practically we are saying same things with slight variations.
yes, PAD played SOME role, but it was rather superficial.
You’re right, we’re not really that far apart on this matter. I think the main difference is that I emphasize that without the PAD, the elites could not do what they’ve been doing, at least not in this day and age. Manipulating events completely behind the scenes was possible in the 1970s and 1980s, but it’s harder to pull off today w/o attracting criticism. They need something that appears to be a popular movement to legitimize their machinations. The PAD need the old elite – but the old elite need the PAD just as much, if not more. It will be interesting to see what happens when the interests of the two sides begin to significantly diverge – some say it already has …
For the uninitiated Loos’s book is really difficult to read and understand. This review really helps one to get into the book and start understanding it. Thanks.
Well, I have to start by saying that I come fro Burma and Toilet Wall is founded ans maintained by a very close friend of mine. (To add a few more details, I am one of the guys who popularised social networking in its early days and my friend Nanda Htun who founded Toilet Wall is a programmer who is struggling to earn more than $50 a month in the country.)
Here in Myanmar, access is the Internet is more than what the majority of people can afford. People earn less than $50 a month and an Internet connection can cost up to $2000 a month. So, they get access to it at cafes which charge half a dollar per hour for a shared access. The connection is very slow and it’s not worth the money but that’s what we have to live with.
Those people who have registered on Toilet Wall have moderate incomes (about $50 a month), belong to the top five percent of the most educated population in cities and are fed up with hardships. The rest do not have any money to spare, are not educated enough to know why they are poor and are unable to form any ideas which deserved to be published online. Nonetheless, they are as against the government as we are.
Coming to the censorship, there are three people who are taking turns to watch for posts on Toilet Wall so that their community do not get shut down by the government or any of the members do not get jailed. That’s how they survived through those years. Again, these three people hate the government the way that can’t be described.
I think most people like you lot are armchair theorising about the situation in Myanmar and do not understand anything about what’s happening there. It’s not the way you think.
An intersting article that basically seems pretty much spot on although I would argue the red shirts not courting the elite is incorrect. They certainly are very heavily linked to local upcountry elites who are very much part of the power struggle.
That aside yes change is coming. The current war is maybe more about who gets to oversee and potentially control it.
It will be interesting to see if the interests of the poor do end up going anywhere as right now they are directed by sides involved without much control themselves. As with all change it will be more about where does it end up. After the tipping point is reached where will the next balance be found? We also shouldnt forget that there are some very meglomaniacal people involved on all sides who have their own agendas and are very good at manipulating others for their ends.
“The success of the PAD as an extra-parliamentary opposition is easily seen in the removal of two prime ministers post-coup and being the real opposition to Thaskin before that.”
A statement that should rightly belong to “Comedy central”
Based on the rumor going around today it may not be that far off…certainly not a few years. I do think though that the population is trained (manipulated) well enough that power structure will remain as-is. Populations are easily manipulated.
thanks for interesting details about Chamlong and Sondhi.
I hope someday someone will write in all the details the whole complete saga of both Chamlong and Sondhi – the real reasons why they have beef with Thaksin. coz both of them previously were his supporters. hell ! even Pa P back in 2001 has winked to Courts to drop cases against Thaksin to give him green light.
you say:
The PAD is certainly not “nothing,” …
well, here is my original statement (comm. #9):
PAD was, is and WILL be NOTHING , zero, nada – without those guys.
in other words, yes, they are / were something – but ONLY with the huge backing from all those behind-the-curtains players (aka Amart). take out that backing – and PAD is nothing, or almost nothing, reduced to the milenarian cult.
and it his quite evident in the 5 monhts of the current Dems gov. : once PAD has served its purpose to install Abhisit’s frankenstein coalition (and oh so coincidentally – some guys like that chap from CP group into minesterial seat 😉 ) – funds and support to PAD were almost instantly reduced or stopped, so that even eventually ASTV / Manager has posted add with Chamlong begging requesting fellow yellow shirts to give donations “because otherwise there are no more money to pay ASTV stuff”. 😀
Sondhi and others also expressed their strong dissapointement that “some people used them” and when they are not needed anymore – even let them be called to court (20 PAD leaders, in March). there is video recorded right there, after reporting to Court, of Sondhi spewing obsenities in front of reporters and damning Anupong and others, as well as calling Abhisit and his gov. as “ninny gov.” and saying “let red-shirts destryo them!”
