Chris, I believe that you wrongly attributed the free education through grade 12 to the Democrats. I believe that it was a policy of the Samak PPP government.
The problem I have with Mr. Young is the same that I have with Mr. Abhisit, both produce good rhetoric yet neither seems to be able to actually have a oration that matches the actions of their principles.
Young criticizes Thaksin, perhaps rightly so, saying that , “His version of democratic justice… is a vision of democracy without ethics where money trumps all other values.”
Yet he does not offer a comparable criticism of the Democrat Party that replaced it though back room deals with the military, bribes to politicians, selective judicals actions, and armed violence against the public.
I agree with him when he says, “It is, really, a conflict within one elite; it is a struggle for control of public authority between two
factions.
But I disagree with his followup that ” each with its own set of values and rules by which to play the game of power. The different values are fundamentally incompatible, which is why the conflict in Thailand is so difficult to end.”
I maintain that both have similar sets of values. That each wants more power, more money, more privileges.
It is not about”baramee”, social justice.
The difference between the two competing groups is that one side recognizes that in a “Democracy” the voters count. To assure that they have the numbers, the must deliver policies that count to those voters. And ultimately those voters have the power to remove those that don’t deliver, offend the public morals, etc.
That TRT/PPP/PT included members that some viewed as provincial thugs, does not reduce the the validity of the voters opinions.
The real problem is that in this one elite there is pervasive corrupti0n.
Neither the Democrats nor the various incarnations of TRT can get individual players to be held accountable for various irregularities ,
–whether it be the death of police officers in pubs murdered by the sons of the influential, Diplomats murdered in broad daylight, Civil Rights Lawyers abducted and murdered by men with badges, migrants being left to die at sea, purchasing irregularities in all government departments, lack of forensic evidence, slowed enforcement of some judicial decisions, etc.
So the given in the view of the poor, is that all governments emanating from this one elite are corrupt.
So the problem, Mr. Young is not with the Democrats nor with TRT, it is with the fact that all governments in Thailand to date lack what you identify in Caux Round Table ethical Principles for Responsible Business and its Principles for Ethical Government
And although you found “… Taksin’s approach
wanting.
Your view “Public office is not for sale to the highest bidder.” is at this moment in Thai History wrong.
Sadly.
Futher you state:
“The CRT Principles for Business call upon business to avoid corruption and to support the rule
of law and constitutional checks and balances. It is not the office of responsible business to
contribute to corruption and autocracy.”
“The CRT Principles for Government do not support a shallow formalism of unfairly manipulated elections as legitimizing democratic government. Elections conducted without ethics do not
produce any democracy worth the name.”
“Nor do the CRT Principles for Government validate a government if it has no ethics or justice in the way it uses power once in office. The office of just government has to be won day in and day
out by the quality of governing. The right to hold office can be forfeited by abuse of its prerogatives. Government without ethics is not good government.” http://gotoknow.org/file/vicharnpanich/Young2.pdf
So while you are to be commended for being able to see the flaws in Thaksin’s policies, you are really missing the plot when you fail to see that the Democrats, a party I once supported I might add, is itself a failure in ethics.
At least with elections, there is a certain degree of control of the elite and politics by the citizens, you seem to offer nothing better.
Your presence in Thai politics, Mr. Young is is merely that of a red herring. They are using your fawning to illustrate that they are “legitimate”.
It is time for an election, the sooner the better. It is time to return to the People’s Constitution of 1997.
And it is time to start holding members of the elite accountable for their transgressions.
Mr Young, your point that, “Aristotle made these points many centuries ago when he wrote that democracy like aristocracy
and monarchy can be corrupted by those who have few scruples into vile forms of abusive rule.”
The only problem is that you are failing miserably to see the that too many of the actors here have “few scruples” and there is far too much abusive rule.
Perhaps you can gain some credibility, by confronting your Friends int he Democrat Party to actually address some of the more substantive issues like the recent Human Watch Report which they characterized as being planted by Thaksin.
Or the denial of Secret Thai prisons as an attemp by Washington to bring discredit on Thailand.
