1. Is corruption endemic to Southeast Asia.
– Read Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report (various years) for a better understanding of corruption.
2. Philippines is still a very corrupt country and so is Indonesia (look at the TI rankings). The difference is – there seems to be a change in Indonesia i.e. the people have confidence that something is being done. The Philippines is a still a basket case. The Presidential term limits have had no impact. Without reforms (i.e. removing the power of the families that control Philippines), Philippines will remain a basket case.
3. Singapore – hmmm – no petty corruption – true but definitely a corrupt system that keeps in place the Lee family and its supporters in PAP.
Definitely, separation of power is an essential component in reducing corruption.
“This conflict is definitely not just ‘conflict between members of the elite’, as many observers have been fond of saying these past few years.”
I would even go so far, and say that the main factor that drives this conflict is the mass movements and not the elite machinations. This is also the main reason which has kept me being obsessed with photographing and reporting on this. It is quite unpredictable, unprecedented, and the potential for profound change is tremendous.
Red Shirt political philosophy i hear repeated in many areas outside the protests, by people who have never attended the rallies. But one should also not dismiss the PAD – even though they may have received backing from the elites last year (and to some extend still do), they are not just a tool of the elites. In their eyes – they also do stand for change, which does bring them in conflict with the elites, whose main ideal is just re-enforcing their traditional positions of domination.
In many ways, i believe that the traditional elites are rather helpless when facing the situation. All their efforts to stop these developments have been fruitless, and made hardly any impact.
The funeral festivities of Samak are rather telling in how Thailand has already changed. In some ways, this elite event has not played out as it should have. In important events like this, top – ranked people come together, to show their respects, to be seen, while their conflicts are for the brief moment left aside in a show of good manners.
The common people are there to cue up, bow and be quiet – a perfect representation of how Thai society should be – well ordered, where every sector knows its place.
Yet suddenly they have broken the code – they have not just been present in silence, but have made their views known in very “un-Thai” forms: the threw water bottles at Nevin, and shouted displeasure at Abhisit’s appearance.
This younger brother older brother supposed relationship between Thailand and Laos is a farce at best. It’s nice to see things that way, I suppose, but going back to Siam’s Manifest Destiny period, the latest which was the war in 1826-28 between Siam and Laos, you hear the same patronizing term being used by Siam to describe Vietnam when it was giving aid to Chao Anuwongse.
Things have not changed a lot, nor have attitudes.
The suspicions and distrust are mutual and often deserved.
For more insight, order my book, Lady Mo and Heroism at Tung Samrit, published this past October. 99 Baht direct, total 120 includes domestic (Thailand) shipping.
Perhaps some PAD member inherited Nation-Religion-King ideology from the 70s while pro-Thaksin reds inherit longing for a strong and popular leader ala Sarit and good old days – the main cause of resentment against reformists in 1973- 1976, imo.
Of course PAD wants more than just protecting the monarchy and reds want more than restoring Thaksin.
Clearly personal self interest are at work, just by reading the names of the speakers for or against the motion titled “It is time to lift sanctions against Burma.”
All three “for speakers” have been deeply involved in Burmese affairs and sympathized with Burmese people for a very long time, while all three on other side are political activists and so-called human-right activists who have greatly benefited professionally and monetarily for their activities against Burmese people and universally-hated Burmese Army.
Consider this: after Chatchai was overthrown, no mass movement coming out to defend him or to demand his return to power. This conflict is definitely not just ‘conflict between members of the elite’, as many observers have been fond of saying these past few years.
Chris Beale: An important difference between then and now is at that the elite is far more divided – in ‘76 there was no Thaksin, and His Majesty was still young and healthy.
actually, I don’t think it’s quite correct to put it this way.
Factionalism in the military in the 70s ran very deep and wide. There had been rumors of coup (not to speak of actual coups) almost every year (sometimes almost the whole year) down to the 1980s, i.e. throughout the Prem’s regime. No similar situations exist nowadays.