so, as I said above, even PAD leaders themselves became disillusioned. in fact that’s one of the main reasons mentioned by Sondhi for forming the new party: “we should not depend on others who use us when they need us and then abandon when they need no longer …”
another your statement:
What the PAD has done is give the powers that be who work behind the scenes the cover needed to do their dirty work…
that’s exactly my course of thinking :
PAD was … a “cover” for the GIANT COMBINED reactionary force … – all those players
practically we are saying same things with slight variations.
yes, PAD played SOME role, but it was rather superficial.
so, I repeat: neither Thaksin nor Samak nor Somchai were “removed by PAD” but ONLY but much more powerful “behind the curtains” players!!! and Chamlong, Sondhi, Suriyasai, Somsak etc are nor even near to be considered as those “main players” – although they certainly love to trumpet that they are “power of people” and charge even Anupong and some others as sort of trembling in the face of PAD’s wrath – what a pathetic ridiculous self-decieving and shameless propaganda ! claiming that it is PAD’s credit – is a self-indulgent wishful thinking by brainwashed PAD followers, or their unscrupulous demagogue leaders.
therefore more and more of them eventually “wake up” to reality, which leads to unprecendented statements even by Sondhi himself like: “actually PAD and red-shirts are not so different… ” who could have even imagined hearing such things from Sondhi, self-proclaimed champion of Thaksin-bashers just few months ago.
hahaha
so, I will never accept such statements as Abey – and I am confident that neither he no anyone else would be able to prove such statements that it was PAD who “removed” anybody from power !
On the Thai-Lao sociopolitical front, I have been reading some interesting and yet shocking historical records, accounts often by foreigners, but also some from original Thai, relating to the Anuwongse affair and invasion of Thailand by the Lao back in 1825-28. The more I read the ill I become at the ferocity and intentional merciless shown to the Lao king and his race overall by the Thai.
The issue of forced tattooing of all males, including those in the Isan region, to given them a Mark of Cain Siamese style, seems in some sense to be a forerunner of another kind of tattooing we are witnessing today – forced fealty to the monarchy and forced loyalty to it. Unless you are ‘wearing’ that ‘tattoo,’ you are not really Thai and don’t love your country, nation or king…
A sad continuance of oppression.
The PAD is certainly not “nothing,” but I wouldn’t call it a successful, extra-parliamentary popular movement either. What the PAD has done is give the powers that be who work behind the scenes the cover needed to do their dirty work, whether it be the army’s coup or an activist judiciary that apparently only targets parties and politicians with ties to Thaksin. In a sense, the PAD is the tool of certain factions in the elite who are capable of wielding real power, and these elites at the same time are also a tool of the PAD who have their own agenda.
And that agenda isn’t by any means “liberal,” “progressive” or “pro-democratic.” Just take a look at the movement’s leaders. Chamlong might have been on the right side during Black May, and I don’t want to belittle his brave stance back then. But we also must not forget that the guy is an ultra-right-wing fanatical religious cult leader. He resigned from Prem’s cabinet back in the 1980s because the Prem government supported a law that would relax Thailand’s strict ban on abortion for of rape or incest, or if the health of the mother was at risk (even though the Queen spoke out in favor of the new law). He has bullied the Stock Exchange of Thailand into preventing the public listing of Beer Chang’s parent company, even though no laws bar the trading of shares in alcoholic beverage companies, and even though the company is engaged in a perfectly lawful business. His close association with a fringe religious cult (which has split from mainstream Buddhist sangha), and their role as foot-soldiers in his movement, draws religion into politics to an unhealthy degree (though I am a religious person, I am also a firm believer in the separation of church and state).
And what about Sondhi L? The guy is the exemplar of a crony capitalist – probably the most ruthless crony capitalist in Thailand besides Thaksin himself. His reckless overborrowing destroyed his media empire when the 1997 crisis hit. His mountain of debts mysteriously disappeared after Thaksin appointed his old buddy, Viroj, president of Krung Thai Bank during his first term. When Viroj became engulfed in unrelated scandals, Thaksin threw Sondhi’s old mate under the bus. Around the same time, Sondhi’s company lost a concession to operate a subsidiary of Channel 11 because of legal complications that arose when the concession was granted. Coincidentally, Sondhi not long after all this transpired went from being Thaksin’s cheerleader-in-chief to his public enemy number 1.