This comment list, hosted in a foreign land, run by scholars that presumably would resist any attempt by the various Thai governments to uncover ISP and account holders present an excellent example of the fallacy of the Lese Majeste laws.
Pundits from both the left and right accuse each of the crime (which really should not be a crime) and the consequence is that there is always a shadow lurking in the background of what otherwise should be academic discussion of the merits of a specific position.
The main points I want to make in the general discussion.
1. No matter what populist policies the Current Democrat comes up with, all voters know that they are only occurring because of the position that TRT had.
2. Thai Nationalism started around the same time as German Nationalism, National Socialism, and Japanese Imperialism.
StanG said “Politically, the conflict has been practically settled, old differences cast away, and now it’s pro-Thaksin and everybody else, with all ideological hatchets effectively buried. They even talk of PTP-Dem coalition from time to time.
“Thaksin is the only remaining big thorn in Thailand’s foot.”
At first I repressed my temptation to say what nonsense that is, and thought instead I’d play along and ask what facts (or even rumors) you have in mind that could possibly support any of those statements.
Then I thought, maybe if we all just start ignoring StanG’s hallucinations he’ll go away.
Once again, Srithanonchai demonstrates his usual talent for sarcasm and absolutely no aptitude for making constructive suggestions – beyond his usual meagre analytical capacity.
Hence his contributions rarely have any more substance than the sight provided by a caged monkey baring it’s backside or masturbating out of sheer boredom with itself.
Bottom line: a product of the system trying desperately to make an impression
Sure, you could make that argument, but you would very probably be incorrect. I refer you to Youtube/Bloopers! Thaksin makes a huge slip. Moreover, I have heard Bangkok Taxi drivers myself being offered cash payments of “money from Chieng Mai” to join the red rallies.
However, for a variety of reasons, plausible denial is all that is usually required here to muddy the waters enough to brazen things out – regardless of whatever the evidence points to – so you seem to have made yourself another unwitting (?) apologist for Thaksin the Incorruptible. Yeah, right.
As to Mr. Blanket Statement summa cum laude, let’s not try to rationalize that the internet will be regulated like all other media. In Thailand such regulation is perverse.
Frank and Chris, I think it was the bargaining between Democrat party and Phumjaithai party on who would occupy Ministry of Interior. It seems to me that unless Phumjaithai got Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Transportation they wouldn’t join in to form the coalition, which Aphisit wouldn’t get to be Prime Minister. Using Ministry of Education to project populist policy later on was a separate issue.
Frank Lee – I’m glad you made that point about Abhisit and education.
It’s important because in some ways Abhisit has out-done Thaksin with populist measures, and I’d don’t mean “populist’ in a negative sense. Eg. as I understand it, Abhisit has extended free education right up to the end of high school, at least in principle – something Thaksin never achieve, though given Thaksin’s educational improvements, he may well have done this if he’d remained in power. Ditto Abhisit abolishing even the 30 baht requirement for medical treatment. And other measures.
Unofrtunately this does n’t seem to be paying off much for Abhisit (who strikes me as a very decent Tory, a would-be Disraeli). By-elections and opinion polls seem to indicate the Thai public remains almost rock-solidly divided between pro and anti-Thaksin, with varying degrees of intensity. But such rock-solid voting is also a feature of Western democracies, especially those of the two-party variety.
The real danger now seems to be increasing momentum towards a coup attempt, jettisoning Abhisit and electoral politics. If this happens, I fear polarisation will accelerate to such an extent the country will break apart violently. it won’t be like the two parts of former Cechoslovakia, which peacefully went their seprate ways. it seems to me this is what Steve Young is implicitly warning against, despite Nick’s valid points raised above.
Ralph – despite our past differences – thanks for those points above. Yes – life is always a struggle :
“mai pen rai” seems to me sometimes a Thai way of saying
“it’s got too hot to bother”.