On the other hand, while Thaksin is, so to speak, a member of the ‘elite’, he has a genuinely mass support. This is the key difference. Observers (not least academic observers) often miss this crucial fact: Thaksin was the first PM elected by nation-wide vote, virtually the first presidential-style elective leader. No person who assumed the PM post before him ever achieved over half the vote in general election as he did, making him the first leader of a single-party government. Observers and his enemies alike have underestimated this historic change. And while he lost much support subsequently during the crises, it’s still there quite massively. Conflicts among members of the elite never assumed such sharpness and longivity because none of them really had this kind of genuine mass support, not even Chatchai, the last elective PM overthrown by a coup before Thaksin. In short, it’s not simply a ‘more divided’ elite. If it’s just that, it would have been resolved long ago. (Of course, the monarchy has developed a mass support of its own too, for the first time in my view, unlike the 1970s when it largely relied on state-organized groups like the Village Scouts. (the PAD’s royalism is critically different from the Village Scouts’ royalism in this regard.)
Hrk – and even worse Marc Askew’s boring review of Chris Baker’s latest “Thaksin” book misses the point :
“Thailand” is breaking up.
Not surprising – Askew is an expert on Southern “Thailand” – who clearly knows little about Isaarn.
There is now almost no “Thailand” – a fascist coined name for what should properly be called Siam.
This began when PM Wongsuwat could NOT go to Bangkok – now PM Abhisit can NOT go to Chiang Mai.
These are almost separate countries – but you would not know this is happening, reading Askew’s blinkered review of Chris Baker’s narrowly-defined book.
Isaarn has always considered itself Laol, far more than “Thai” – and that is what it is now becoming : an independent Lao state.
Steve – yes : it’s a lovely national anthem, whenever I hear it I think how happy it sounds.
But there are three problems with this so-called “national” anthem :
1) there is no mention of Lao people, numbering at least 16 million, and “Thailand’s” largest ethnic group – almost a nation in themselves.
2) this anthem makes no reference to Siam – which would include “Thailand’s” Lao majority.
3) the name “Thailand” was constructed by pro-Japanese military fascists.
Siam is the proper name for this widespread land.
Nick you’re certainly correct pointing out that there are important differences between now compared to 1976.
And it also needs to be said that 1976’s Thammasat massacre (Tula) and coup was counter-productive to the Right-wing :
it massively boosted the Communist Party of Thailand, from a relatively insignificant fringe irritant, into a formidable challenge to the Thai state, nearly plunging the country into irredeemable civil war.
An important difference between then and now is at that the elite is far more divided – in ’76 there was no Thaksin, and His Majesty was still young and healthy.
Now any attempt to have Tula Mark Two is the one thing certain to plunge Thailand into irredeemable civil war – with much of the military (especially Chiang Mai’s Fourth Army, and Isaarn’s Third Army), full of officers and men sympathetic to Thaksin, and Thailand’s police heavily pro-Thaksin and refusing to be dismissed from their posts.
Good comments, both Ralph and Frank. Van Praagh, as I recall, was the Canadian journalist in Bangkok in 1976, who later wrote a seminal study of Pramoj, a treasured possesion somewhere in my house.
And yes – it’s true as you say Frank, that – according to Van Praagh, Pramoj did acquiesce to his own overthrow, realising that the coup was also an attempt by relatively more moderate officers to fore-stall an even worse coup by more fascist military (the very element Pramoj had saved from British retribution).
But Pramoj’s acquiesence was dripping with sarcasm, according to Van Praagh, who reported Pramoj as saying : “They’re like that in Thailand, they’ll give you the most polite smile while
knifing you in the back”.
I’m surprised it’s only RM100B. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was actually more than USD100B. I think the author’s being conservative by not including wasteful projects that have brought no value to the country and served only to stroke his ego/lust for money.
Susie,
1. Is mega-corruption uniquely Southeast Asian phenomenon?
Uniquely SEA? I don’t think so. It’s happening all over the world where citizens refuse to see and think for themselves.
2. Is the imbalance of power between leader and civil society the cause of that phenomenon?
More like because many of the citizens are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption because they are getting scraps from the table. In essence, because most people are selfish. They don’t mind everyone else getting screwed as long as they get some benefits, not caring if that the country is well run, everybody benefits more.
