Pity then that no one in the elite will ever actually listen. They are all too busy fighting with each other over who gets what.
I don’t really believe the reports about land ownership in places like Phuket. I suspect ultra-nationalist spin is at work. But if true, they are just another indication that the elite is totally incapable of running the country properly. The long-term effects of political incest.
Reuters talks about the red shirt occupation of Government House leading to the worst violence in 17 years. I thought it was the yellow shirts that occupied Government House itself.
“But if people are working together … the country will prosper”. This is a truism and just saying it won’t make it happen. It needs concrete steps otherwise it is just calling for the unity of the graveyard.
Burmese nuclear ambition is pure fantasy both on the part of the general and various “pundits”.
It’s just not plausible at all. Building and running nuclear power plant, let alone, owning nuclear weapons takes a lot of expertise and organization. And while there’s something money can buy, this is not it. Unless you watch too many James Bond movie.
Look at Iran, far more oil wealth than Burma could aspire to, far more talented educated people, and they still aren’t there yet.
And in the off chance that the Burmese generals get their wish, well.. B-2 flying in from Diego Garcia will easily wipe it all out before they know what hits them.
I assume most people look at the poor state of the Burmese people and even the national accounts and decide that Burma lacks the capability and has much higher priorities than being involved in the nuclear industry
given the apparent insanity driving the generals tenuous grip on power and their growing wealth it seems quite conceivable they have a vision of nuclear weapons to secure themselves or at least nuclear power to keep the lights and machines running in their new capital hidden behind a camouflage of ordinary Burmese people
It is so far-fetched. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. For anyone to have credible nuke, at the very least, they need 1) the bomb itself, 2) the mean to deliver it, 3) the mean to protect it.
If Burma wants to be a nuclear-equipped outpost of tyranny, it will not only has to purchase a bunch of warheads, it will need to have sophisticated enough ballistic missiles, as well as credible air defense capability just in case their adversaries decide to preemptively take out the nuke by a surgical airstrike. To obtain all of this will most likely bankrupt their economy (if that is still possible).
This is relevant to some of the issues raised in Doug’s review:
Taoism of Northern Laos on display
A new exhibition entitled “Splendour and Sacrifice: Taoism of Northern Laos” will open at the Traditional Arts and Ethnology Centre in Luang Prabang on September 29. Items included in the new exhibition include headwear, texts, ceremonial robes and masks.
The culmination of two years’ research and supported by the US Embassy to Laos, the exhibition explores the Taoist beliefs, rituals and artefacts of the Yao ethnic group.
Items on display include silk-embroidered priest’s robes, ceremonial masks and prayer books, a documentary video, and a recreation of an ordination ritual.
Visitors to the centre will get a fascinating glimpse into the religious life of the Yao Mien and Yao Mun people.
The centre in Luang Prabang is dedicated to the lifestyles and traditions of the ethnic minority groups of Laos , exhibiting traditional clothing, jewellery, handicrafts and religious artefacts.
It also includes a shop selling authentic hand-made handicrafts from village artisans and a café serving food, drinks and cakes.
Splendour and Sacrifice: Taoism of Northern Laos will run from September 30, 2009 to September 15 2010.
Admission to the exhibition is included in the price of entry to the centre, 20,000 kip (US$2.40) per person. Entry for Lao citizens is free. The centre is open from 9am to 6pm on Tuesday to Sunday and closed Mondays.
