This is a pointless argument because the army has all along said it used live rounds, as I pointed out from beginning – a “practice” round is a live round in case you have still not been able to grasp that point. If one hit you in the head from 100 metres, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference. I also suggested that the army would have distributed ball ammunition to certain soldiers for use in self defence, as in the bus with a brick on the accelerator incident.
I’m not sure of exactly what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the background’, but I would be interested in your proof that those other players were ‘in cahoots’ with the PAD, and it was not merely a case of them having loosely similar objectives, being to be rid of Thaksin although IMO probably for differing reasons?
Logically, what ‘different reasons’, if any, have anything to do with people being judged in the same side, either in the ‘fore-ground’ or ‘back-ground’? Suppose I defend Red Shirt rally for a different reason to that of Thaksin, are we both not in the same side? Of course we are.
Regarding you being ‘unsure what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the back ground'”, let me ask this: when you said his is a good piece, were you already unsure what he had in mind by ‘military power is in the background’ of the PAD? Or you just pretend dumb only when it comes to the monarchy?
Is giving money (and gift) to the rally qualified as ‘in the background’, especially if that money (though relatively small) comes from so powerful a figure? Is having your chief adviser phone to ‘encourage /express support’ a movement that was attempting to topple a government qualified? How about arranging for and going to the funeral of the deads, giving aids to the injured? What about unleashing a ‘Judiaciary Revolution’ that swept governments of ‘one side’ away? All these are still not ‘in the background’ enough?
Do you really not understand when Chang Noi writes that ‘Thaksin money and abition’ is ‘in the background’ of the UDD, while ‘military power and meddling’ ‘in the background’ of the PAD? If you do, why not the monarchy? Isn’t ‘Royal Power’ the central demand of the PAD? That’s not ‘in the background’ enough, in the same way as ‘Thaksin ambition’ or ‘military power’? BE HONEST please, don’t pretend dumb.
I don’t doubt that the rank-and-file red shirts do have many legitimate grievances and with regard to their ‘legitimate’ grievances they have my full support. I also fully agree that Thailand must strive for to “achieve social peace and sustainable development under a democratic order that respects the rule of law”. But, if “Everyone agrees here that Thaksin took responsibility for the drug war, and that in a just world he should be prosecuted and put away for it.” How can a movement dedicated to restoring such a brutal human rights criminal to power advance the cause of respect for the rule of law? Are the murders of thousands of (almost exclusively poor) people a trivial matter? A petty offence?
I also agree unreservedly with this statement by the way “…everyone who had a role in the drug war should be prosecuted for their crimes as well.”
“That the PAD called for, indeed achieved, the maintanance and enhancement of the Royal Power”
AjarnSomsak, I am not sure how that was achieved? On the contrary, in the this Thai Civil War, royal power seem to be more clearly defined and limited – and many other players have clearly been much more prominent and powerful (the monarchy are arguably as divided as Thai society itself – yes, HMQ may sided with the PAD, but her close aide, TPYViriya Javakul clearly sides with PMThaksin). Those who clearly gained is the military as an institution, who often have their own agendas and attitude to power independent of other institutions, and the rural masses (ironically via their very manipulation by PMThaksin and their disdain by the PAD).
The judiciary also gained in power (encouraged by HMK, you may say), but with the Thai parliament totally circumvented by PMThaksin to resolve the political conflicts in 2006, they had to step up (if the legislative branch can’t check on the executive, the judiciary would be expected to do something. Remember that they were traditionally timid). The urban-based middleclasses have gained a powerful mouthpiece in the PAD (also expressing their biases against ‘bought’ rural voters) – and they’ll remain the biggest barrier to any ‘deal’ with PMThaksin.
The police have been the big losers as a political institution, rising with PMThaksin and assuming important roles in various independent bodies and boards – only to be displaced after the coup. Their handling of PMAbhisit’s security is merely payback it seem.
People often forget that there was a violent crackdown (that lasted for most of Oct 7) on the PAD blocking PMSomchai’s inauguration in parliament, by the POLICE – while the recent crackdown on the Reds (holding Bangkok hostage) was by the ARMY. This is another underlying layer of INSTITUTIONAL conflict in Thai politics.