3. Why have the U. S. and the U. K. been ignoring of this problem when change and reform are necessary in the age of information technology and globalization?
It’s a bit naive to think US and UK care about what’s happening in other countries. They have supported and put up some of the most corrupt regimes and despots in the world. They may pay lip service about corruption and discrimination, but they’ll do nothing about it as long as their interests are protected.
4. The Philippines has managed to solve the problem by putting term limit for its presidency. Indonesia chooses direct election and term limit as the solution. How could Thailand be able to get out of this serious problem given network monarchy has been in power for over 60 years? Can Malaysian opposition party get a fair chance?
It’ll be interesting to see if Philippines and Indonesia manage to reduce corruption. I won’t be surprised to see some new Presidents are just proxies of previous leaders.
I guess that’s the song. Interestingly it’s actually about Burmese king but he is admired in Thailand without any prejudice anyway.
While the King Bayinnaung was a supreme hero in the story, in the song itself he laments about being lonely upon his return, everything is beautiful, the stars, the river, but he can’t see his wives he loves so much.
I don’t know who sang his part at the Red concert, Jatuporn or Nattawut, and why they needed swords – guys in the AF clip managed without them or war costumes (but AF’s was not the original version).
I guess red leaders were sensible enough not to play some more symbolic roles like Hanuman.
It is a bit simplistic to conclude that because many Red Shirts support Samak (and there are many that don’t) that they are “going to cement themselves as successors of Village Scouts and Nawapon”.
On both sides of the conflict there are people that have been involved with these organizations in the run-up and during the Oct. 6 period.
So was Chamlong Srimuang heavily involved as well, was present behind the stage at Royal Plaza on that day, organizing the speeches of village scout leaders. You can read this in Thongchai Winitchakul’s “Silencing/Remembering the Past”. This was also confirmed to me by a lower ranked BPP officer who has taken part in the atrocities.
If there is one organization that can be compared to Navapon or Kratingdaeng – it is the Blue Shirts of Pattaya fame – a by the state organized militia that has been used to attack opposition protesters in ways security services are not supposed to be seen doing. Yet there was strong involvement of soldiers (and Buriram police officers) in the Blue Shirts, in addition to PAD guards.
I would also suggest to have a look which of the two present mass organization’s political stand and resulting rhetoric resembles the political views of the right wing of the 70’s.
Red Shirt support of Samak comes not from his history in the 70’s, but from the simple fact that he was Prime Minister of a PPP led government.
Things are bit more muddled nowadays. Both sides have former communists in their ranks, and both sides have people that were involved in the right wing organizations of the 70’s. The present conflict may have strong roots in the political conflicts of the 70’s (as those days were a development from previous conflicts), but it is a different socio-political situation, and a different conflict. One may draw certain parallels to conflicts past, yet there are distinct differences.
With all due respect, ongoing attempts to find significance in popular songs sung on a stage (songs that also feature in light entertainment TV shows here) is starting to look very silly not to say rather desperate. Time to play the national anthem game?
Thailand embraces in its bosom all people of Thai blood.
Every inch of Thailand belongs to the Thais.
It has long maintained its sovereignty,
Because the Thais have always been united.
The Thai people are peace-loving,
But they are no cowards at war.
They shall allow no one to rob them of their independence,
Nor shall they suffer tyranny.
All Thais are ready to give up every drop of blood
For the nation’s safety, freedom and progress.
As times gone by, people in Thailand and Southeast Asia region get to know more about Aphisit. As a result, ASEAN leaders declined to attend the opening of the ASEAN summit in order to distance themselves from Aphisit. It’s an embarrassment for Thailand. Integrity is important in any international relations. Even Aphisit has the title of Prime Minister, still he can’t force respect from neighboring countries. It is unwise for Aphisit to pretend not to know how others people think about him. Thailand cannot continue to have Aphisit who lacks legitimacy both inside Thailand and abroad. Thailand deserves something better. Straight forward honesty is an universal value in any culture. Obviously, Aphisit has neither British, German nor Asian values. In my opinion, if we respect dishonest people it means we disrespect ourselves.