I’ve never liked Thaksin, and I don’t want to downplay the role the PAD has played in the last few roles. But don’t be under any illusions that it somehow represents a “progressive” or “popular” strain of the Thai polity. To the extent it has any coherent ideological agenda, it is deeply conservative, nationalistic and xenophobic (I once counted myself a PAD supporter briefly in 2006 until I actually listened in on one of their rallies and the disgusting, racist speeches). And it’s leaders are crafty, ruthless, dangerous and not to be trusted.
“Don’t hide behind the skirts of the Shinawatra family”
who is hiding, huh ? what ai pile of nonsense. don’t you just love it how some people would divert ANY discussion or subject to Thaksin ! LOL
you trying to sound like slighted (or “noi jai”) – sort of I’ve out-shouted you. however I didn’t shout – only emphasized some words. (shouting in forums or on-line chats is considered when someone types everything – all words – in capital characters)
yet you still do not provide the references for your claims – what I’ve requested you.
you switch the subject with your irony :
“red-shirts have nothing to do with Thaksin … ”
these are your own words. I didn’t say that – but only asked you to provide references, which you ignored.
also this phrase by itself is sort of “gotcha” trick (mostly favored by Fox news) – trying to trick the opponent into “false dilemma” or be on defensive and finally diverted into the pre-designed rut: like here you’re trying to trick me into saying something like “it has to do … ” – which is NOT the point actually. sure, red-shirt movement involves Thaksin – however it is highly fallacious to continue claiming that it is ALL and ONLY about Thaksin – which you trying to prove without … proofs. 😉
“so PAD is nothing, never achieving anything … ”
that’s right – try to prove me wrong, why don’t you.
so far you have not made any efforts to eve indicate what do you mean by “achieve”. alright, let’s see your original statement:
“The success of the PAD as an extra-parliamentary opposition is easily seen in the removal of two prime ministers post-coup and being the real opposition to Thaskin before that.”
I guess here it can be used this word “sucess” as what you mean by “achievement” – am I right?
alright, correct me if I’m wrong :
1) Samak was removed by decision of Court – because of the silly and funny case of coocking show.
2) Somchai was removed again by decision of court due to some alleged electoral fraud and cooked up by junta law.
as I can see – both of them were removed NOT by PAD – but by a “judiciary coups”.
same with Thaksin – he was removed by another sourt of coup – military coup.
so, again – WHAT is PAD’s achievement in that?
to me it is pretty clear that PAD did NOT “remove” either of these 3 fellas from their positions of PM. it was done rather by REAL powers – military and judiciary, not by some bunch of fascistic mob.
as for being “real opposition” (during 2006) – even this I can’t accept either 100%. I would say they were “part of” opposition. the real opposition were some other people – first of all Prem, then Prasong Soonsiri, Surayudh (who came to encourage Sondhi and promise him new TV channel once Thaksin is out) , many corporal big guys AND Thai main stream media.
so, PAD was only a “ride the tide” cover for all this HUGE opposition. they were NOT the “real” opposition as you say.
so, no need to :”accept” that I’m right – just be consistent in your own statements, make them clear and provide the sufficient evidences.
“In Lieberman’s history language is a transparent window onto the past, and words mean what they say. They are not mischievous things that play tricks on the unwary…others will wonder when the linguistic turn – even a watered-down version of it – will arrive on Lieberman’s desk. Finally, there is next to nothing about ideology, consciousness, and l’histoire des mentalités, i. e. the way people felt or perceived or looked out on the world.”
Premodern indigenous intellectual history in Lieberman’s survey also? At least in the Burmese case, how could he when the basic groundwork has not even been done yet?
Premodern indigenous Burmese historiography emerged out of the depths of Pali literature, and scholarship on Pali literature in Southeast Asia is just beginning (Justin Mc Daniel, Veidlinger)
and there is still really no work for Southeast Asia that treats the intellectual history implicit in Pali literature like Steven Collins “Nirvana and other Buddhist Felicities.”
As for the influence of Pali literature on secular indigenous historiography, U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi chronicle for Burma has extensive borrowings from Pali literature but there is almost nothing published on this, outside of scattered references, for example in Strong’s work on Upagupta (Shin Upagot).
If one relies only on inscriptions to verify the truth value of chronicle narrative, you won’t end up using the chronicle at all (cf Than Tun). Lieberman verified large chunks for later periods using European sources in his previous work, but given the basic disjunction in the subject matter of inscriptions and chronicles, indigenous chronicles may well remain forever an inseparable composite of intellectual history and Rankean “what actually happened.”