Let’s not be naive and also see the military as a homogeneous body – they never were (PMPrem with strong royal backing also survived a few coups). PMThaksin knew very well that there was risk of a coup in 2006 and was prepared – he had the Supreme Command under his control and seem to mistakenly thought he had the loyalty of the the then 1st Army Commander responsible for Bangkok, GenAnupong Paojinda his own classmate. GenAnupong has done the very rare thing of putting other priorities (the country’s? his own? The latter according to PAD who don’t trust and have been attacking him – and still is!) over those of his classmates (on the other hand, during the coup, his hands may have been tied as GenSonthi overlooked the reshuffle of commanders in and around Bangkok before the coup).
The talented Mr.Newin – who fled to Supreme Command during the coup, then when caught, stripped and jailed for many days and when released actively coordinated PMThaksin’s resistance – seems to have now formed a clear alliance with certain elements in the military for the next election (with the army now seemingly campaigning in north and northeast for PhumjaiThai??).
Interestingly, it may turn out that elements in the military are behind or have colluded to assassinate TycoonSondhi.
And I have not mentioned the Thai closeted republicans elements opportunistically embedded within the Reds – some of whom only revealed themselves (AjarnGiles) to complicate the mix! (I understand your sympathies lie somewhere here)
I would argue that ‘political power’ has never been more widely disseminated – increasing the chance of a broader based democracy IF the various group could negotiate their differences POST-Thaksin (the unknown variable. On the other hand, if Jakrapob is as good as his promise for an armed resistance – backed by Thaksin’s money, the military can only further benefit).
A very good summary of the situation by Chiang Noi and appropriate for a newspaper article.
Ajarn Somsak, why not publish your own summary in The Nation or Bangkok Post, if you believe you can do a much better job than Chiang Noi? If you have information about royal involvement in politics unavailable to Chiang Noi, why are you sitting on it?
On TV it was impossible to guess or see even a whisper / shade s of a scar on his forehead/head. Thai doctors are truly the best in the world.
No doubt Thai has a great future in medical tourism,
Hollywood movies (Wolverine 2),and of course magic.
“When the ISOC showed the media’s heavily cut-and-pasted version of a video clip of events showing so-called Red Shirt “violence” (actually caused by Abhisit’s agent provocateurs, or Newin’s Blue shirts wearing Red, such as the seizing of buses) more than half the attendees walked out.”
This is highly opinionated. Where is your evidence that the unpleasant aspects of the red shirts’ assault on Bangkok were in fact perpetrated by “Abhisit’s agent provocateurs”, whoever these may be, or by Newin’s Blue shirts? In your view can the red shirts can do no wrong at all?
It is clear that Sondhi paid for the fake assassination attempt to give himself leverage against Newin, Thaksin, Abhisit, the privy council, Chamlong, Matichon and other potential rivals. The lengths he went to in order to achieve autheniticity and his attention to detail can only be admired. Hiring a marksman who was accurate enough with an M16 that he could fire a round through a heavily smoked car window from 20 metres, hit the gear lever so that the bullet fragmented and the fragments ricocheted into Sondhi’s head with only enough force to penetrate the skull but not enter the brain was nothing short of brilliant. It would have been extremely embarrassing for Sondhi, if he had been totally unscathed while his driver was left as a vegetable. Sondhi obviously felt the pressure to upstage Thaksin’s fake assaassination attempt and rose to the occasion admirably. Perhaps Thaksin was too scared or more likely too tightfisted to do a better job on his own assassination attempt. The car driving the round and round with the barrel of fertiliser in the back but no means of detonating it and the half witted accomplice who didn’t know what time of day or night it was didn’t really cut it at all. He is now claiming there have two more attempts on his life. Hopefully he can put up a better show the next time, now that Sondhi has shown the way.
ISOC (will soon) have unlimited ‘budget” (unaudited in name of national security) to use more than videos (read “arms”) to persuade unbelievers/infidels in North/Isaan etc.
Actually, the initial criticism was definitely there from the UN as well as amongst ASEAN members of the TCG. In circles in Yangon, the report was a hot topic amongst UN employees. However, the UN Country Team decided not to publish a statement, as they decided that they weren’t prepared to deal with the political fallout, and hoped that if they just ignored the report, interest in it would diminish faster than if they had given it legitimacy via criticism. It was ‘suggested’ to members of the Cluster Groups that INGOs could get together to make a statement, and it was purposely made two months after the release of the report for the same reasons as just listed.
I agree with your conclusions about the next 12 months.