He might speak of privileged circles but they are those who set the tone for the rest of the society, and not the binge drinking proletariat of Samut Prakan. Urban underclasses might have numbers but their conflict resolution skills have zero chance of going mainstream here, unlike, for example, street gang culture in the US.
I guess that’s why Thailand remains a friendly country of mai pen rai for most observers.
Politically, the conflict has been practically settled, old differences cast away, and now it’s pro-Thaksin and everybody else, with all ideological hatchets effectively buried. They even talk of PTP-Dem coalition from time to time.
Thaksin is the only remaining big thorn in Thailand’s foot.
Aphisit didn’t give up Ministry of Interior, he simply didn’t have any bargaining power to lure Chavarat (Minister of Interior) to join in as the coalition unless Chavarat got the Ministry of Interior. Aphisit had to yield to the demand of Chavarat so that he himself could become prime minister. The only reason Phumjaithai Party joined the Democrat Party was they got the money making Ministry of Transportation, and the power making Ministry of Interior. Aphisit gave up Ministry of Interior so that he could get the Prime Minister position. Aphisit simply made a calculative bargaining decision that benefited himself most.
“… the infamous ‘Maew Rap’ clip on Youtube where he threatened to stop paying his mob their 500 baht daily wage”
You probably know, don’t you, that this is only one way of interpreting that sentence. But it’s equally likely that Thaksin was referring to the Democrat’s 500 baht handout to the elderly scheme.
I know it is pointless. Just a minor point in the whole crazy saga. But seeing that someone is still repeating this line of attack after 9 months, I felt I need to respond.
Nobody is disputing the beauty of these artefacts but I have to sound a note of caution to Suzie Wong’s comment. She talks about China encouraging more women (and it’s always women) to produce these very labour intensive items and for the United States to assist in their global marketing.
This is similar to the treatment of the hill tribes in Thailand so ably described by Hjorleifur Jonsson in his groundbreaking book “Mien Relations: Mountain People and State Control in Thailand” (reviewed in New Mandala).
Jonsson reveals that the kind of initiatives Suzie Wong advocates work to impose a timelessness on hill tribe culture. Preoccupation with the sale of their handicrafts to uncritical tourists acts as a brake on their independent cultural development, while at the same time “proving that highland peoples have been transformed into presentable members of the nation through their marketable produce.” [Mien Relations p 67]
Google’s argument is that they are merely complying with state law, similar to when Yahoo! Auctions agreed to take down auctions of Nazi memoribilia in France and Germany, where they are illegal (despite being democratic countries with free press). I don’t think most people had a problem with that — both countries have very strict anti-Nazi laws.
If we apply the same legal argument, then Google is merely obeying Thai and Chinese law when it stops “illegal” content in those countries. But the legal merits get quickly discarded when it’s “free speech in China” versus “No Nazism in Germany.”
I don’t like Google decision either, but in a free market anyone (Bing? Not likely) can create a non-censored search engine/ video site and offer it to the Chinese or Thai people. So far no one has, at least not effectively. And anyway YouTube is totally blocked in China. But for Google, search is the money maker and they won’t risk losing the Chinese clicks.
Another way to look at it: Intentionally or not, Google and YouTube are still both the best and biggest sources of free information worldwide. In Thailand for example, Google is still usable to search for lese-majeste information, Giles’ articles, Torpedo speeches, The Devil’s Discus, and real Siamese 20th century history. Google isn’t censoring the Thai Internet, the MICT is, and they’re incompetent.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The return of Thailand’s old friend
THE ROYAL CHRONICLES OF AYUTTHAYA – A Synoptic Translation by Richard D. Cushman, Edited by David K. Wyatt, 1999.
Published by The Siam Society.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Chris, I believe that you wrongly attributed the free education through grade 12 to the Democrats. I believe that it was a policy of the Samak PPP government.
Stephen B. Young on a “grand consultation”
The problem I have with Mr. Young is the same that I have with Mr. Abhisit, both produce good rhetoric yet neither seems to be able to actually have a oration that matches the actions of their principles.
Young criticizes Thaksin, perhaps rightly so, saying that , “His version of democratic justice… is a vision of democracy without ethics where money trumps all other values.”