The extensive review by Douglas Miles of my book is both an honor and a surprise. I hope his engagement triggers some exchange of ideas about the ethnic and ethnographic landscapes of the region. He insists that my book is not an ethnography, by which he means “any monograph which inter alia documents the customs and traditions that are diacritical of a particular ethnic group.” This is a key issue, and I do spend some ink discussing this matter in the book. The bulk of my fieldwork was with people among whom Miles had done his fieldwork in the 1960s. I only gradually realized this and never set out to do a restudy proper. But I had to deal with the earlier ethnography and the world it described. Among the most stimulating for me was the difference in how Miles and Peter Kandre described Yao social structure in relation to household dynamics. One stated that there was on-going pressure toward large households (of almost 60 people) and the other that Yao households always fragmented and never became as big as the household-heads wished. The two scholars did their work a few years apart in the 1960s, and in Yao/Mien villages in the same province, maybe a hundred miles distance. As far as I can tell, no one noticed this divergent generalization about social structure (a diacritical feature of an ethnic group, presumably). Both descriptions appear quite credible. The focus on diacritical features of ethnic groups plays up structure and plays down history and regional context. In part, my book tried to offer a historical angle on the region (particularly the issue of highland peoples), and then to zoom in, on the twentieth-century nation state (Thailand), on historical changes in upland economy/society between 1860 and the 1960s, on the increasing importance of sports contests and village organization in social life by the 1980s/90s, and finally on what can be learned patterns in political protest in the late 1990s. I am very pleased over Miles’ suggestion that the book provides a new way to look at some matters in the area. It is possible that the structure of my book, what disqualifies it in his view from the category of ethnography, draws on a different sense of the diacritical features of a people, place, and time in this multi-ethnic region. Some recent NM posts, such as the one on Wa identity, indicate the complexity of defining a people. Ethnography should not look the other way. War, like sports, farming, and many other activities, can shape social life and identity in multiple ways, and each can potentially play up certain (local) voices or agendas as typical of “a people” while rendering many people mute (insignificant, ignorant, etc.). How we write about these realities may inevitably shake up what is considered a realistic ethnographic angle.
Les Abbey: on red shirts and Thaksin, I think the point is that the former are not about to walk away from a political symbol like Thaksin. That isn’t the same as saying that all red shirts are Thaksin supporters. Likewise, as an example, the Democrat Party is unlikely to to ditch the symbolism of the monarchy. At the same time, a few DP members are republicans.
In every society the ruling class does things their own way – that’s why they are described as “ruling”. I suggest that the issue that New Mandala contributors seem to continually confuse is just what struggle is actually going on in Thailand; moreover, who are the real “ruling” class in Thailand.
The present players continue to exploit the growing concentration of wealth and the urban – rural divide for their own gain. Beating the nationalist drum and fanning anti foreigner sentiment started in the 2000 election. Sincere and ethical political leaders have yet to be able to attain any stature and those that present themselves as the voice of the rural population are actually are those that have the most to lose economically from any real political development (far more than the now familiar target of most Mandala blog threads). They are those that can only live on corruption and are most threatened by real progressive politics starting with the 97 constitution and its underlying checks and balances. Leadership back then basically blew that constitution away by circumventing it and stayed in power by systematically dismantling public trust and any social contract between the have and have nots. In their as yet to be successful efforts to turn back the clock to the extreme crony capitalism found in SE Asian in the 70s to the 90s, the only thing that has really happened is the elimination any predictable rule of law in Thailand.
THIS IS THE LATEST FINGER POINTING EXERCISE TO TAKE PEOPLES EYES OFF THE REAL PROBLEMS OF THEIR INABILITY TO GOVERN THE ECONOMY ……..
Source: Bangkok Post
About 90% of beach land in Phuket is controlled by foreigners through Thai nominees, a leading research body has found.
A similar situation exists in other prime tourism destinations in provinces such as Chiang Mai and Rayong.
Local officials and legal experts have helped clear the way for foreign investors to take control of the country’s rice farms and property in resort provinces, according to research on foreign land ownership by the Thailand Research Fund.
TRF called a seminar on the research findings yesterday attended by economics and legal scholars.
There recently has been speculation that foreign businessmen, particularly from the Middle East, were snapping up rice fields in the central plains and elsewhere through proxy local companies.
Transnational business consortiums were said to be holding the land through Thai nominees, which is against the law.
Some farmers are leasing land they previously owned but have since sold to the foreigners’ proxy firms, observers said.
Siriporn Sajjanont, from the economics faculty at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University and a member of the research team, said the study showed many kinds of property had been bought by foreigners through Thai nominees.
“About 90% of land along the coastline in Phuket is controlled by foreigners through Thai nominees,” she said.
Foreign investment capital was essential for developing Phuket and Samui, as Thais do not have enough money to invest themselves, Ms Siriporn said.
The coastal areas most sought after by foreign investors were Pattaya in Chon Buri, Koh Phangan and Koh Samui in Surat Thani, Phuket and Hua Hin in Prachuap Khiri Khan.
