Nice try StanG, but what you wrote is clear. No coup without palace approval. Absolutely correct. This hasn’t always been the case, but when a coup takes place that isn’t approved see major difficulties. Think Kriangsak and how he was pushed aside for the palace posterior polisher.
I don’t know if Sonthi had any formal assurances back in 2006 but no one expected Prem and the palace to refuse to accept him.
This time it’s different, it won’t be welcome, even if Anupong himself stages the coup, and he must be barking mad to go for it. Some dark horse forcing his way to the palace for a signature – forget about it.
“As I said, fighting the lese majeste law represents a direct challenge to the monarchy. This makes such campaigns very difficult under the current political circumstances.”
Any such fight does not challenge the monarchy, to be contrary. Even the king has said he is tired of the law and the cases. That his words were put on the back burner and no such court cases challenging the law were even brought up is nothing to do with challenging the monarchy as it is driving a wedge into a very tight crack full of vested interest worms that don’t want legal challenges to the immense power they hold.
Rep to StanG – on your second point I agree with you.
On your first point, I would say two things:
(i) one should never take appearances at face value. People know how dangerous it is to openly question such things so most do not outwardly express such views. This, however, does not mean that many people do not feel that the law is unjust.
(ii) to gain “the will of the people” so that politicians could legislate to repeal or reform the law one would need a public campaign. As I said, fighting the lese majeste law represents a direct challenge to the monarchy. This makes such campaigns very difficult under the current political circumstances.
Suzie Wong: some of what you say might be true now, but not back when Thaksin studied. Only the very richest kids at my university — the most spoiled jerks — had Firebirds, and many did not have cars. Most considered the cost of gas significant. Most did not have family members in high political positions who could get them licenses and contracts without having to compete. …. Oops,that part was not in his biography!
Police officer Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra made his first serious money by introducing and selling the personal computers wholesale to the Thai Police Force when his father-in-law was a high ranking officer.
His family company was granted a computer monopoly by the Thai Police and also some other government agencies, and he milked the contracts so good the business made him a Thai billionaire. Then was the time an IBM PC could easily cost 10,000 US$ in Bangkok and a Taiwanese clone was at about half that price.
No need to mention his later satellite communication business which made him much, much richer. It was also a monopoly too. I don’t think he is a champion of the people by the people and for the people!
He is just a pseudo-industrialist who sees his opportunities and knows how to grab them quick with the help of some ruling-class insiders!
Sae Dang, Major General Khattiya Sawasdipol, in my opinion, is a genuine warrior with strong patriot spirit. Having soldier like him, people feel safe. He’s an outspoken soldier with a very good heart.
He supports Thaksin so he’s in trouble because his enemies are applying “fait accompli” against him, so he needs to be extremely careful in every step of the way…lots lots of traps.
I assert that it’s “fait accompli” because the method was identical to the past political history of using “Young Turk” group in the strategic interaction.
Colonel Apirat Komsompong is the late General Sunthorn Kongsompong’s who was also close with Thaksin. I hope Colonel Apirat is smart enough not to be used by Sae Daeng’s enemies as the “Young Turk” group.
“General Sunthorn Kongsompong (1931 – 1999) was the de facto head of government of Thailand from 1991 – 1992, following a military coup d’etat led by Sunthorn and General Suchinda Kraprayoon deposed the government of Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan on February 23, 1991. It is said that the general also had close relationship with Thaksin Shinawatra, ousted prime minister in another 2006 coup.” (wikipedia)
@ Stan: I see where you’re coming from, but check the link above — this is just the English-language transcript of a 74-minute online video in Thai.
The (rough) English transcript was e-mailed by a red shirt organizer to foreign press, farang academics, etc. The tale itself, however, is mostly meant for Thais.
As for Thais sensing truth in his tale, agreed – I think that’s the point of this video.
The timing of this tale coincides with Thaksin’s assets ruling — and I think he wants to detail his ascent to wealth to prove that he isn’t suspiciously rich.
It’s easy to admire how many business flops and dead ends this guy swallowed before he climbed to the top. Count his ventures: cop, silk trading, film producing, telecoms, politician, etc. You gotta respect his hustle.
Whether Thaksin acted like a jackass once he reached the top, however, is up for debate.
Use substitute pronouns for a moment, she did say “The people love them more than they love the people.” I listened to her say this and to me there was no misconstruing as to what she meant. And some feel there is sufficient evidence to prove that she was right. That is why she is in prison.
As to coup or no coup, saying there will be no coup is as dicey as saying there will be. The only thing keeping a coup away is a situation that power keepers feel a threat – then there will be a coup. No doubt about it.