On December 2nd the UK’s Intelligence Squared programme hosted a live streamed debate entitled “It is time to lift sanctions against Burma.”
Speakers for the motion were Thant Myint-U, Frank Smithuis (MSF) and Derek Tonkin.
Speakers against the motion were Mark Farmaner (Burma Campaign UK), Benedict Rogers and Brad Adams (HRW).
Unfortunately I missed the live streaming and the video is not online yet (though they say it will be put up shortly). If anyone else caught this event, maybe you could offer some comments.
In my defense, allow me to say that when one toils away for three ‘wise monkeys’ here in the Kingdom of Illusions as I do, one sometimes makes mistakes in recalling details and writing in a hurry.
As for Samak and the people I work for here, George Orwell’s comment ( from memory) on the essential nature of truth is one that has been on my mind rather a lot of late:
“If freedom is to mean anything, it is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. Once that is granted, all else follows.”
I’m not sure that Chris Beale’s interpretation of the end of the war negotiations are supported by the historical record, but on 1976, there is an interesting bit in the biography by Van Praagh.
The royalist Seni Pramoj, who was indeed prime minister in October 1976 and was overthrown, is said to have “agonized” over the King’s role in the 1973-76 period. He says: “I came to realize that if His Majesty had not intervened, the country would have gone into anarchy. Due to him – he dared to intervene – the country is not in anarchy (cited in Van Praagh 1989: 176).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Mahathir squandered RM100 billion says new book
In response to Susie’s questions.
1. Is corruption endemic to Southeast Asia.
– Read Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report (various years) for a better understanding of corruption.
2. Philippines is still a very corrupt country and so is Indonesia (look at the TI rankings). The difference is – there seems to be a change in Indonesia i.e. the people have confidence that something is being done. The Philippines is a still a basket case. The Presidential term limits have had no impact. Without reforms (i.e. removing the power of the families that control Philippines), Philippines will remain a basket case.
3. Singapore – hmmm – no petty corruption – true but definitely a corrupt system that keeps in place the Lee family and its supporters in PAP.
Definitely, separation of power is an essential component in reducing corruption.
Abhisit at Samak’s funeral
“Somsak Jeamteerasakul”:
“This conflict is definitely not just ‘conflict between members of the elite’, as many observers have been fond of saying these past few years.”
I would even go so far, and say that the main factor that drives this conflict is the mass movements and not the elite machinations. This is also the main reason which has kept me being obsessed with photographing and reporting on this. It is quite unpredictable, unprecedented, and the potential for profound change is tremendous.
Red Shirt political philosophy i hear repeated in many areas outside the protests, by people who have never attended the rallies. But one should also not dismiss the PAD – even though they may have received backing from the elites last year (and to some extend still do), they are not just a tool of the elites. In their eyes – they also do stand for change, which does bring them in conflict with the elites, whose main ideal is just re-enforcing their traditional positions of domination.
In many ways, i believe that the traditional elites are rather helpless when facing the situation. All their efforts to stop these developments have been fruitless, and made hardly any impact.
The funeral festivities of Samak are rather telling in how Thailand has already changed. In some ways, this elite event has not played out as it should have. In important events like this, top – ranked people come together, to show their respects, to be seen, while their conflicts are for the brief moment left aside in a show of good manners.
The common people are there to cue up, bow and be quiet – a perfect representation of how Thai society should be – well ordered, where every sector knows its place.
Yet suddenly they have broken the code – they have not just been present in silence, but have made their views known in very “un-Thai” forms: the threw water bottles at Nevin, and shouted displeasure at Abhisit’s appearance.
Where else will this all go?
Thailand 1 – Vietnam (and Laos) 1
This younger brother older brother supposed relationship between Thailand and Laos is a farce at best. It’s nice to see things that way, I suppose, but going back to Siam’s Manifest Destiny period, the latest which was the war in 1826-28 between Siam and Laos, you hear the same patronizing term being used by Siam to describe Vietnam when it was giving aid to Chao Anuwongse.