In Chiang Mai, foreigners had used legal loopholes to exceed the limit on sales of condominium units, Ms Siriporn said.
There was evidence they hold the property through Thai nominees by marrying Thais. In some cases, Thai women were asked to register the foreigners’ property in their own names.
The study found similar problems in Rayong involving foreign landholdings through Thai nominees with foreigners marrying Thais.
In some land lease cases, the period of leasehold was unusually long, Ms Siriporn said. The study found that some lease contracts stated the leasehold was “for life”.
Land ownership by foreigners had been made possible by their Thai lawyers who had found legal loopholes to clear the way for foreigners to take control, the research found.
Village heads also had acted as land brokers to arrange sales of state land given to local people so they could make a living, the panellists said.
Village heads were close to residents and knew which prime land was available.
Some legal entities had been set up with 51% of shares held by Thais, although those Thais turned out to be mere legal advisers for foreigners and had no power to run the legal entities, Ms Siriporn said.
“We also found the same people had set up many entities,” she said.
Some entities’ regulations on shareholding structures allowed foreign shareholders more power than Thais in running those entities.
Col Surin Pikulthong, president of the Community Organisations Development Institute, said he had received information that Hmong people in the US had provided financial support for Hmong in Nan province to buy land and grow rice for shipment to the US.
Silaporn Buasai, vice-president of the institute, said she had heard that investors from Taiwan had bought land here for growing oranges to be sold in Taiwan.
Wichian Phuanglamjiak, vice-president of the Thai Rice Growers’ Association, said rice farmers held additional information on land grabs by foreign investors.
He said the problem had remained unaddressed for too long and no state agency had taken the matter seriously.
Mr Wichian said farmers were pinning their hopes on the Department of Special Investigation to pursue the matter.
DSI investigator Pakorn Sucheevakul on Saturday said the agency was investigating four Thai companies in Ayutthaya which own rice farms of almost 10,000 rai.
Malee Antasin, 59, a farmer in Ayutthaya’s Bang Ban district, said businessmen had bought many plots in her village since 1995.
She said she had felt “besieged” and pressured to sell her rice plot as her land had been enclosed by other plots owned by those investors. She was now taking the matter to court.
Foreigners ‘own 90% of Phuket beach land’
Technorati Tags: Foreigners ‘own 90% of Phuket beach land’
If you make it illegal for Thai’s to have anything to do with foreigners. confiscate all Ferang monies. That should do it. Then The Ferangs could do this in their countries for Thai’s Take all their land in the various countries. Then send the Thai’s home with nothing. Good idea there. Might be a problem for his Royal Highness The king. As he owns billions of dollars in property all around the world ! But hey! lets give it a go………..
Comment by David Higgs 08.24.09 @ 9:45 pm
The problem is the groups that are not following Thaksin’s agenda are on the fringes. When Nick Nostitz, who is probably the journalist that knows the red shirts best, was asked at his book launch if he could see any parting of the red shirt movement from Thaksin, both he and Chris Baker said they couldn’t. I think in the future some of these fringe groups will look back on allying themselves with Thaksin as one of their biggest mistakes.
I’m very familiar w/ Nick’s views. Yes, the inability of the Reds to “decouple” from Thaksin is a problem, but (and I think Nick would agree w/ me on this) that’s really beside the point. The larger point is that there are much bigger underlying grievances that drive many of these people to support Thaksin. It’s more than just mindless worship of the man (whom I also consider to be a crook), its also a sense of political, economic and social disenfranchisement. If the powers that be quit wasting their time on demonizing Thaksin (and their laughable propaganda campaigns that really put the Thaksin government’s propaganda campaigns to shame) and actually addressed these grievances, I believe support for Thaksin will evaporate over time. Thaksin is merely a symptom of Thailand’s problems – attacking him will do nothing to address the root cause of Thailand’s problems.
Tettyan, I had the impression, and perhaps this is too broad a generalisation, that Phibun was allied with the absolutists in their struggle with Pridi and others working to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Thailand.
Vis a vis Pridi and his crowd, Phibul was aligned w/ the royalists in the 1940s. Things were a little different in 1932 and the subsequent power struggles of the 1930s. Remember that there are no permanent allies or enemies in Thai politics, or in most parts of the world for that matter. For more details, check out the Kobkua book I mentioned above.