“Is Lieberman not comparing the incomparable?”
Why do you assume they are incomparable?
Doesn’t the material basis of human life (technologies, environment, agriculture, social and economic structures) bear great cross-cultural similarity?
Expansionary warfare by Maoris in nineteenth century New Zealand after gaining access to firearms in the 19th century bears great resemblance to the expansionary warfare in 16th century Burma after gaining access to Portuguese firearms. There are, of course, important differences also. They seem incomparable but they actually are comparable.
In the natural sciences you can run controlled experiments. In history you have to use the limited historical trajectories that actually played out over time and they are obviously not going to be located in the same part of the globe.
Isn’t this what the sub-discipline of “World History” is all about, challenging notions of incomparability? William H. McNeill did this and Lieberman continues this tradition. Lieberman summarizes existing hypotheses and presents novel new hypotheses, most importantly hypotheses that have relevance beyond Southeast Asia and may be either accepted or rejected when new evidence becomes available.
Southeast Asianists typically create some intellectual artifact supposedly unique to Southeast Asia: mandalas, galactic polities, geobodies, and by ignoring scholarship for the rest of the world, frankly they just look silly. Southeast Asian studies suffers from a non-falsifiable disease with assertions rather than testable hypotheses.
Work by political anthropologists such as Earle, Johnson, and warfare specialists such as Ferguson clearly show that premodern political, economic, and social structures across a wide variety of cultures are comparable.
In fact sometimes what is happening in indigenous chronicles is almost impossible to understand without comparing it to some similar better studied culture. Far reaching comparison elucidates what at first seems locally unique.
Panthep Phuaphongphan, one of PAD’s demagogues, has summarized the differences between “new” and “old” politics in ten points (ASTV Phuchatkan, June 3, 2009). Not surprisingly, PAD favors sufficiency economy:
7. New politics will make the economic system create social justice and emphasize the national good and the people. Old politics makes the economic system fall under the command of only a small number of monopoly capitalists.
8. New politics develops the sufficiency economy side by side with the conservation and rehabilitation of natural and environmental resources that are the basis for the conduct of life and occupation according to the geographical ecology. Old politics favors benefits for only a small number of capitalists, and thus destroys the ways of life and the resources of all people in the nation.
Well I guess I had better accept that you are right as you can shout the loudest, so PAD is nothing, never achieving anything, and the red-shirts have nothing to do with Thaksin and none of his money was ever involved.
Yes Monsoon Country was a fine book and Pira deserves congratulations on it. I probably know more about life in Isaan than you suspect. What you should remember is Bangkok’s population is made up of probably 50% people from the northeast doing a variety of jobs which “muddle classes” doesn’t really cover.
I would say this though, if people want a progressive party representing Thailand’s peasants they should build one, not piggy-back on a right wing movement financed by one of the most corrupt politicians the country has produced. Go up into the northeast towns and fight for your policies. It’s been done before in the 70s. Don’t hide behind the skirts of the Shinawatra family.
It’s a bit pointless keeping this argument going because we will end arguing about white being black or red shirt being blue shirt so have another shot, but I give up.
tumbler: Somsak also claimed that Thaksin was pretty good early on, and that got Somsak some flak from other parts of the labour movement, especially when he joined up the union May Day rally with the government-organised one. Must have been 2001 or 2002.
Frank: Not sure what your point really is. PAD certainly did its best to get out any government that they thought was Thaksin-related. They said that time and time again. They got over the elected government problem by claiming that elections weren’t everything in a democracy (a claim repeated last week by Sumet Tantivejakul of the king’s men).
The interesting issue for PAD is to reconcile standing for election (if they are not particularly crucial) and develop other aspects of their “new politics” outside the parliament. At the moment they seem a bit half-hearted on this, just saying that the members will have considerable say in policy etc.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
PAD tries a political party
antipadhist
practically we are saying same things with slight variations.
yes, PAD played SOME role, but it was rather superficial.
You’re right, we’re not really that far apart on this matter. I think the main difference is that I emphasize that without the PAD, the elites could not do what they’ve been doing, at least not in this day and age. Manipulating events completely behind the scenes was possible in the 1970s and 1980s, but it’s harder to pull off today w/o attracting criticism. They need something that appears to be a popular movement to legitimize their machinations. The PAD need the old elite – but the old elite need the PAD just as much, if not more. It will be interesting to see what happens when the interests of the two sides begin to significantly diverge – some say it already has …
Rumours, rumours
Are you absolutely certain Pundit isn’t just wittering on about Thaksin’s dodgy prostate?