I jumped to the last paragraph and read: “It seems people need a little more convincing these days as the government turns increasingly to jackboot tactics such as forced closure of opposition voices wherever they can, including local radio stations, web-sites, black-listing of individuals, disappearances, and fear tactics against pro-democratic supporters and their families.”
Almost scared me to death. I thought Thaksin Shinawatra had succeeded to return to power.
I’m not sure of exactly what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the background’, but I would be interested in your proof that those other players were ‘in cahoots’ with the PAD, and it was not merely a case of them having loosely similar objectives, being to be rid of Thaksin although IMO probably for differing reasons?
I don’t know the real answer one way or the other, but you sound like you do, so I would be interested to see the proof, but I understand the difficulties.
Where’s ‘Republican’ when you need him?
(although I seem to recall you two might not be on the same page anyway regarding some of these matters)
I still think you are being overly critical of an opinion piece in a Thai newspaper, and it was only me who said it was summary piece – that may not have been Chang Noi’s intention, particularly with the reference to ‘shades of grey’.
This is from the original piece in The Nation:
“Sondhi swathed the movement in yellow, portrayed Thaksin as a threat to the monarchy and called for royal intervention to remove him. This provoked a crisis behind the PAD stage. Several civil activists objected to this strategy. Some peeled away, while others remained but with less influence over the movement. PAD started a debate on why Thai politics was dominated by a minority of not-so-honest businessmen, and how to move beyond this system so Thailand could progress”
btw, nice deflection of my question about the types of politicians & local lords prevalent in Thailand and it’s politics.
One other thing: Have you seen todays news about the situation in Nepal?
The BBC “raid” seems to have a routine request for information. Since the BBC did a phone in interview with Jakrophob and he is wanted on charges of inciting insurrection, it would be a logical step for Special Branch to ask the BBC, if they knew where he was. Even if they expect to be told “no”, coppers still have to ask the basic questions on the off chance.
I have not come across any Thai people who love, respect, trust or have anything good to say about Jakraphob at all. His performance as a government spokesman was appalling. I would think that he became a leader of the red shirts purely because of his loyalty to Thaksin.
David Fullbrook is in disbelief that so many rounds could have missed such a large target!
Perhaps David Fullbrook had not fully appreciated the true immense powers of the Thai amulets. Only the magic of Thai amulets to make the wearer invincible to foes and bullets can make it possible. Sondhi L, Thaksin S and many prominent Thais (with lots of enemies) could not have survived (assassination attempts) this long without them (amulets)!
Thanks antipadshist for educating us ‘datjarit devadas’ about “confirmation bias” – and congratulations to Nick as he seem to have gained a hardcore fan! I count myself a fan of Nick’s posts, but he certainly has his ‘bias’ as I do mine (really, who is not?). The main thing is not to regress into “Evil Reds” and “Yellow Zombies” extremes – as Nun#119 stated, there are “good” and “bad” elements in both camps.
For the sake of Thai reconciliation (if it is still possible), let’s also try our best to make sure standards apply evenly across the divide. The PAD leadership must be held accountable for closure of Government House and the two airports as the Red leadership must be accountable for disrupting ASEAN, threatening the safety of the prime minister and other foreign dignitaries, holding Bangkok hostage and the ensuing violence.
So if the “burden of prove lies with the accuser” as antipadshist contends, then PMThaksin, Red Elites and Pheu Thai must provide solid evidences for the truckloads of dead (and poor) Red sacrificial lambs that they are peddling in parliament and the foreign media. PT MPs have been promising incriminating DVDs, let the public see it. If the local media are too “bias”, pass it on to the international media via PMThaksin. Pheu Thai’s investigator par excellence and the alternate prime minister, Chalerm Yoobamrung must have also been “on holidays”, like KYPotjaman and the Shinawatra children, during the Songkran melee?
David Brown, I merely asked for apology as you accused me of saying things I never said (and there are plenty of ‘evidences’ that you like to ask for in my NM posts). You countered that with a demand that I apologize to you and the “majority” of Thais as “disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall”. I suppose I won’t get an apology yet it makes me understand where you are coming from.
You make good points when not emotional (e.g. your discussions with Portman above) – but when anyone discusses the dark-side of your superhero, PMThaksin you feel deeply and personally “disparaged”. And you have proved to be a consistently loyal disciple of the Thaksin cult – and the cult leader can ‘do no wrong’ (interestingly NM has a parallel discussion on magic in Thai politics as you are obviously under some kind of spell!).