“I am quite worried our country is going into ruin because people have done things their own way”
Thai people are much worried their country is going into ruin because the ruling class has done things their own way, as they call it “Thai style democracy”
Les Abbey, a scoundrel and a much better man can have the same enemies. And a scoundrel can be constrained to do some good by the system in which he operates. History is more complicated than the logic of the victims of propaganda, be they Thai Red Shirts or Englishmen.
“The red shirt movement is made up of various factions of group, some with a genuine progressive agenda, and many more w/ self-serving agendas (and not all necessarily just Thaksin’s agenda). “
The problem is the groups that are not following Thaksin’s agenda are on the fringes. When Nick Nostitz, who is probably the journalist that knows the red shirts best, was asked at his book launch if he could see any parting of the red shirt movement from Thaksin, both he and Chris Baker said they couldn’t. I think in the future some of these fringe groups will look back on allying themselves with Thaksin as one of their biggest mistakes.
Tettyan, I had the impression, and perhaps this is too broad a generalisation, that Phibun was allied with the absolutists in their struggle with Pridi and others working to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Thailand.
[…] Thai Airforce forced Yao out of the mountainous Phrachangnoi Subdistrict and into the lowlands by bombing their forests, farms and villages . These attacks began in 1968 and were followed immediately by […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
King Bhumibol expresses his worries
Pity then that no one in the elite will ever actually listen. They are all too busy fighting with each other over who gets what.
I don’t really believe the reports about land ownership in places like Phuket. I suspect ultra-nationalist spin is at work. But if true, they are just another indication that the elite is totally incapable of running the country properly. The long-term effects of political incest.
King Bhumibol expresses his worries
Reuters talks about the red shirt occupation of Government House leading to the worst violence in 17 years. I thought it was the yellow shirts that occupied Government House itself.
“But if people are working together … the country will prosper”. This is a truism and just saying it won’t make it happen. It needs concrete steps otherwise it is just calling for the unity of the graveyard.
tata cara pilih Pasaran Judi Sbobet88 Online yg Menguntungkan
Burmese nuclear ambition is pure fantasy both on the part of the general and various “pundits”.
It’s just not plausible at all. Building and running nuclear power plant, let alone, owning nuclear weapons takes a lot of expertise and organization. And while there’s something money can buy, this is not it. Unless you watch too many James Bond movie.
Look at Iran, far more oil wealth than Burma could aspire to, far more talented educated people, and they still aren’t there yet.
And in the off chance that the Burmese generals get their wish, well.. B-2 flying in from Diego Garcia will easily wipe it all out before they know what hits them.
tata cara pilih Pasaran Judi Sbobet88 Online yg Menguntungkan
I assume most people look at the poor state of the Burmese people and even the national accounts and decide that Burma lacks the capability and has much higher priorities than being involved in the nuclear industry
however as Kyaw Kyaw pointed out in http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2009/07/29/now-where-did-i-put-that-2-37-billion-i-earned-last-year%E2%80%A6/
the Burmese generals are receiving and hiding large revenues from gas sales to Thailand and exports to other nearby countries
given the apparent insanity driving the generals tenuous grip on power and their growing wealth it seems quite conceivable they have a vision of nuclear weapons to secure themselves or at least nuclear power to keep the lights and machines running in their new capital hidden behind a camouflage of ordinary Burmese people
tata cara pilih Pasaran Judi Sbobet88 Online yg Menguntungkan
It is so far-fetched. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. For anyone to have credible nuke, at the very least, they need 1) the bomb itself, 2) the mean to deliver it, 3) the mean to protect it.
If Burma wants to be a nuclear-equipped outpost of tyranny, it will not only has to purchase a bunch of warheads, it will need to have sophisticated enough ballistic missiles, as well as credible air defense capability just in case their adversaries decide to preemptively take out the nuke by a surgical airstrike. To obtain all of this will most likely bankrupt their economy (if that is still possible).
Review of Jonsson’s Mien Relations
This is relevant to some of the issues raised in Doug’s review:
Taoism of Northern Laos on display
A new exhibition entitled “Splendour and Sacrifice: Taoism of Northern Laos” will open at the Traditional Arts and Ethnology Centre in Luang Prabang on September 29. Items included in the new exhibition include headwear, texts, ceremonial robes and masks.