“No toilet paper but unity!” Burma does social networking
Thank you Sandah Aung for your reality-check.
As I’ve said since the beginning, it’s important to put things in their right context.
Regards.
Reader
Review of Loos
For the uninitiated Loos’s book is really difficult to read and understand. This review really helps one to get into the book and start understanding it. Thanks.
“No toilet paper but unity!” Burma does social networking
Well, I have to start by saying that I come fro Burma and Toilet Wall is founded ans maintained by a very close friend of mine. (To add a few more details, I am one of the guys who popularised social networking in its early days and my friend Nanda Htun who founded Toilet Wall is a programmer who is struggling to earn more than $50 a month in the country.)
Here in Myanmar, access is the Internet is more than what the majority of people can afford. People earn less than $50 a month and an Internet connection can cost up to $2000 a month. So, they get access to it at cafes which charge half a dollar per hour for a shared access. The connection is very slow and it’s not worth the money but that’s what we have to live with.
Those people who have registered on Toilet Wall have moderate incomes (about $50 a month), belong to the top five percent of the most educated population in cities and are fed up with hardships. The rest do not have any money to spare, are not educated enough to know why they are poor and are unable to form any ideas which deserved to be published online. Nonetheless, they are as against the government as we are.
Coming to the censorship, there are three people who are taking turns to watch for posts on Toilet Wall so that their community do not get shut down by the government or any of the members do not get jailed. That’s how they survived through those years. Again, these three people hate the government the way that can’t be described.
I think most people like you lot are armchair theorising about the situation in Myanmar and do not understand anything about what’s happening there. It’s not the way you think.
Rumours, rumours
Relax. I haven’t been feeling 100% but I’m on the mend now. AW
The “tipping point” for Thailand
An intersting article that basically seems pretty much spot on although I would argue the red shirts not courting the elite is incorrect. They certainly are very heavily linked to local upcountry elites who are very much part of the power struggle.
That aside yes change is coming. The current war is maybe more about who gets to oversee and potentially control it.
It will be interesting to see if the interests of the poor do end up going anywhere as right now they are directed by sides involved without much control themselves. As with all change it will be more about where does it end up. After the tipping point is reached where will the next balance be found? We also shouldnt forget that there are some very meglomaniacal people involved on all sides who have their own agendas and are very good at manipulating others for their ends.
Interesting times.
PAD tries a political party
“The success of the PAD as an extra-parliamentary opposition is easily seen in the removal of two prime ministers post-coup and being the real opposition to Thaskin before that.”
A statement that should rightly belong to “Comedy central”
The “tipping point” for Thailand
Based on the rumor going around today it may not be that far off…certainly not a few years. I do think though that the population is trained (manipulated) well enough that power structure will remain as-is. Populations are easily manipulated.
PAD tries a political party
@tettyan
thanks for interesting details about Chamlong and Sondhi.
I hope someday someone will write in all the details the whole complete saga of both Chamlong and Sondhi – the real reasons why they have beef with Thaksin. coz both of them previously were his supporters. hell ! even Pa P back in 2001 has winked to Courts to drop cases against Thaksin to give him green light.
you say:
well, here is my original statement (comm. #9):
in other words, yes, they are / were something – but ONLY with the huge backing from all those behind-the-curtains players (aka Amart). take out that backing – and PAD is nothing, or almost nothing, reduced to the milenarian cult.
and it his quite evident in the 5 monhts of the current Dems gov. : once PAD has served its purpose to install Abhisit’s frankenstein coalition (and oh so coincidentally – some guys like that chap from CP group into minesterial seat 😉 ) – funds and support to PAD were almost instantly reduced or stopped, so that even eventually ASTV / Manager has posted add with Chamlong
beggingrequesting fellow yellow shirts to give donations “because otherwise there are no more money to pay ASTV stuff”. 😀Sondhi and others also expressed their strong dissapointement that “some people used them” and when they are not needed anymore – even let them be called to court (20 PAD leaders, in March). there is video recorded right there, after reporting to Court, of Sondhi spewing obsenities in front of reporters and damning Anupong and others, as well as calling Abhisit and his gov. as “ninny gov.” and saying “let red-shirts destryo them!”
so, as I said above, even PAD leaders themselves became disillusioned. in fact that’s one of the main reasons mentioned by Sondhi for forming the new party: “we should not depend on others who use us when they need us and then abandon when they need no longer …”
another your statement:
that’s exactly my course of thinking :
practically we are saying same things with slight variations.