This story is written for the foreigners, I suspect Thais don’t see anything unusual or spectacular in his progress. In those days success was everywhere, everybody was moving up and up and up, everybody was cashing in on decades of 10% a year growth.
It might be more difficult now, but, on the other hand, Thai working culture is more open to meritocracy than in those days. Chances for upward mobility are still there.
Also, shouldn’t we play a bit of “spot the difference” between this autobiography and Baker/Pasuk’s version of Thaksin’s rise?
In a democracy it should be the people, through their political representatives, who decide whether or not a law is just, not unelected judges – who in recent years appear in any case to be more beholden to the monarchy than they are to the people. So this debate should take place in society generally. Then, if it is the will of the people, the politicians as the people’s political representatives change the law.
Apparently this “will of the people” is not present despite all the publicity attracted by recent cases.
I don’t think “she didn’t mean the King” defense strategy could have achieved anything, no one would have believed her despite all the theoretical possibilities she referred to anyone else.
My basic thesis is that Thaksin has strived to make Siam to be “The Land of Opportunity”. By this, I mean socially, class mobility.
It used to be the United States of America is the only land of opportunity. Now there are increasingly many other such lands in the world. It shows that there are opportunities everywhere and it depends on whether we are smart enough to spot them or to create opportunity for ourselves. Opportunity is useless unless you are willing to take advantage of it. Thaksin founded a successful computer company.
Thaksin had stated that his goal in life was “The American Dream” so to speak, meaning to be wealthy like Chin Soponpanich the owner of the Bangkok Bank. If you understand Chinese cultural anthropology, this is a typical goal of people with Chinese root. Thaksin was diligent and persistent in his effort to achieve the goal he had set upon himself. He has the ability and will to get there. He was willing to work hard to achieve success. And with a little bit of luck, the willingness to walk through obstacles and tough competition, he succeeded. Success at that magnitude never happened by chance.
After being successful, he wants to make that dream possible for other Thais. With his experience living in the U.S. , Thaksin has strived to make Siam to be what America was created to be — equality of opportunity is the fundamental principle by which America was founded. This is the principal factor why Thaksin has strong grass root support throughout the country.
If I correctly remember, you once said that you were a typical Assamese in one of your posts. Is it possible to describe a bit about your racial mix? I am just curious.
I have met only one Assamese in my life and he was a Muslim Indian and his parents moved from the East-Pakistan, now Bangladesh, to Assam. First thing he said to me once he found out I was a Burmese was that he had many friends back in Assam who looked exactly like me.
Then he asked me if I knew Mingi-mahathi. I didn’t understand his question first and so he explained to me that Mingi-mahathi was a brutal Burmese general from the old days of Burmese rule and he was so cruel and feared the Assamese mothers still use him as a bogey man if their children misbehave.
Only then I recalled one of our famous generals just before the First Anglo-Burmese War. His name was Mingyi-Maha-Thiha-Thura and he was then the governor of Assam and Manipur.
I have read many old stories about the Burmese exploits and also their brutalities in Assam in our folk tales and novels, and it will be quite fascinating to hear about the old stories from the Assamese point of view. Do you have any?
Amidst all possible scenarios, motives, potential coupmakers and all, there’s one crucial ingredient missing – approval by Privy Council and the palace, and that is not forthcoming for any dark horses out there.
No one will stick his neck out without such guarantees.
For a Burmese like me, professor Aung-Thwin’s general stance or “said bias” is quite understandable. He is on the Army’s end of this extremely polarized debate about Burma, for many reasons only Burmese can understand.
I think I should reason just one of his main points here in his support.
His sentence, “In countries such as Burma, anarchy is feared far more than tyranny,” explains Burmese psyche very well, as the violent anarchy during the failed 8-8-88 uprising paved the foundation, and the sole justification, of the brutal 1988 coup and the current Tatmadaw government.
The fear of systemic anarchy has been well established in the minds of many generations of Burmese since the violent chaos of second world war when Burma was just a gigantic battle field between two massive armies.
(Almost quarter a million Allied and Japanese soldiers were killed in Burma. Nearly seven percent of total Japanese war deaths were in Burma.)
The long and brutal civil war later just adds more to this well established fear, and that paranoia was why most Burmese supported the Ne Win’s coup in 1962.
The Burmese army knows it very well and they are still exploiting it ruthlessly to lengthen their brutal hold on Burma.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Nice try StanG, but what you wrote is clear. No coup without palace approval. Absolutely correct. This hasn’t always been the case, but when a coup takes place that isn’t approved see major difficulties. Think Kriangsak and how he was pushed aside for the palace posterior polisher.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Approve transfer of power.
I don’t know if Sonthi had any formal assurances back in 2006 but no one expected Prem and the palace to refuse to accept him.