The culmination of two years’ research and supported by the US Embassy to Laos, the exhibition explores the Taoist beliefs, rituals and artefacts of the Yao ethnic group.
Items on display include silk-embroidered priest’s robes, ceremonial masks and prayer books, a documentary video, and a recreation of an ordination ritual.
Visitors to the centre will get a fascinating glimpse into the religious life of the Yao Mien and Yao Mun people.
The centre in Luang Prabang is dedicated to the lifestyles and traditions of the ethnic minority groups of Laos , exhibiting traditional clothing, jewellery, handicrafts and religious artefacts.
It also includes a shop selling authentic hand-made handicrafts from village artisans and a café serving food, drinks and cakes.
Splendour and Sacrifice: Taoism of Northern Laos will run from September 30, 2009 to September 15 2010.
Admission to the exhibition is included in the price of entry to the centre, 20,000 kip (US$2.40) per person. Entry for Lao citizens is free. The centre is open from 9am to 6pm on Tuesday to Sunday and closed Mondays.
Review of Jonsson’s Mien Relations
The extensive review by Douglas Miles of my book is both an honor and a surprise. I hope his engagement triggers some exchange of ideas about the ethnic and ethnographic landscapes of the region. He insists that my book is not an ethnography, by which he means “any monograph which inter alia documents the customs and traditions that are diacritical of a particular ethnic group.” This is a key issue, and I do spend some ink discussing this matter in the book. The bulk of my fieldwork was with people among whom Miles had done his fieldwork in the 1960s. I only gradually realized this and never set out to do a restudy proper. But I had to deal with the earlier ethnography and the world it described. Among the most stimulating for me was the difference in how Miles and Peter Kandre described Yao social structure in relation to household dynamics. One stated that there was on-going pressure toward large households (of almost 60 people) and the other that Yao households always fragmented and never became as big as the household-heads wished. The two scholars did their work a few years apart in the 1960s, and in Yao/Mien villages in the same province, maybe a hundred miles distance. As far as I can tell, no one noticed this divergent generalization about social structure (a diacritical feature of an ethnic group, presumably). Both descriptions appear quite credible. The focus on diacritical features of ethnic groups plays up structure and plays down history and regional context. In part, my book tried to offer a historical angle on the region (particularly the issue of highland peoples), and then to zoom in, on the twentieth-century nation state (Thailand), on historical changes in upland economy/society between 1860 and the 1960s, on the increasing importance of sports contests and village organization in social life by the 1980s/90s, and finally on what can be learned patterns in political protest in the late 1990s. I am very pleased over Miles’ suggestion that the book provides a new way to look at some matters in the area. It is possible that the structure of my book, what disqualifies it in his view from the category of ethnography, draws on a different sense of the diacritical features of a people, place, and time in this multi-ethnic region. Some recent NM posts, such as the one on Wa identity, indicate the complexity of defining a people. Ethnography should not look the other way. War, like sports, farming, and many other activities, can shape social life and identity in multiple ways, and each can potentially play up certain (local) voices or agendas as typical of “a people” while rendering many people mute (insignificant, ignorant, etc.). How we write about these realities may inevitably shake up what is considered a realistic ethnographic angle.
Montesano on Thailand in April 2009
Les Abbey: on red shirts and Thaksin, I think the point is that the former are not about to walk away from a political symbol like Thaksin. That isn’t the same as saying that all red shirts are Thaksin supporters. Likewise, as an example, the Democrat Party is unlikely to to ditch the symbolism of the monarchy. At the same time, a few DP members are republicans.
King Bhumibol expresses his worries
The King is right.
King Bhumibol expresses his worries
It would be nice to get more context, this is a very brief snippet that could mean many things.
King Bhumibol expresses his worries
@ Nobody
In every society the ruling class does things their own way – that’s why they are described as “ruling”. I suggest that the issue that New Mandala contributors seem to continually confuse is just what struggle is actually going on in Thailand; moreover, who are the real “ruling” class in Thailand.