Things have not changed a lot, nor have attitudes.
The suspicions and distrust are mutual and often deserved.
For more insight, order my book, Lady Mo and Heroism at Tung Samrit, published this past October. 99 Baht direct, total 120 includes domestic (Thailand) shipping.
Abhisit at Samak’s funeral
Perhaps some PAD member inherited Nation-Religion-King ideology from the 70s while pro-Thaksin reds inherit longing for a strong and popular leader ala Sarit and good old days – the main cause of resentment against reformists in 1973- 1976, imo.
Of course PAD wants more than just protecting the monarchy and reds want more than restoring Thaksin.
Benedict Rogers on Than Shwe
Clearly personal self interest are at work, just by reading the names of the speakers for or against the motion titled “It is time to lift sanctions against Burma.”
All three “for speakers” have been deeply involved in Burmese affairs and sympathized with Burmese people for a very long time, while all three on other side are political activists and so-called human-right activists who have greatly benefited professionally and monetarily for their activities against Burmese people and universally-hated Burmese Army.
Abhisit at Samak’s funeral
Consider this: after Chatchai was overthrown, no mass movement coming out to defend him or to demand his return to power. This conflict is definitely not just ‘conflict between members of the elite’, as many observers have been fond of saying these past few years.
Abhisit at Samak’s funeral
Chris Beale:
An important difference between then and now is at that the elite is far more divided – in ‘76 there was no Thaksin, and His Majesty was still young and healthy.
actually, I don’t think it’s quite correct to put it this way.
Factionalism in the military in the 70s ran very deep and wide. There had been rumors of coup (not to speak of actual coups) almost every year (sometimes almost the whole year) down to the 1980s, i.e. throughout the Prem’s regime. No similar situations exist nowadays.
On the other hand, while Thaksin is, so to speak, a member of the ‘elite’, he has a genuinely mass support. This is the key difference. Observers (not least academic observers) often miss this crucial fact: Thaksin was the first PM elected by nation-wide vote, virtually the first presidential-style elective leader. No person who assumed the PM post before him ever achieved over half the vote in general election as he did, making him the first leader of a single-party government. Observers and his enemies alike have underestimated this historic change. And while he lost much support subsequently during the crises, it’s still there quite massively. Conflicts among members of the elite never assumed such sharpness and longivity because none of them really had this kind of genuine mass support, not even Chatchai, the last elective PM overthrown by a coup before Thaksin. In short, it’s not simply a ‘more divided’ elite. If it’s just that, it would have been resolved long ago. (Of course, the monarchy has developed a mass support of its own too, for the first time in my view, unlike the 1970s when it largely relied on state-organized groups like the Village Scouts. (the PAD’s royalism is critically different from the Village Scouts’ royalism in this regard.)
Thitinan on Thailand’s labour pains
Hrk – and even worse Marc Askew’s boring review of Chris Baker’s latest “Thaksin” book misses the point :
“Thailand” is breaking up.
Not surprising – Askew is an expert on Southern “Thailand” – who clearly knows little about Isaarn.
There is now almost no “Thailand” – a fascist coined name for what should properly be called Siam.
This began when PM Wongsuwat could NOT go to Bangkok – now PM Abhisit can NOT go to Chiang Mai.
These are almost separate countries – but you would not know this is happening, reading Askew’s blinkered review of Chris Baker’s narrowly-defined book.
Isaarn has always considered itself Laol, far more than “Thai” – and that is what it is now becoming : an independent Lao state.
Saturday red, Sunday yellow: the temperature rises again
Steve – yes : it’s a lovely national anthem, whenever I hear it I think how happy it sounds.
But there are three problems with this so-called “national” anthem :
1) there is no mention of Lao people, numbering at least 16 million, and “Thailand’s” largest ethnic group – almost a nation in themselves.
2) this anthem makes no reference to Siam – which would include “Thailand’s” Lao majority.
3) the name “Thailand” was constructed by pro-Japanese military fascists.
Siam is the proper name for this widespread land.
Abhisit at Samak’s funeral
Nick you’re certainly correct pointing out that there are important differences between now compared to 1976.