At the end of the day, Thailand is quite a free society and not as “repressive” as many in NM would like to paint it to me. You are entitled to your views and I am entitled to mine. He can be the ‘Thai Nelson Mandela’ for you, but for me he’s the ‘Thai Ferdinand Marcos’. Let’s just happily continue the tussle…
Thanks David w #3 and Srithanonchai #11 (and John Francis Lee #2 for a very insightful observation!)
Maybe AjarnChris’ and AjarnPasuk’s conclusion: “In the end, the survival of these beliefs has a profoundly anti-democratic aspect…” may be based on the assumption that modern democracy and its practices are, on the whole, rationale and scientific. Superstitions and religion has no role to play in this ‘reality’ (a view rigorously promoted by the atheist, Richard Dawkins).
I find such views quite limiting when framed against Thai society’s/democracy’s ‘reality’ where such practices pervade everyday spaces, from the most traditional shrines to cyberspaces, where ‘celebrity-astrologers’ have a role to play for both popular soapstars and politicians alike. (Besides, how rationale is modern, capitalist economics that got us into this global gloom)
David w’s ending question “Do the majority of American Christians need to give up their belief in angels to become good democratic citizens?” also got me probing more into the American case – and I ask: Will a Muslim American be elected president? Or is it a matter of time and it should be ‘When’? (as a few years ago few would have thought a black president was even possible, not considering a black candidate with a Muslim middle name!)
Maybe this is merely the way democracy expresses itself in reality, with common people relating to some traits of their leaders – and someone like PMAbhisit would lack appeal for many voters compared to PMThaksin (Thailand’s one and only ‘celebrity prime minister’). Interestingly the opposite seems to hold true for ‘rationale’, ‘modern’ foreign media who seem to increasingly find PMAbhisit more trustworthy than PMThaksin… Or is it too hard for his Thai-based astrologers to calculate the opportune time for interviews with BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera without his precise geographical whereabouts?
Chang Noi says: “in the background” of UDD is Thaksin, “in the background of PAD is “military power and meddling”
I ask: Can anyone seriously maintain that, on the PAD side, that is ALL ??
What are they? or what do they belong to?
How about the judges, the so-called “Tulakan Phiwat”? Who or what is responsible for bringing forth such phenomenon?
A summary that deliberately avoids such important “background” is a “good piece”?
In fact, as I alreadly point out above, it’s not only bad and dishonest, it’s also factually and analytically wrong.
That the PAD called for, indeed achieved, the maintanance and enhancement of the Royal Power, cannot, factually and analytically, be said to express desire to “move beyond old politics”. A piece that sums up thus cannot be said to be a “good” one.
Regarding what you call my ‘theory’, notice that Chian Noi himself speaks of the military power. Presumably everyone would agree that this is indeed one important facet of old politics? Now, didn’t Prem himself spoke of “jockey” and “owner”? Or should I change my metaphor from “pillar” to “owner”?
(As to the politicians, my advice: please just count how many years of the last 70 plus years the politicians really had been in power, compare with other groups.)
Finally, the issue of The Nation should not be an excuse, in the context of an article that aims to provide an “overall” summary of recent politics. If one cannot write honestly what ‘actors’ or ‘factors’ are centrally involved in the current crises, then DON’T WRITE AT ALL.
To ‘sum up’ that ‘in the background’ of the PAD is ‘the military’ (and nothing more, not even the ‘judges’ and the ‘privy councilers’), and that the PAD “want to move beyond old politics’ while it’s more than obvious to everyone that it ‘stands for” the monarchy, is just that : DISHONESTY.
The Emergency Assistance Team (EAT) – Burma and the Johns Hopkins Center for
Public Health and Human Rights welcome the debate now underway around the findings
of our report “After the Storm: Voices from the Delta,
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Ralph Kramden #135
This is a pointless argument because the army has all along said it used live rounds, as I pointed out from beginning – a “practice” round is a live round in case you have still not been able to grasp that point. If one hit you in the head from 100 metres, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference. I also suggested that the army would have distributed ball ammunition to certain soldiers for use in self defence, as in the bus with a brick on the accelerator incident.
More to the point, where are the dead bodies?