The present players continue to exploit the growing concentration of wealth and the urban – rural divide for their own gain. Beating the nationalist drum and fanning anti foreigner sentiment started in the 2000 election. Sincere and ethical political leaders have yet to be able to attain any stature and those that present themselves as the voice of the rural population are actually are those that have the most to lose economically from any real political development (far more than the now familiar target of most Mandala blog threads). They are those that can only live on corruption and are most threatened by real progressive politics starting with the 97 constitution and its underlying checks and balances. Leadership back then basically blew that constitution away by circumventing it and stayed in power by systematically dismantling public trust and any social contract between the have and have nots. In their as yet to be successful efforts to turn back the clock to the extreme crony capitalism found in SE Asian in the 70s to the 90s, the only thing that has really happened is the elimination any predictable rule of law in Thailand.
King Bhumibol expresses his worries
THIS IS THE LATEST FINGER POINTING EXERCISE TO TAKE PEOPLES EYES OFF THE REAL PROBLEMS OF THEIR INABILITY TO GOVERN THE ECONOMY ……..
Source: Bangkok Post
About 90% of beach land in Phuket is controlled by foreigners through Thai nominees, a leading research body has found.
A similar situation exists in other prime tourism destinations in provinces such as Chiang Mai and Rayong.
Local officials and legal experts have helped clear the way for foreign investors to take control of the country’s rice farms and property in resort provinces, according to research on foreign land ownership by the Thailand Research Fund.
TRF called a seminar on the research findings yesterday attended by economics and legal scholars.
There recently has been speculation that foreign businessmen, particularly from the Middle East, were snapping up rice fields in the central plains and elsewhere through proxy local companies.
Transnational business consortiums were said to be holding the land through Thai nominees, which is against the law.
Some farmers are leasing land they previously owned but have since sold to the foreigners’ proxy firms, observers said.
Siriporn Sajjanont, from the economics faculty at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University and a member of the research team, said the study showed many kinds of property had been bought by foreigners through Thai nominees.
“About 90% of land along the coastline in Phuket is controlled by foreigners through Thai nominees,” she said.
Foreign investment capital was essential for developing Phuket and Samui, as Thais do not have enough money to invest themselves, Ms Siriporn said.
The coastal areas most sought after by foreign investors were Pattaya in Chon Buri, Koh Phangan and Koh Samui in Surat Thani, Phuket and Hua Hin in Prachuap Khiri Khan.
In Chiang Mai, foreigners had used legal loopholes to exceed the limit on sales of condominium units, Ms Siriporn said.
There was evidence they hold the property through Thai nominees by marrying Thais. In some cases, Thai women were asked to register the foreigners’ property in their own names.
The study found similar problems in Rayong involving foreign landholdings through Thai nominees with foreigners marrying Thais.
In some land lease cases, the period of leasehold was unusually long, Ms Siriporn said. The study found that some lease contracts stated the leasehold was “for life”.
Land ownership by foreigners had been made possible by their Thai lawyers who had found legal loopholes to clear the way for foreigners to take control, the research found.
Village heads also had acted as land brokers to arrange sales of state land given to local people so they could make a living, the panellists said.
Village heads were close to residents and knew which prime land was available.
Some legal entities had been set up with 51% of shares held by Thais, although those Thais turned out to be mere legal advisers for foreigners and had no power to run the legal entities, Ms Siriporn said.
“We also found the same people had set up many entities,” she said.
Some entities’ regulations on shareholding structures allowed foreign shareholders more power than Thais in running those entities.
Col Surin Pikulthong, president of the Community Organisations Development Institute, said he had received information that Hmong people in the US had provided financial support for Hmong in Nan province to buy land and grow rice for shipment to the US.
Silaporn Buasai, vice-president of the institute, said she had heard that investors from Taiwan had bought land here for growing oranges to be sold in Taiwan.
Wichian Phuanglamjiak, vice-president of the Thai Rice Growers’ Association, said rice farmers held additional information on land grabs by foreign investors.
He said the problem had remained unaddressed for too long and no state agency had taken the matter seriously.
Mr Wichian said farmers were pinning their hopes on the Department of Special Investigation to pursue the matter.
DSI investigator Pakorn Sucheevakul on Saturday said the agency was investigating four Thai companies in Ayutthaya which own rice farms of almost 10,000 rai.