Yet he does not offer a comparable criticism of the Democrat Party that replaced it though back room deals with the military, bribes to politicians, selective judicals actions, and armed violence against the public.
I agree with him when he says, “It is, really, a conflict within one elite; it is a struggle for control of public authority between two
factions.
But I disagree with his followup that ” each with its own set of values and rules by which to play the game of power. The different values are fundamentally incompatible, which is why the conflict in Thailand is so difficult to end.”
I maintain that both have similar sets of values. That each wants more power, more money, more privileges.
It is not about”baramee”, social justice.
The difference between the two competing groups is that one side recognizes that in a “Democracy” the voters count. To assure that they have the numbers, the must deliver policies that count to those voters. And ultimately those voters have the power to remove those that don’t deliver, offend the public morals, etc.
That TRT/PPP/PT included members that some viewed as provincial thugs, does not reduce the the validity of the voters opinions.
The real problem is that in this one elite there is pervasive corrupti0n.
Neither the Democrats nor the various incarnations of TRT can get individual players to be held accountable for various irregularities ,
–whether it be the death of police officers in pubs murdered by the sons of the influential, Diplomats murdered in broad daylight, Civil Rights Lawyers abducted and murdered by men with badges, migrants being left to die at sea, purchasing irregularities in all government departments, lack of forensic evidence, slowed enforcement of some judicial decisions, etc.
So the given in the view of the poor, is that all governments emanating from this one elite are corrupt.
So the problem, Mr. Young is not with the Democrats nor with TRT, it is with the fact that all governments in Thailand to date lack what you identify in Caux Round Table ethical Principles for Responsible Business and its Principles for Ethical Government
And although you found “… Taksin’s approach
wanting.
Your view “Public office is not for sale to the highest bidder.” is at this moment in Thai History wrong.
Sadly.
Futher you state:
“The CRT Principles for Business call upon business to avoid corruption and to support the rule
of law and constitutional checks and balances. It is not the office of responsible business to
contribute to corruption and autocracy.”
“The CRT Principles for Government do not support a shallow formalism of unfairly manipulated elections as legitimizing democratic government. Elections conducted without ethics do not
produce any democracy worth the name.”
“Nor do the CRT Principles for Government validate a government if it has no ethics or justice in the way it uses power once in office. The office of just government has to be won day in and day
out by the quality of governing. The right to hold office can be forfeited by abuse of its prerogatives. Government without ethics is not good government.”
http://gotoknow.org/file/vicharnpanich/Young2.pdf
So while you are to be commended for being able to see the flaws in Thaksin’s policies, you are really missing the plot when you fail to see that the Democrats, a party I once supported I might add, is itself a failure in ethics.
At least with elections, there is a certain degree of control of the elite and politics by the citizens, you seem to offer nothing better.
Your presence in Thai politics, Mr. Young is is merely that of a red herring. They are using your fawning to illustrate that they are “legitimate”.
It is time for an election, the sooner the better. It is time to return to the People’s Constitution of 1997.
And it is time to start holding members of the elite accountable for their transgressions.
Mr Young, your point that, “Aristotle made these points many centuries ago when he wrote that democracy like aristocracy
and monarchy can be corrupted by those who have few scruples into vile forms of abusive rule.”
The only problem is that you are failing miserably to see the that too many of the actors here have “few scruples” and there is far too much abusive rule.
Perhaps you can gain some credibility, by confronting your Friends int he Democrat Party to actually address some of the more substantive issues like the recent Human Watch Report which they characterized as being planted by Thaksin.
Or the denial of Secret Thai prisons as an attemp by Washington to bring discredit on Thailand.
ETC. ETC.
Until then you are merely a puppet– a stooge.
Google and lese majeste
Why does Google Thailand not have NEWS?
What is the backgound on that story?
The return of Thailand’s old friend
This comment list, hosted in a foreign land, run by scholars that presumably would resist any attempt by the various Thai governments to uncover ISP and account holders present an excellent example of the fallacy of the Lese Majeste laws.