Chang Noi on the “grey politics of survival”
nganadeelek:
I’m not sure of exactly what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the background’, but I would be interested in your proof that those other players were ‘in cahoots’ with the PAD, and it was not merely a case of them having loosely similar objectives, being to be rid of Thaksin although IMO probably for differing reasons?
Logically, what ‘different reasons’, if any, have anything to do with people being judged in the same side, either in the ‘fore-ground’ or ‘back-ground’? Suppose I defend Red Shirt rally for a different reason to that of Thaksin, are we both not in the same side? Of course we are.
Regarding you being ‘unsure what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the back ground'”, let me ask this: when you said his is a good piece, were you already unsure what he had in mind by ‘military power is in the background’ of the PAD? Or you just pretend dumb only when it comes to the monarchy?
Is giving money (and gift) to the rally qualified as ‘in the background’, especially if that money (though relatively small) comes from so powerful a figure? Is having your chief adviser phone to ‘encourage /express support’ a movement that was attempting to topple a government qualified? How about arranging for and going to the funeral of the deads, giving aids to the injured? What about unleashing a ‘Judiaciary Revolution’ that swept governments of ‘one side’ away? All these are still not ‘in the background’ enough?
Do you really not understand when Chang Noi writes that ‘Thaksin money and abition’ is ‘in the background’ of the UDD, while ‘military power and meddling’ ‘in the background’ of the PAD? If you do, why not the monarchy? Isn’t ‘Royal Power’ the central demand of the PAD? That’s not ‘in the background’ enough, in the same way as ‘Thaksin ambition’ or ‘military power’? BE HONEST please, don’t pretend dumb.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Tettyan #118 & 120
I don’t doubt that the rank-and-file red shirts do have many legitimate grievances and with regard to their ‘legitimate’ grievances they have my full support. I also fully agree that Thailand must strive for to “achieve social peace and sustainable development under a democratic order that respects the rule of law”. But, if “Everyone agrees here that Thaksin took responsibility for the drug war, and that in a just world he should be prosecuted and put away for it.” How can a movement dedicated to restoring such a brutal human rights criminal to power advance the cause of respect for the rule of law? Are the murders of thousands of (almost exclusively poor) people a trivial matter? A petty offence?
I also agree unreservedly with this statement by the way “…everyone who had a role in the drug war should be prosecuted for their crimes as well.”
Chang Noi on the “grey politics of survival”
“That the PAD called for, indeed achieved, the maintanance and enhancement of the Royal Power”
AjarnSomsak, I am not sure how that was achieved? On the contrary, in the this Thai Civil War, royal power seem to be more clearly defined and limited – and many other players have clearly been much more prominent and powerful (the monarchy are arguably as divided as Thai society itself – yes, HMQ may sided with the PAD, but her close aide, TPYViriya Javakul clearly sides with PMThaksin). Those who clearly gained is the military as an institution, who often have their own agendas and attitude to power independent of other institutions, and the rural masses (ironically via their very manipulation by PMThaksin and their disdain by the PAD).
The judiciary also gained in power (encouraged by HMK, you may say), but with the Thai parliament totally circumvented by PMThaksin to resolve the political conflicts in 2006, they had to step up (if the legislative branch can’t check on the executive, the judiciary would be expected to do something. Remember that they were traditionally timid). The urban-based middleclasses have gained a powerful mouthpiece in the PAD (also expressing their biases against ‘bought’ rural voters) – and they’ll remain the biggest barrier to any ‘deal’ with PMThaksin.
The police have been the big losers as a political institution, rising with PMThaksin and assuming important roles in various independent bodies and boards – only to be displaced after the coup. Their handling of PMAbhisit’s security is merely payback it seem.
People often forget that there was a violent crackdown (that lasted for most of Oct 7) on the PAD blocking PMSomchai’s inauguration in parliament, by the POLICE – while the recent crackdown on the Reds (holding Bangkok hostage) was by the ARMY. This is another underlying layer of INSTITUTIONAL conflict in Thai politics.
Let’s not be naive and also see the military as a homogeneous body – they never were (PMPrem with strong royal backing also survived a few coups). PMThaksin knew very well that there was risk of a coup in 2006 and was prepared – he had the Supreme Command under his control and seem to mistakenly thought he had the loyalty of the the then 1st Army Commander responsible for Bangkok, GenAnupong Paojinda his own classmate. GenAnupong has done the very rare thing of putting other priorities (the country’s? his own? The latter according to PAD who don’t trust and have been attacking him – and still is!) over those of his classmates (on the other hand, during the coup, his hands may have been tied as GenSonthi overlooked the reshuffle of commanders in and around Bangkok before the coup).