Malee Antasin, 59, a farmer in Ayutthaya’s Bang Ban district, said businessmen had bought many plots in her village since 1995.
She said she had felt “besieged” and pressured to sell her rice plot as her land had been enclosed by other plots owned by those investors. She was now taking the matter to court.
Foreigners ‘own 90% of Phuket beach land’
Technorati Tags: Foreigners ‘own 90% of Phuket beach land’
If you make it illegal for Thai’s to have anything to do with foreigners. confiscate all Ferang monies. That should do it. Then The Ferangs could do this in their countries for Thai’s Take all their land in the various countries. Then send the Thai’s home with nothing. Good idea there. Might be a problem for his Royal Highness The king. As he owns billions of dollars in property all around the world ! But hey! lets give it a go………..
Comment by David Higgs 08.24.09 @ 9:45 pm
Montesano on Thailand in April 2009
Les Abbey –
The problem is the groups that are not following Thaksin’s agenda are on the fringes. When Nick Nostitz, who is probably the journalist that knows the red shirts best, was asked at his book launch if he could see any parting of the red shirt movement from Thaksin, both he and Chris Baker said they couldn’t. I think in the future some of these fringe groups will look back on allying themselves with Thaksin as one of their biggest mistakes.
I’m very familiar w/ Nick’s views. Yes, the inability of the Reds to “decouple” from Thaksin is a problem, but (and I think Nick would agree w/ me on this) that’s really beside the point. The larger point is that there are much bigger underlying grievances that drive many of these people to support Thaksin. It’s more than just mindless worship of the man (whom I also consider to be a crook), its also a sense of political, economic and social disenfranchisement. If the powers that be quit wasting their time on demonizing Thaksin (and their laughable propaganda campaigns that really put the Thaksin government’s propaganda campaigns to shame) and actually addressed these grievances, I believe support for Thaksin will evaporate over time. Thaksin is merely a symptom of Thailand’s problems – attacking him will do nothing to address the root cause of Thailand’s problems.
Montesano on Thailand in April 2009
Tettyan, I had the impression, and perhaps this is too broad a generalisation, that Phibun was allied with the absolutists in their struggle with Pridi and others working to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Thailand.
Vis a vis Pridi and his crowd, Phibul was aligned w/ the royalists in the 1940s. Things were a little different in 1932 and the subsequent power struggles of the 1930s. Remember that there are no permanent allies or enemies in Thai politics, or in most parts of the world for that matter. For more details, check out the Kobkua book I mentioned above.
King Bhumibol expresses his worries
“I am quite worried our country is going into ruin because people have done things their own way”
Thai people are much worried their country is going into ruin because the ruling class has done things their own way, as they call it “Thai style democracy”
Montesano on Thailand in April 2009
Les Abbey, a scoundrel and a much better man can have the same enemies. And a scoundrel can be constrained to do some good by the system in which he operates. History is more complicated than the logic of the victims of propaganda, be they Thai Red Shirts or Englishmen.
Montesano on Thailand in April 2009
tettyan says –
“The red shirt movement is made up of various factions of group, some with a genuine progressive agenda, and many more w/ self-serving agendas (and not all necessarily just Thaksin’s agenda). “
The problem is the groups that are not following Thaksin’s agenda are on the fringes. When Nick Nostitz, who is probably the journalist that knows the red shirts best, was asked at his book launch if he could see any parting of the red shirt movement from Thaksin, both he and Chris Baker said they couldn’t. I think in the future some of these fringe groups will look back on allying themselves with Thaksin as one of their biggest mistakes.
Montesano on Thailand in April 2009
Oh dear, RN I do hope you aren’t going to start likening Thaksin to Pridi.
I’m not sure my stomach could handle that;-)
Montesano on Thailand in April 2009
Tettyan, I had the impression, and perhaps this is too broad a generalisation, that Phibun was allied with the absolutists in their struggle with Pridi and others working to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Thailand.
The violent suppression of opium cultivation
[…] Thai Airforce forced Yao out of the mountainous Phrachangnoi Subdistrict and into the lowlands by bombing their forests, farms and villages . These attacks began in 1968 and were followed immediately by […]