yes, PAD played SOME role, but it was rather superficial.
so, I repeat: neither Thaksin nor Samak nor Somchai were “removed by PAD” but ONLY but much more powerful “behind the curtains” players!!! and Chamlong, Sondhi, Suriyasai, Somsak etc are nor even near to be considered as those “main players” – although they certainly love to trumpet that they are “power of people” and charge even Anupong and some others as sort of trembling in the face of PAD’s wrath – what a pathetic ridiculous self-decieving and shameless propaganda ! claiming that it is PAD’s credit – is a self-indulgent wishful thinking by brainwashed PAD followers, or their unscrupulous demagogue leaders.
therefore more and more of them eventually “wake up” to reality, which leads to unprecendented statements even by Sondhi himself like: “actually PAD and red-shirts are not so different… ” who could have even imagined hearing such things from Sondhi, self-proclaimed champion of Thaksin-bashers just few months ago.
hahaha
so, I will never accept such statements as Abey – and I am confident that neither he no anyone else would be able to prove such statements that it was PAD who “removed” anybody from power !
Laos too poor to get any poorer
On the Thai-Lao sociopolitical front, I have been reading some interesting and yet shocking historical records, accounts often by foreigners, but also some from original Thai, relating to the Anuwongse affair and invasion of Thailand by the Lao back in 1825-28. The more I read the ill I become at the ferocity and intentional merciless shown to the Lao king and his race overall by the Thai.
The issue of forced tattooing of all males, including those in the Isan region, to given them a Mark of Cain Siamese style, seems in some sense to be a forerunner of another kind of tattooing we are witnessing today – forced fealty to the monarchy and forced loyalty to it. Unless you are ‘wearing’ that ‘tattoo,’ you are not really Thai and don’t love your country, nation or king…
A sad continuance of oppression.
PAD tries a political party
antipadshist & Les Abbey:
The PAD is certainly not “nothing,” but I wouldn’t call it a successful, extra-parliamentary popular movement either. What the PAD has done is give the powers that be who work behind the scenes the cover needed to do their dirty work, whether it be the army’s coup or an activist judiciary that apparently only targets parties and politicians with ties to Thaksin. In a sense, the PAD is the tool of certain factions in the elite who are capable of wielding real power, and these elites at the same time are also a tool of the PAD who have their own agenda.
And that agenda isn’t by any means “liberal,” “progressive” or “pro-democratic.” Just take a look at the movement’s leaders. Chamlong might have been on the right side during Black May, and I don’t want to belittle his brave stance back then. But we also must not forget that the guy is an ultra-right-wing fanatical religious cult leader. He resigned from Prem’s cabinet back in the 1980s because the Prem government supported a law that would relax Thailand’s strict ban on abortion for of rape or incest, or if the health of the mother was at risk (even though the Queen spoke out in favor of the new law). He has bullied the Stock Exchange of Thailand into preventing the public listing of Beer Chang’s parent company, even though no laws bar the trading of shares in alcoholic beverage companies, and even though the company is engaged in a perfectly lawful business. His close association with a fringe religious cult (which has split from mainstream Buddhist sangha), and their role as foot-soldiers in his movement, draws religion into politics to an unhealthy degree (though I am a religious person, I am also a firm believer in the separation of church and state).
And what about Sondhi L? The guy is the exemplar of a crony capitalist – probably the most ruthless crony capitalist in Thailand besides Thaksin himself. His reckless overborrowing destroyed his media empire when the 1997 crisis hit. His mountain of debts mysteriously disappeared after Thaksin appointed his old buddy, Viroj, president of Krung Thai Bank during his first term. When Viroj became engulfed in unrelated scandals, Thaksin threw Sondhi’s old mate under the bus. Around the same time, Sondhi’s company lost a concession to operate a subsidiary of Channel 11 because of legal complications that arose when the concession was granted. Coincidentally, Sondhi not long after all this transpired went from being Thaksin’s cheerleader-in-chief to his public enemy number 1.
I’ve never liked Thaksin, and I don’t want to downplay the role the PAD has played in the last few roles. But don’t be under any illusions that it somehow represents a “progressive” or “popular” strain of the Thai polity. To the extent it has any coherent ideological agenda, it is deeply conservative, nationalistic and xenophobic (I once counted myself a PAD supporter briefly in 2006 until I actually listened in on one of their rallies and the disgusting, racist speeches). And it’s leaders are crafty, ruthless, dangerous and not to be trusted.