The talented Mr.Newin – who fled to Supreme Command during the coup, then when caught, stripped and jailed for many days and when released actively coordinated PMThaksin’s resistance – seems to have now formed a clear alliance with certain elements in the military for the next election (with the army now seemingly campaigning in north and northeast for PhumjaiThai??).
Interestingly, it may turn out that elements in the military are behind or have colluded to assassinate TycoonSondhi.
And I have not mentioned the Thai closeted republicans elements opportunistically embedded within the Reds – some of whom only revealed themselves (AjarnGiles) to complicate the mix! (I understand your sympathies lie somewhere here)
I would argue that ‘political power’ has never been more widely disseminated – increasing the chance of a broader based democracy IF the various group could negotiate their differences POST-Thaksin (the unknown variable. On the other hand, if Jakrapob is as good as his promise for an armed resistance – backed by Thaksin’s money, the military can only further benefit).
Chang Noi on the “grey politics of survival”
A very good summary of the situation by Chiang Noi and appropriate for a newspaper article.
Ajarn Somsak, why not publish your own summary in The Nation or Bangkok Post, if you believe you can do a much better job than Chiang Noi? If you have information about royal involvement in politics unavailable to Chiang Noi, why are you sitting on it?
The Sondhi Limthongkul assassination effort
On TV it was impossible to guess or see even a whisper / shade s of a scar on his forehead/head. Thai doctors are truly the best in the world.
No doubt Thai has a great future in medical tourism,
Hollywood movies (Wolverine 2),and of course magic.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
“When the ISOC showed the media’s heavily cut-and-pasted version of a video clip of events showing so-called Red Shirt “violence” (actually caused by Abhisit’s agent provocateurs, or Newin’s Blue shirts wearing Red, such as the seizing of buses) more than half the attendees walked out.”
This is highly opinionated. Where is your evidence that the unpleasant aspects of the red shirts’ assault on Bangkok were in fact perpetrated by “Abhisit’s agent provocateurs”, whoever these may be, or by Newin’s Blue shirts? In your view can the red shirts can do no wrong at all?
The Sondhi Limthongkul assassination effort
It is clear that Sondhi paid for the fake assassination attempt to give himself leverage against Newin, Thaksin, Abhisit, the privy council, Chamlong, Matichon and other potential rivals. The lengths he went to in order to achieve autheniticity and his attention to detail can only be admired. Hiring a marksman who was accurate enough with an M16 that he could fire a round through a heavily smoked car window from 20 metres, hit the gear lever so that the bullet fragmented and the fragments ricocheted into Sondhi’s head with only enough force to penetrate the skull but not enter the brain was nothing short of brilliant. It would have been extremely embarrassing for Sondhi, if he had been totally unscathed while his driver was left as a vegetable. Sondhi obviously felt the pressure to upstage Thaksin’s fake assaassination attempt and rose to the occasion admirably. Perhaps Thaksin was too scared or more likely too tightfisted to do a better job on his own assassination attempt. The car driving the round and round with the barrel of fertiliser in the back but no means of detonating it and the half witted accomplice who didn’t know what time of day or night it was didn’t really cut it at all. He is now claiming there have two more attempts on his life. Hopefully he can put up a better show the next time, now that Sondhi has shown the way.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
ISOC (will soon) have unlimited ‘budget” (unaudited in name of national security) to use more than videos (read “arms”) to persuade unbelievers/infidels in North/Isaan etc.
Aid and politics after Cyclone Nargis
tom,
Actually, the initial criticism was definitely there from the UN as well as amongst ASEAN members of the TCG. In circles in Yangon, the report was a hot topic amongst UN employees. However, the UN Country Team decided not to publish a statement, as they decided that they weren’t prepared to deal with the political fallout, and hoped that if they just ignored the report, interest in it would diminish faster than if they had given it legitimacy via criticism. It was ‘suggested’ to members of the Cluster Groups that INGOs could get together to make a statement, and it was purposely made two months after the release of the report for the same reasons as just listed.