Pundits from both the left and right accuse each of the crime (which really should not be a crime) and the consequence is that there is always a shadow lurking in the background of what otherwise should be academic discussion of the merits of a specific position.
The main points I want to make in the general discussion.
1. No matter what populist policies the Current Democrat comes up with, all voters know that they are only occurring because of the position that TRT had.
2. Thai Nationalism started around the same time as German Nationalism, National Socialism, and Japanese Imperialism.
Time to bring back Siam.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
StanG said “Politically, the conflict has been practically settled, old differences cast away, and now it’s pro-Thaksin and everybody else, with all ideological hatchets effectively buried. They even talk of PTP-Dem coalition from time to time.
“Thaksin is the only remaining big thorn in Thailand’s foot.”
At first I repressed my temptation to say what nonsense that is, and thought instead I’d play along and ask what facts (or even rumors) you have in mind that could possibly support any of those statements.
Then I thought, maybe if we all just start ignoring StanG’s hallucinations he’ll go away.
In the end I couldn’t help myself.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Once again, Srithanonchai demonstrates his usual talent for sarcasm and absolutely no aptitude for making constructive suggestions – beyond his usual meagre analytical capacity.
Hence his contributions rarely have any more substance than the sight provided by a caged monkey baring it’s backside or masturbating out of sheer boredom with itself.
Bottom line: a product of the system trying desperately to make an impression
Thaksin’s PhD
Sure, you could make that argument, but you would very probably be incorrect. I refer you to Youtube/Bloopers! Thaksin makes a huge slip. Moreover, I have heard Bangkok Taxi drivers myself being offered cash payments of “money from Chieng Mai” to join the red rallies.
However, for a variety of reasons, plausible denial is all that is usually required here to muddy the waters enough to brazen things out – regardless of whatever the evidence points to – so you seem to have made yourself another unwitting (?) apologist for Thaksin the Incorruptible. Yeah, right.
Amrita Malhi on Malaysian “Allah”
Anwar weighs in on the Allah issue with this article in the Wall Street Journal. (read here)
Google and lese majeste
http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2010/01/25/will_2010_be_another_volatile_year_for_thai_politics/9519/
As to Mr. Blanket Statement summa cum laude, let’s not try to rationalize that the internet will be regulated like all other media. In Thailand such regulation is perverse.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Frank and Chris, I think it was the bargaining between Democrat party and Phumjaithai party on who would occupy Ministry of Interior. It seems to me that unless Phumjaithai got Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Transportation they wouldn’t join in to form the coalition, which Aphisit wouldn’t get to be Prime Minister. Using Ministry of Education to project populist policy later on was a separate issue.
Najib in 2010 – More of the same?
An interesting analysis on the 12th Malaysian General Election by Clive Kessler.
Clive provides a kind reminder of key issues that divide the nation and the future of Malaysia. Read here.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Frank Lee – I’m glad you made that point about Abhisit and education.
It’s important because in some ways Abhisit has out-done Thaksin with populist measures, and I’d don’t mean “populist’ in a negative sense. Eg. as I understand it, Abhisit has extended free education right up to the end of high school, at least in principle – something Thaksin never achieve, though given Thaksin’s educational improvements, he may well have done this if he’d remained in power. Ditto Abhisit abolishing even the 30 baht requirement for medical treatment. And other measures.
Unofrtunately this does n’t seem to be paying off much for Abhisit (who strikes me as a very decent Tory, a would-be Disraeli). By-elections and opinion polls seem to indicate the Thai public remains almost rock-solidly divided between pro and anti-Thaksin, with varying degrees of intensity. But such rock-solid voting is also a feature of Western democracies, especially those of the two-party variety.
The real danger now seems to be increasing momentum towards a coup attempt, jettisoning Abhisit and electoral politics. If this happens, I fear polarisation will accelerate to such an extent the country will break apart violently. it won’t be like the two parts of former Cechoslovakia, which peacefully went their seprate ways. it seems to me this is what Steve Young is implicitly warning against, despite Nick’s valid points raised above.