And it also needs to be said that 1976’s Thammasat massacre (Tula) and coup was counter-productive to the Right-wing :
it massively boosted the Communist Party of Thailand, from a relatively insignificant fringe irritant, into a formidable challenge to the Thai state, nearly plunging the country into irredeemable civil war.
An important difference between then and now is at that the elite is far more divided – in ’76 there was no Thaksin, and His Majesty was still young and healthy.
Now any attempt to have Tula Mark Two is the one thing certain to plunge Thailand into irredeemable civil war – with much of the military (especially Chiang Mai’s Fourth Army, and Isaarn’s Third Army), full of officers and men sympathetic to Thaksin, and Thailand’s police heavily pro-Thaksin and refusing to be dismissed from their posts.
Samak: Conflict to the end
I just hope to God that Nick Nostitz is training up a successor.
Samak: Conflict to the end
Good comments, both Ralph and Frank. Van Praagh, as I recall, was the Canadian journalist in Bangkok in 1976, who later wrote a seminal study of Pramoj, a treasured possesion somewhere in my house.
And yes – it’s true as you say Frank, that – according to Van Praagh, Pramoj did acquiesce to his own overthrow, realising that the coup was also an attempt by relatively more moderate officers to fore-stall an even worse coup by more fascist military (the very element Pramoj had saved from British retribution).
But Pramoj’s acquiesence was dripping with sarcasm, according to Van Praagh, who reported Pramoj as saying : “They’re like that in Thailand, they’ll give you the most polite smile while
knifing you in the back”.
Mahathir squandered RM100 billion says new book
I’m surprised it’s only RM100B. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was actually more than USD100B. I think the author’s being conservative by not including wasteful projects that have brought no value to the country and served only to stroke his ego/lust for money.
Susie,
1. Is mega-corruption uniquely Southeast Asian phenomenon?
Uniquely SEA? I don’t think so. It’s happening all over the world where citizens refuse to see and think for themselves.
2. Is the imbalance of power between leader and civil society the cause of that phenomenon?
More like because many of the citizens are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption because they are getting scraps from the table. In essence, because most people are selfish. They don’t mind everyone else getting screwed as long as they get some benefits, not caring if that the country is well run, everybody benefits more.
3. Why have the U. S. and the U. K. been ignoring of this problem when change and reform are necessary in the age of information technology and globalization?
It’s a bit naive to think US and UK care about what’s happening in other countries. They have supported and put up some of the most corrupt regimes and despots in the world. They may pay lip service about corruption and discrimination, but they’ll do nothing about it as long as their interests are protected.
4. The Philippines has managed to solve the problem by putting term limit for its presidency. Indonesia chooses direct election and term limit as the solution. How could Thailand be able to get out of this serious problem given network monarchy has been in power for over 60 years? Can Malaysian opposition party get a fair chance?
It’ll be interesting to see if Philippines and Indonesia manage to reduce corruption. I won’t be surprised to see some new Presidents are just proxies of previous leaders.
Saturday red, Sunday yellow: the temperature rises again
I guess that’s the song. Interestingly it’s actually about Burmese king but he is admired in Thailand without any prejudice anyway.
While the King Bayinnaung was a supreme hero in the story, in the song itself he laments about being lonely upon his return, everything is beautiful, the stars, the river, but he can’t see his wives he loves so much.
I don’t know who sang his part at the Red concert, Jatuporn or Nattawut, and why they needed swords – guys in the AF clip managed without them or war costumes (but AF’s was not the original version).
I guess red leaders were sensible enough not to play some more symbolic roles like Hanuman.
Abhisit at Samak’s funeral
“StanG”:
It is a bit simplistic to conclude that because many Red Shirts support Samak (and there are many that don’t) that they are “going to cement themselves as successors of Village Scouts and Nawapon”.
On both sides of the conflict there are people that have been involved with these organizations in the run-up and during the Oct. 6 period.