This time it’s different, it won’t be welcome, even if Anupong himself stages the coup, and he must be barking mad to go for it. Some dark horse forcing his way to the palace for a signature – forget about it.
The evidence of intention
“As I said, fighting the lese majeste law represents a direct challenge to the monarchy. This makes such campaigns very difficult under the current political circumstances.”
Any such fight does not challenge the monarchy, to be contrary. Even the king has said he is tired of the law and the cases. That his words were put on the back burner and no such court cases challenging the law were even brought up is nothing to do with challenging the monarchy as it is driving a wedge into a very tight crack full of vested interest worms that don’t want legal challenges to the immense power they hold.
The evidence of intention
Rep to StanG – on your second point I agree with you.
On your first point, I would say two things:
(i) one should never take appearances at face value. People know how dangerous it is to openly question such things so most do not outwardly express such views. This, however, does not mean that many people do not feel that the law is unjust.
(ii) to gain “the will of the people” so that politicians could legislate to repeal or reform the law one would need a public campaign. As I said, fighting the lese majeste law represents a direct challenge to the monarchy. This makes such campaigns very difficult under the current political circumstances.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Approve what first?
The coup or the signature:)
btw, isn’t giving legitimacy to coups anti-democratic?
🙂
The return of Thailand’s old friend
There is only one person I can think of who can know that.
China and the Wa
Hla Oo, sangos,
I second that. We must be able to see how others see us, warts and all.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Ahhh, but I only said they must approve of the coup for us to call it a “success”.
Only King’s signature can give it any form of legality, and, realistically, it means Privy Council must approve it first.
Political situation at the moment is such that there’s zero chance of getting that approval regardless of who comes to power.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
StanG: That’s an interesting admission from someone of your political stand.
(That the Privy Council and the palace were behind the coup:)
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
Suzie Wong: some of what you say might be true now, but not back when Thaksin studied. Only the very richest kids at my university — the most spoiled jerks — had Firebirds, and many did not have cars. Most considered the cost of gas significant. Most did not have family members in high political positions who could get them licenses and contracts without having to compete. …. Oops,that part was not in his biography!
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
Correct me if I am wrong, Ms Susie Wong!
Police officer Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra made his first serious money by introducing and selling the personal computers wholesale to the Thai Police Force when his father-in-law was a high ranking officer.
His family company was granted a computer monopoly by the Thai Police and also some other government agencies, and he milked the contracts so good the business made him a Thai billionaire. Then was the time an IBM PC could easily cost 10,000 US$ in Bangkok and a Taiwanese clone was at about half that price.
No need to mention his later satellite communication business which made him much, much richer. It was also a monopoly too. I don’t think he is a champion of the people by the people and for the people!
He is just a pseudo-industrialist who sees his opportunities and knows how to grab them quick with the help of some ruling-class insiders!
Two soldiers
Sae Dang, Major General Khattiya Sawasdipol, in my opinion, is a genuine warrior with strong patriot spirit. Having soldier like him, people feel safe. He’s an outspoken soldier with a very good heart.
He supports Thaksin so he’s in trouble because his enemies are applying “fait accompli” against him, so he needs to be extremely careful in every step of the way…lots lots of traps.
I assert that it’s “fait accompli” because the method was identical to the past political history of using “Young Turk” group in the strategic interaction.
Colonel Apirat Komsompong is the late General Sunthorn Kongsompong’s who was also close with Thaksin. I hope Colonel Apirat is smart enough not to be used by Sae Daeng’s enemies as the “Young Turk” group.
“General Sunthorn Kongsompong (1931 – 1999) was the de facto head of government of Thailand from 1991 – 1992, following a military coup d’etat led by Sunthorn and General Suchinda Kraprayoon deposed the government of Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan on February 23, 1991. It is said that the general also had close relationship with Thaksin Shinawatra, ousted prime minister in another 2006 coup.” (wikipedia)
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
@ Stan: I see where you’re coming from, but check the link above — this is just the English-language transcript of a 74-minute online video in Thai.
The (rough) English transcript was e-mailed by a red shirt organizer to foreign press, farang academics, etc. The tale itself, however, is mostly meant for Thais.
As for Thais sensing truth in his tale, agreed – I think that’s the point of this video.
The timing of this tale coincides with Thaksin’s assets ruling — and I think he wants to detail his ascent to wealth to prove that he isn’t suspiciously rich.
It’s easy to admire how many business flops and dead ends this guy swallowed before he climbed to the top. Count his ventures: cop, silk trading, film producing, telecoms, politician, etc. You gotta respect his hustle.
Whether Thaksin acted like a jackass once he reached the top, however, is up for debate.
