to Thaksin (and others that are not on the ‘untouchable’ list), the penalty is disproportionately excessive for the ‘crime’.
WHAT part of the ‘crimes’ are offensive to your sense of justice then?
Thaksin’s intentional and multiplicitous ‘shell and layering games’ used to retain control in his companies — after already being warned of such behaviour before coming to office?
Or was it his obvious and grossly unavoidable conflict of interests while serving the nation?
Or was it just his repeated lies and deception to everyone — the people he is serving, as the head of state of the nation, and his family — as the PM of the nation?
Or was it simply that he made criminals out of his own children?
Clearly nothing Thaksin Shiniwatra does offends you, and that is just sad.
Are you kidding me?
You must be kidding! Is correct, I must retort back, “YOU must be kidding” Federico Ferrera! I am surprised at the level of alarmist rhetoric recounted here by our Harvard scholar… sorry I’m too far away in the provincial smoked out valleys of Lanna to ever have a chance to attend such a well casted panel discussion.
But lets just say that, you are correct to be alarmed by the speech of a retired General. And we know that such a speech anticipates the on set of yet another electorally legitimate (question mark always) governments demise. But to make it short, Thailand is on the verge of a great crisis, far greater than the annual / perennial (to be so botanical and lush) coup d’etat we commonly experience every now and again. This land of smiles and ever resilient nation of uncolonised people, is about to face (perhaps as all troupe of colors appear) an identity crisis of epic proportions. But no one seems to be able to address it quite so clearly or rather, just quite yet.
Perhaps as an Italian you may have better hindsight into the flux of how turbulent a republic state is formed, and how all parties of the privilege political class aligned and stabbed one another in the back to raise to power? Is it only the generals and soldiers or perhaps people with guns in their hands who we should fear and or distrust? What have your research found then in Indonesia or the Philippines or even in such a great Democratic nation such as India able to speak of about its formation as a republic state, that you seem to imply of the unimaginable remark “are you kidding me!” here in this undemocratic nepotistic elitist out of touch with the state of the people’s such as Thailand?
But touch or to be in touch, is the privilege of an academic, a scholar as supposed to bureaucrats self-serving interests, or a Prime Minister and or businessman or government spokesperson. But to say “I will confess that I believe in procedural democracy, freedom of speech, and a measure of economic opportunity. The same things, I might add, that hundreds of millions of people around the world already enjoy; not to mention the same things thousands of people in Thailand and elsewhere gave their lives to achieve. I know; it’s so laughably idealistic on my part to stand up for these things…” is your privilege.
I have been voting in this country since I was 21, and believe me I have never seen the result which reflects my beliefs. So, from my personal experience your statement is at best privileged and naive in this case. When you say “hundreds of millions of people around the world” does this actually include Italy? Again, that’s simply out of touch and as you say laughably idealistic. But 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. So, yes, YOU MUST BE KIDDING. We have always existed in violence, impressed on us by your intellectualism your idealism and your well meaning democracy, well meaning freedom of speech and measure of economic parity.
But I have been to Napoli and Calabria, and I felt the same raise of passion in Italy, and questions of existence without the oppression of violence with out oppressive disposition of privileges and class structures, but I will not pretend to even begin to give a lecture to Italians about my feelings, we have our own problems and our own crisis to resolve. Fascism or speak of fascism is as oppressive on your opponents freedom to express their ideology as your interpretation of their oppressive speech, this has been the problem of all sides in this battle of democracy, battle of free speech, battle to end economic disparity, you speak of fascism to oppress the others speech! We should listen and form our opinion and make choices and in the end we go to vote and we hope that our rights are not trampled on by vote buying, by rigged electoral districts, by political mafias in all strata of life, by old generals and higher institutions.
I am happy there are red shirts and yellow shirts and green shirts and pink shirts, they are all expressing their right to make their opinion heard, what I am not so thrill with is having Italian scholars tell us what we are and what we are not, or that one opinion is more or less supportable or that one demand of democracy is more democratic that the other. For the first time I am happy to see communists walking next to fascists (a matter of opinion), when not too long ago it was unmentionable to be one and not the other, or to have such a website which continues to thrive unhindered (so far). The rule of law, which some made comments on are not a matter to skirt off, even though one rightly observes and hopes that all will be brought to stand and answer to the rule of law.
Correctly the notion of double standard should be pressed by the people, but not as a tactic to evade the wrongs one has perpetuated, and I would say that in this country everyone is implicated and implicit. (Sounds like Italy, no?) But to conclude, its like being in a scenario of a Tarantino or a John Woo moment when everyone is pointing their guns at each other (the gangsters, the police, the corrupted officials, and people with their colored shirts), and a lot of us (perhaps not the people you have met) are ready to sit down (out here in the provincial outback of dark skinned and oppressed people) and wait out the gun fight where at the end of it all we will emerge, and realize the republic that is by the people for the people.