PAD tries a political party
@Les Abbey
“Don’t hide behind the skirts of the Shinawatra family”
who is hiding, huh ? what ai pile of nonsense. don’t you just love it how some people would divert ANY discussion or subject to Thaksin ! LOL
you trying to sound like slighted (or “noi jai”) – sort of I’ve out-shouted you. however I didn’t shout – only emphasized some words. (shouting in forums or on-line chats is considered when someone types everything – all words – in capital characters)
yet you still do not provide the references for your claims – what I’ve requested you.
you switch the subject with your irony :
“red-shirts have nothing to do with Thaksin … ”
these are your own words. I didn’t say that – but only asked you to provide references, which you ignored.
also this phrase by itself is sort of “gotcha” trick (mostly favored by Fox news) – trying to trick the opponent into “false dilemma” or be on defensive and finally diverted into the pre-designed rut: like here you’re trying to trick me into saying something like “it has to do … ” – which is NOT the point actually. sure, red-shirt movement involves Thaksin – however it is highly fallacious to continue claiming that it is ALL and ONLY about Thaksin – which you trying to prove without … proofs. 😉
“so PAD is nothing, never achieving anything … ”
that’s right – try to prove me wrong, why don’t you.
so far you have not made any efforts to eve indicate what do you mean by “achieve”. alright, let’s see your original statement:
“The success of the PAD as an extra-parliamentary opposition is easily seen in the removal of two prime ministers post-coup and being the real opposition to Thaskin before that.”
I guess here it can be used this word “sucess” as what you mean by “achievement” – am I right?
alright, correct me if I’m wrong :
1) Samak was removed by decision of Court – because of the silly and funny case of coocking show.
2) Somchai was removed again by decision of court due to some alleged electoral fraud and cooked up by junta law.
as I can see – both of them were removed NOT by PAD – but by a “judiciary coups”.
same with Thaksin – he was removed by another sourt of coup – military coup.
so, again – WHAT is PAD’s achievement in that?
to me it is pretty clear that PAD did NOT “remove” either of these 3 fellas from their positions of PM. it was done rather by REAL powers – military and judiciary, not by some bunch of fascistic mob.
as for being “real opposition” (during 2006) – even this I can’t accept either 100%. I would say they were “part of” opposition. the real opposition were some other people – first of all Prem, then Prasong Soonsiri, Surayudh (who came to encourage Sondhi and promise him new TV channel once Thaksin is out) , many corporal big guys AND Thai main stream media.
so, PAD was only a “ride the tide” cover for all this HUGE opposition. they were NOT the “real” opposition as you say.
so, no need to :”accept” that I’m right – just be consistent in your own statements, make them clear and provide the sufficient evidences.
so far you could not do any of these.
Review of Lieberman
“In Lieberman’s history language is a transparent window onto the past, and words mean what they say. They are not mischievous things that play tricks on the unwary…others will wonder when the linguistic turn – even a watered-down version of it – will arrive on Lieberman’s desk. Finally, there is next to nothing about ideology, consciousness, and l’histoire des mentalités, i. e. the way people felt or perceived or looked out on the world.”
Premodern indigenous intellectual history in Lieberman’s survey also? At least in the Burmese case, how could he when the basic groundwork has not even been done yet?
Premodern indigenous Burmese historiography emerged out of the depths of Pali literature, and scholarship on Pali literature in Southeast Asia is just beginning (Justin Mc Daniel, Veidlinger)
and there is still really no work for Southeast Asia that treats the intellectual history implicit in Pali literature like Steven Collins “Nirvana and other Buddhist Felicities.”
As for the influence of Pali literature on secular indigenous historiography, U Kala’s Mahayazawingyi chronicle for Burma has extensive borrowings from Pali literature but there is almost nothing published on this, outside of scattered references, for example in Strong’s work on Upagupta (Shin Upagot).
If one relies only on inscriptions to verify the truth value of chronicle narrative, you won’t end up using the chronicle at all (cf Than Tun). Lieberman verified large chunks for later periods using European sources in his previous work, but given the basic disjunction in the subject matter of inscriptions and chronicles, indigenous chronicles may well remain forever an inseparable composite of intellectual history and Rankean “what actually happened.”
“Is Lieberman not comparing the incomparable?”
Why do you assume they are incomparable?