The evidence of intention
Use substitute pronouns for a moment, she did say “The people love them more than they love the people.” I listened to her say this and to me there was no misconstruing as to what she meant. And some feel there is sufficient evidence to prove that she was right. That is why she is in prison.
As to coup or no coup, saying there will be no coup is as dicey as saying there will be. The only thing keeping a coup away is a situation that power keepers feel a threat – then there will be a coup. No doubt about it.
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
This story is written for the foreigners, I suspect Thais don’t see anything unusual or spectacular in his progress. In those days success was everywhere, everybody was moving up and up and up, everybody was cashing in on decades of 10% a year growth.
It might be more difficult now, but, on the other hand, Thai working culture is more open to meritocracy than in those days. Chances for upward mobility are still there.
Also, shouldn’t we play a bit of “spot the difference” between this autobiography and Baker/Pasuk’s version of Thaksin’s rise?
The evidence of intention
Alladin:
Apparently this “will of the people” is not present despite all the publicity attracted by recent cases.
I don’t think “she didn’t mean the King” defense strategy could have achieved anything, no one would have believed her despite all the theoretical possibilities she referred to anyone else.
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
My basic thesis is that Thaksin has strived to make Siam to be “The Land of Opportunity”. By this, I mean socially, class mobility.
It used to be the United States of America is the only land of opportunity. Now there are increasingly many other such lands in the world. It shows that there are opportunities everywhere and it depends on whether we are smart enough to spot them or to create opportunity for ourselves. Opportunity is useless unless you are willing to take advantage of it. Thaksin founded a successful computer company.
Thaksin had stated that his goal in life was “The American Dream” so to speak, meaning to be wealthy like Chin Soponpanich the owner of the Bangkok Bank. If you understand Chinese cultural anthropology, this is a typical goal of people with Chinese root. Thaksin was diligent and persistent in his effort to achieve the goal he had set upon himself. He has the ability and will to get there. He was willing to work hard to achieve success. And with a little bit of luck, the willingness to walk through obstacles and tough competition, he succeeded. Success at that magnitude never happened by chance.
After being successful, he wants to make that dream possible for other Thais. With his experience living in the U.S. , Thaksin has strived to make Siam to be what America was created to be — equality of opportunity is the fundamental principle by which America was founded. This is the principal factor why Thaksin has strong grass root support throughout the country.
China and the Wa
Dear Sangos,
If I correctly remember, you once said that you were a typical Assamese in one of your posts. Is it possible to describe a bit about your racial mix? I am just curious.
I have met only one Assamese in my life and he was a Muslim Indian and his parents moved from the East-Pakistan, now Bangladesh, to Assam. First thing he said to me once he found out I was a Burmese was that he had many friends back in Assam who looked exactly like me.
Then he asked me if I knew Mingi-mahathi. I didn’t understand his question first and so he explained to me that Mingi-mahathi was a brutal Burmese general from the old days of Burmese rule and he was so cruel and feared the Assamese mothers still use him as a bogey man if their children misbehave.
Only then I recalled one of our famous generals just before the First Anglo-Burmese War. His name was Mingyi-Maha-Thiha-Thura and he was then the governor of Assam and Manipur.
I have read many old stories about the Burmese exploits and also their brutalities in Assam in our folk tales and novels, and it will be quite fascinating to hear about the old stories from the Assamese point of view. Do you have any?
The return of Thailand’s old friend
There will be no coup.
Amidst all possible scenarios, motives, potential coupmakers and all, there’s one crucial ingredient missing – approval by Privy Council and the palace, and that is not forthcoming for any dark horses out there.
No one will stick his neck out without such guarantees.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
For a Burmese like me, professor Aung-Thwin’s general stance or “said bias” is quite understandable. He is on the Army’s end of this extremely polarized debate about Burma, for many reasons only Burmese can understand.
I think I should reason just one of his main points here in his support.
His sentence, “In countries such as Burma, anarchy is feared far more than tyranny,” explains Burmese psyche very well, as the violent anarchy during the failed 8-8-88 uprising paved the foundation, and the sole justification, of the brutal 1988 coup and the current Tatmadaw government.
The fear of systemic anarchy has been well established in the minds of many generations of Burmese since the violent chaos of second world war when Burma was just a gigantic battle field between two massive armies.
(Almost quarter a million Allied and Japanese soldiers were killed in Burma. Nearly seven percent of total Japanese war deaths were in Burma.)
The long and brutal civil war later just adds more to this well established fear, and that paranoia was why most Burmese supported the Ne Win’s coup in 1962.
The Burmese army knows it very well and they are still exploiting it ruthlessly to lengthen their brutal hold on Burma.