So was Chamlong Srimuang heavily involved as well, was present behind the stage at Royal Plaza on that day, organizing the speeches of village scout leaders. You can read this in Thongchai Winitchakul’s “Silencing/Remembering the Past”. This was also confirmed to me by a lower ranked BPP officer who has taken part in the atrocities.
If there is one organization that can be compared to Navapon or Kratingdaeng – it is the Blue Shirts of Pattaya fame – a by the state organized militia that has been used to attack opposition protesters in ways security services are not supposed to be seen doing. Yet there was strong involvement of soldiers (and Buriram police officers) in the Blue Shirts, in addition to PAD guards.
I would also suggest to have a look which of the two present mass organization’s political stand and resulting rhetoric resembles the political views of the right wing of the 70’s.
Red Shirt support of Samak comes not from his history in the 70’s, but from the simple fact that he was Prime Minister of a PPP led government.
Things are bit more muddled nowadays. Both sides have former communists in their ranks, and both sides have people that were involved in the right wing organizations of the 70’s. The present conflict may have strong roots in the political conflicts of the 70’s (as those days were a development from previous conflicts), but it is a different socio-political situation, and a different conflict. One may draw certain parallels to conflicts past, yet there are distinct differences.
Saturday red, Sunday yellow: the temperature rises again
With all due respect, ongoing attempts to find significance in popular songs sung on a stage (songs that also feature in light entertainment TV shows here) is starting to look very silly not to say rather desperate. Time to play the national anthem game?
Thailand embraces in its bosom all people of Thai blood.
Every inch of Thailand belongs to the Thais.
It has long maintained its sovereignty,
Because the Thais have always been united.
The Thai people are peace-loving,
But they are no cowards at war.
They shall allow no one to rob them of their independence,
Nor shall they suffer tyranny.
All Thais are ready to give up every drop of blood
For the nation’s safety, freedom and progress.
http://www.nationalanthems.info/th%27.htm
Abhisit at Samak’s funeral
As times gone by, people in Thailand and Southeast Asia region get to know more about Aphisit. As a result, ASEAN leaders declined to attend the opening of the ASEAN summit in order to distance themselves from Aphisit. It’s an embarrassment for Thailand. Integrity is important in any international relations. Even Aphisit has the title of Prime Minister, still he can’t force respect from neighboring countries. It is unwise for Aphisit to pretend not to know how others people think about him. Thailand cannot continue to have Aphisit who lacks legitimacy both inside Thailand and abroad. Thailand deserves something better. Straight forward honesty is an universal value in any culture. Obviously, Aphisit has neither British, German nor Asian values. In my opinion, if we respect dishonest people it means we disrespect ourselves.
Benedict Rogers on Than Shwe
On December 2nd the UK’s Intelligence Squared programme hosted a live streamed debate entitled “It is time to lift sanctions against Burma.”
Speakers for the motion were Thant Myint-U, Frank Smithuis (MSF) and Derek Tonkin.
Speakers against the motion were Mark Farmaner (Burma Campaign UK), Benedict Rogers and Brad Adams (HRW).
Unfortunately I missed the live streaming and the video is not online yet (though they say it will be put up shortly). If anyone else caught this event, maybe you could offer some comments.
Samak: Conflict to the end
Thanks Chris – you are right, of course.
In my defense, allow me to say that when one toils away for three ‘wise monkeys’ here in the Kingdom of Illusions as I do, one sometimes makes mistakes in recalling details and writing in a hurry.
As for Samak and the people I work for here, George Orwell’s comment ( from memory) on the essential nature of truth is one that has been on my mind rather a lot of late:
“If freedom is to mean anything, it is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. Once that is granted, all else follows.”
Samak: Conflict to the end
I’m not sure that Chris Beale’s interpretation of the end of the war negotiations are supported by the historical record, but on 1976, there is an interesting bit in the biography by Van Praagh.
The royalist Seni Pramoj, who was indeed prime minister in October 1976 and was overthrown, is said to have “agonized” over the King’s role in the 1973-76 period. He says: “I came to realize that if His Majesty had not intervened, the country would have gone into anarchy. Due to him – he dared to intervene – the country is not in anarchy (cited in Van Praagh 1989: 176).