Ralph – despite our past differences – thanks for those points above. Yes – life is always a struggle :
“mai pen rai” seems to me sometimes a Thai way of saying
“it’s got too hot to bother”.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
He might speak of privileged circles but they are those who set the tone for the rest of the society, and not the binge drinking proletariat of Samut Prakan. Urban underclasses might have numbers but their conflict resolution skills have zero chance of going mainstream here, unlike, for example, street gang culture in the US.
I guess that’s why Thailand remains a friendly country of mai pen rai for most observers.
Politically, the conflict has been practically settled, old differences cast away, and now it’s pro-Thaksin and everybody else, with all ideological hatchets effectively buried. They even talk of PTP-Dem coalition from time to time.
Thaksin is the only remaining big thorn in Thailand’s foot.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Aphisit didn’t give up Ministry of Interior, he simply didn’t have any bargaining power to lure Chavarat (Minister of Interior) to join in as the coalition unless Chavarat got the Ministry of Interior. Aphisit had to yield to the demand of Chavarat so that he himself could become prime minister. The only reason Phumjaithai Party joined the Democrat Party was they got the money making Ministry of Transportation, and the power making Ministry of Interior. Aphisit gave up Ministry of Interior so that he could get the Prime Minister position. Aphisit simply made a calculative bargaining decision that benefited himself most.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Frankyboy’s fine concise and analytical mind is at it again–wow!!
Anyway, thanks for the “sic”!
Thaksin’s PhD
“… the infamous ‘Maew Rap’ clip on Youtube where he threatened to stop paying his mob their 500 baht daily wage”
You probably know, don’t you, that this is only one way of interpreting that sentence. But it’s equally likely that Thaksin was referring to the Democrat’s 500 baht handout to the elderly scheme.
I know it is pointless. Just a minor point in the whole crazy saga. But seeing that someone is still repeating this line of attack after 9 months, I felt I need to respond.
Collection seeks soul mate
Nobody is disputing the beauty of these artefacts but I have to sound a note of caution to Suzie Wong’s comment. She talks about China encouraging more women (and it’s always women) to produce these very labour intensive items and for the United States to assist in their global marketing.
This is similar to the treatment of the hill tribes in Thailand so ably described by Hjorleifur Jonsson in his groundbreaking book “Mien Relations: Mountain People and State Control in Thailand” (reviewed in New Mandala).
Jonsson reveals that the kind of initiatives Suzie Wong advocates work to impose a timelessness on hill tribe culture. Preoccupation with the sale of their handicrafts to uncritical tourists acts as a brake on their independent cultural development, while at the same time “proving that highland peoples have been transformed into presentable members of the nation through their marketable produce.” [Mien Relations p 67]
Google and lese majeste
If Internet is the way people are communicating then naturally it will be regulated just like all other media.
Google and lese majeste
Google’s argument is that they are merely complying with state law, similar to when Yahoo! Auctions agreed to take down auctions of Nazi memoribilia in France and Germany, where they are illegal (despite being democratic countries with free press). I don’t think most people had a problem with that — both countries have very strict anti-Nazi laws.
If we apply the same legal argument, then Google is merely obeying Thai and Chinese law when it stops “illegal” content in those countries. But the legal merits get quickly discarded when it’s “free speech in China” versus “No Nazism in Germany.”
I don’t like Google decision either, but in a free market anyone (Bing? Not likely) can create a non-censored search engine/ video site and offer it to the Chinese or Thai people. So far no one has, at least not effectively. And anyway YouTube is totally blocked in China. But for Google, search is the money maker and they won’t risk losing the Chinese clicks.
Another way to look at it: Intentionally or not, Google and YouTube are still both the best and biggest sources of free information worldwide. In Thailand for example, Google is still usable to search for lese-majeste information, Giles’ articles, Torpedo speeches, The Devil’s Discus, and real Siamese 20th century history. Google isn’t censoring the Thai Internet, the MICT is, and they’re incompetent.