Doesn’t the material basis of human life (technologies, environment, agriculture, social and economic structures) bear great cross-cultural similarity?
Expansionary warfare by Maoris in nineteenth century New Zealand after gaining access to firearms in the 19th century bears great resemblance to the expansionary warfare in 16th century Burma after gaining access to Portuguese firearms. There are, of course, important differences also. They seem incomparable but they actually are comparable.
In the natural sciences you can run controlled experiments. In history you have to use the limited historical trajectories that actually played out over time and they are obviously not going to be located in the same part of the globe.
Isn’t this what the sub-discipline of “World History” is all about, challenging notions of incomparability? William H. McNeill did this and Lieberman continues this tradition. Lieberman summarizes existing hypotheses and presents novel new hypotheses, most importantly hypotheses that have relevance beyond Southeast Asia and may be either accepted or rejected when new evidence becomes available.
Southeast Asianists typically create some intellectual artifact supposedly unique to Southeast Asia: mandalas, galactic polities, geobodies, and by ignoring scholarship for the rest of the world, frankly they just look silly. Southeast Asian studies suffers from a non-falsifiable disease with assertions rather than testable hypotheses.
Work by political anthropologists such as Earle, Johnson, and warfare specialists such as Ferguson clearly show that premodern political, economic, and social structures across a wide variety of cultures are comparable.
In fact sometimes what is happening in indigenous chronicles is almost impossible to understand without comparing it to some similar better studied culture. Far reaching comparison elucidates what at first seems locally unique.
$ufficiency economy
Panthep Phuaphongphan, one of PAD’s demagogues, has summarized the differences between “new” and “old” politics in ten points (ASTV Phuchatkan, June 3, 2009). Not surprisingly, PAD favors sufficiency economy:
7. New politics will make the economic system create social justice and emphasize the national good and the people. Old politics makes the economic system fall under the command of only a small number of monopoly capitalists.
8. New politics develops the sufficiency economy side by side with the conservation and rehabilitation of natural and environmental resources that are the basis for the conduct of life and occupation according to the geographical ecology. Old politics favors benefits for only a small number of capitalists, and thus destroys the ways of life and the resources of all people in the nation.
PAD tries a political party
@antipadshit #11
Well I guess I had better accept that you are right as you can shout the loudest, so PAD is nothing, never achieving anything, and the red-shirts have nothing to do with Thaksin and none of his money was ever involved.
Yes Monsoon Country was a fine book and Pira deserves congratulations on it. I probably know more about life in Isaan than you suspect. What you should remember is Bangkok’s population is made up of probably 50% people from the northeast doing a variety of jobs which “muddle classes” doesn’t really cover.
I would say this though, if people want a progressive party representing Thailand’s peasants they should build one, not piggy-back on a right wing movement financed by one of the most corrupt politicians the country has produced. Go up into the northeast towns and fight for your policies. It’s been done before in the 70s. Don’t hide behind the skirts of the Shinawatra family.
It’s a bit pointless keeping this argument going because we will end arguing about white being black or red shirt being blue shirt so have another shot, but I give up.
New Politics ready to party
tumbler: Somsak also claimed that Thaksin was pretty good early on, and that got Somsak some flak from other parts of the labour movement, especially when he joined up the union May Day rally with the government-organised one. Must have been 2001 or 2002.
Frank: Not sure what your point really is. PAD certainly did its best to get out any government that they thought was Thaksin-related. They said that time and time again. They got over the elected government problem by claiming that elections weren’t everything in a democracy (a claim repeated last week by Sumet Tantivejakul of the king’s men).
The interesting issue for PAD is to reconcile standing for election (if they are not particularly crucial) and develop other aspects of their “new politics” outside the parliament. At the moment they seem a bit half-hearted on this, just saying that the members will have considerable say in policy etc.
Certain injustice in Laos
To all,
Here’s the latest update of Briton’s case report by BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8080968.stm
Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma
Sovereignty* – this post has been subjected to a stream of consciousness bombardment… :-S
Lasang Awng Wa Group at the Manau
Thanks Kyi May,
If you have a search around you will find some New Mandala material about south-western China, and even some on Sipsongpanna itself.
Off the top of my head we have, over the years, had some particularly interesting posts about Yunnanese tea, about festivals along the Sino-Burmese border, on art at the Dai-Jingpo Cultural Park, and on ethnicity and modernity in the Tai areas.
There is much to browse through. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Best wishes to all,
Nich