I agree with your conclusions about the next 12 months.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
I jumped to the last paragraph and read: “It seems people need a little more convincing these days as the government turns increasingly to jackboot tactics such as forced closure of opposition voices wherever they can, including local radio stations, web-sites, black-listing of individuals, disappearances, and fear tactics against pro-democratic supporters and their families.”
Almost scared me to death. I thought Thaksin Shinawatra had succeeded to return to power.
Chang Noi on the “grey politics of survival”
I’m not sure of exactly what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the background’, but I would be interested in your proof that those other players were ‘in cahoots’ with the PAD, and it was not merely a case of them having loosely similar objectives, being to be rid of Thaksin although IMO probably for differing reasons?
I don’t know the real answer one way or the other, but you sound like you do, so I would be interested to see the proof, but I understand the difficulties.
Where’s ‘Republican’ when you need him?
(although I seem to recall you two might not be on the same page anyway regarding some of these matters)
I still think you are being overly critical of an opinion piece in a Thai newspaper, and it was only me who said it was summary piece – that may not have been Chang Noi’s intention, particularly with the reference to ‘shades of grey’.
This is from the original piece in The Nation:
“Sondhi swathed the movement in yellow, portrayed Thaksin as a threat to the monarchy and called for royal intervention to remove him. This provoked a crisis behind the PAD stage. Several civil activists objected to this strategy. Some peeled away, while others remained but with less influence over the movement. PAD started a debate on why Thai politics was dominated by a minority of not-so-honest businessmen, and how to move beyond this system so Thailand could progress”
btw, nice deflection of my question about the types of politicians & local lords prevalent in Thailand and it’s politics.
One other thing: Have you seen todays news about the situation in Nepal?
“Raid” at the BBC
The BBC “raid” seems to have a routine request for information. Since the BBC did a phone in interview with Jakrophob and he is wanted on charges of inciting insurrection, it would be a logical step for Special Branch to ask the BBC, if they knew where he was. Even if they expect to be told “no”, coppers still have to ask the basic questions on the off chance.
I have not come across any Thai people who love, respect, trust or have anything good to say about Jakraphob at all. His performance as a government spokesman was appalling. I would think that he became a leader of the red shirts purely because of his loyalty to Thaksin.
The Sondhi Limthongkul assassination effort
David Fullbrook is in disbelief that so many rounds could have missed such a large target!
Perhaps David Fullbrook had not fully appreciated the true immense powers of the Thai amulets. Only the magic of Thai amulets to make the wearer invincible to foes and bullets can make it possible. Sondhi L, Thaksin S and many prominent Thais (with lots of enemies) could not have survived (assassination attempts) this long without them (amulets)!
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Thanks antipadshist for educating us ‘datjarit devadas’ about “confirmation bias” – and congratulations to Nick as he seem to have gained a hardcore fan! I count myself a fan of Nick’s posts, but he certainly has his ‘bias’ as I do mine (really, who is not?). The main thing is not to regress into “Evil Reds” and “Yellow Zombies” extremes – as Nun#119 stated, there are “good” and “bad” elements in both camps.
For the sake of Thai reconciliation (if it is still possible), let’s also try our best to make sure standards apply evenly across the divide. The PAD leadership must be held accountable for closure of Government House and the two airports as the Red leadership must be accountable for disrupting ASEAN, threatening the safety of the prime minister and other foreign dignitaries, holding Bangkok hostage and the ensuing violence.
So if the “burden of prove lies with the accuser” as antipadshist contends, then PMThaksin, Red Elites and Pheu Thai must provide solid evidences for the truckloads of dead (and poor) Red sacrificial lambs that they are peddling in parliament and the foreign media. PT MPs have been promising incriminating DVDs, let the public see it. If the local media are too “bias”, pass it on to the international media via PMThaksin. Pheu Thai’s investigator par excellence and the alternate prime minister, Chalerm Yoobamrung must have also been “on holidays”, like KYPotjaman and the Shinawatra children, during the Songkran melee?
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
David Brown, I merely asked for apology as you accused me of saying things I never said (and there are plenty of ‘evidences’ that you like to ask for in my NM posts). You countered that with a demand that I apologize to you and the “majority” of Thais as “disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall”. I suppose I won’t get an apology yet it makes me understand where you are coming from.
You make good points when not emotional (e.g. your discussions with Portman above) – but when anyone discusses the dark-side of your superhero, PMThaksin you feel deeply and personally “disparaged”. And you have proved to be a consistently loyal disciple of the Thaksin cult – and the cult leader can ‘do no wrong’ (interestingly NM has a parallel discussion on magic in Thai politics as you are obviously under some kind of spell!).
At the end of the day, Thailand is quite a free society and not as “repressive” as many in NM would like to paint it to me. You are entitled to your views and I am entitled to mine. He can be the ‘Thai Nelson Mandela’ for you, but for me he’s the ‘Thai Ferdinand Marcos’. Let’s just happily continue the tussle…
Pasuk and Baker on “spirits, stars and Thai politics”
Thanks David w #3 and Srithanonchai #11 (and John Francis Lee #2 for a very insightful observation!)
Maybe AjarnChris’ and AjarnPasuk’s conclusion: “In the end, the survival of these beliefs has a profoundly anti-democratic aspect…” may be based on the assumption that modern democracy and its practices are, on the whole, rationale and scientific. Superstitions and religion has no role to play in this ‘reality’ (a view rigorously promoted by the atheist, Richard Dawkins).
I find such views quite limiting when framed against Thai society’s/democracy’s ‘reality’ where such practices pervade everyday spaces, from the most traditional shrines to cyberspaces, where ‘celebrity-astrologers’ have a role to play for both popular soapstars and politicians alike. (Besides, how rationale is modern, capitalist economics that got us into this global gloom)
David w’s ending question “Do the majority of American Christians need to give up their belief in angels to become good democratic citizens?” also got me probing more into the American case – and I ask: Will a Muslim American be elected president? Or is it a matter of time and it should be ‘When’? (as a few years ago few would have thought a black president was even possible, not considering a black candidate with a Muslim middle name!)
Maybe this is merely the way democracy expresses itself in reality, with common people relating to some traits of their leaders – and someone like PMAbhisit would lack appeal for many voters compared to PMThaksin (Thailand’s one and only ‘celebrity prime minister’). Interestingly the opposite seems to hold true for ‘rationale’, ‘modern’ foreign media who seem to increasingly find PMAbhisit more trustworthy than PMThaksin… Or is it too hard for his Thai-based astrologers to calculate the opportune time for interviews with BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera without his precise geographical whereabouts?
Chang Noi on the “grey politics of survival”
re: ngangadeelek
Chang Noi says: “in the background” of UDD is Thaksin, “in the background of PAD is “military power and meddling”
I ask: Can anyone seriously maintain that, on the PAD side, that is ALL ??
What are they? or what do they belong to?
How about the judges, the so-called “Tulakan Phiwat”? Who or what is responsible for bringing forth such phenomenon?
A summary that deliberately avoids such important “background” is a “good piece”?
In fact, as I alreadly point out above, it’s not only bad and dishonest, it’s also factually and analytically wrong.
That the PAD called for, indeed achieved, the maintanance and enhancement of the Royal Power, cannot, factually and analytically, be said to express desire to “move beyond old politics”. A piece that sums up thus cannot be said to be a “good” one.
Regarding what you call my ‘theory’, notice that Chian Noi himself speaks of the military power. Presumably everyone would agree that this is indeed one important facet of old politics? Now, didn’t Prem himself spoke of “jockey” and “owner”? Or should I change my metaphor from “pillar” to “owner”?
(As to the politicians, my advice: please just count how many years of the last 70 plus years the politicians really had been in power, compare with other groups.)
Finally, the issue of The Nation should not be an excuse, in the context of an article that aims to provide an “overall” summary of recent politics. If one cannot write honestly what ‘actors’ or ‘factors’ are centrally involved in the current crises, then DON’T WRITE AT ALL.
To ‘sum up’ that ‘in the background’ of the PAD is ‘the military’ (and nothing more, not even the ‘judges’ and the ‘privy councilers’), and that the PAD “want to move beyond old politics’ while it’s more than obvious to everyone that it ‘stands for” the monarchy, is just that : DISHONESTY.
Aid and politics after Cyclone Nargis
The Emergency Assistance Team (EAT) – Burma and the Johns Hopkins Center for
Public Health and Human Rights welcome the debate now underway around the findings
of our report “After the Storm: Voices from the Delta,
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/RWST-7RBQVW/$File/full_report.pdf
Aid and politics after Cyclone Nargis
EAT & AAPP – Nargis Anniversary Press Release and Report
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/eat-aapp-nargis-anniversary-press-release-and-report-1may-english/