The NGO’s help virtually no one but themselves. They stay in their own cosseted section of Phnom Penh and live the high life. It is a disgrace. They should be expelled from the country. They are as corrupt as the government. Ordinary people cannot be blamed for being cynical in the face of this carry on. Get the NGO’s out…yesterday!
Well, Somsak’s #96 and stinkyturner’s #98 comments are very interesting. Even though I find these posts highly sensible, there are still one or two things that bother me. But before I elaborate, please understand that I’ve been an engineer all my life, not a social scientist or a historian. Secondly, English is not my native language. These two things have definitely prevented me from being able to express myself as eloquently as I’d like to.
Somsak: “… if one uphold justice and democracy, no matter how one feel about the PM that was unconstitutionally removed one has to join, or at least support, the fight to undo the injustice and undemocratic way that removed him. …”
It’s quite clear that Somsak’s argument is based on an assumption that democracy is the highest value that any man must uphold. But democracy can also be looked upon as just a western notion which is, arguably, still alienated in many cultures. While I do value democracy and would never support any coup, I also believe that democracy is not equivalent to justice or virtue. This is, however, not to say that I’ll choose a coup over Thaksin nor that I’d approved of everything the PAD had done. But since Thaksin is out, I simply deem it’s in the best interest of Thailand not to have him back into power. Incidentally, that means I’d have to support Abhisit and the Democrat party by default. (I know by saying the last two sentences, I’m open myself to being lambasted by Somsak. He has done it before to Nidhi Eowsriwong when Nidhi said something along this line.)
Somsak: “… Abhisit who was in effect elected by all the unaccountable elements of the elite ….”
Stinkyturner: “… The Democrat Party’s leader became PM via some of the most transparently undemocratic set of circumstances imaginable….”
I agree that the above accusation is valid to some extent. But when you said that Thaksin is democratically elected, how would you respond to the accusation that Thaksin abused his power to rig the process of electing the Election Commission in his favor and that vote buying was rampant among his party members? Isn’t such accusation is equally valid? And please don’t respond by saying that every party does the same thing!
nganadeeleg: This is probably my last post too on this thread. I’m a bit tired. Writing in English on a subject I’m not really a pundit on has taken too much of my time. But I’ll keep coming back to read. This is a highly intellectual forum and I enjoy reading it so much. Thanks everybody here for your contribution. 🙂
Dear Sidh S, as a person who was at the same place with those media (the press area at bakc state over 12 April night)! I could say there was no such a call-off to hunt the media like that from the Red leader. If yes, why a lot of international media persons can walk around the scence “UNTOUCH”. Thairath report just implied a part of story since there were a lot of the media (both thai and international) there captured the scenes but only things favoured the government were reported on both TV and newspaper. Yes, some people (not everyone) attained the red-protest got angry since they recognized only haft-truth reported on the media to help painting the picture of how violent the red could be. There was no report to coverage any cause of how the red protesters got into that angry!! But only the action when the violent act happened. The government have total power to control the media this round with no such a call-out like attact-the-media or control-the-press shouted out of their mounth!
For Thairath’s report, did they tell you “WHICH LEADER” announced that? The phase you quoted is only “THEIR HEAD LINE”. So, are you telling me that only the head line can tell you a full story without any kind of distortion? Thai media had such a history that they put an interesting, emoitonal headline to catch an eye but when you read the inside story… they were different!
Please do answer yourself why people attended the protest got so angry and/or depress with the media? By well cooperating with the government to present only one-side-story is such a good thing any media and journalists could do!! And answer yourself how thai media reacted when the yellow PAD protest happened last year!!
David Brown: My silence does not necessarily mean I agree or disagree with you – I just cannot be bothered further arguing about Thaksin – I want to move on.
“arguably less corrupt or less ethically challenged.”
are you talking about politicians directly supported and serving the privy councillors, senior generals and certain infamous big business?
should you rather say…. “those whose patterns of graft and corruption are accepted because they are shielded by the carefully constructed edifice of Nation, Religion and Monarchy that cannot be questioned by ordinary Thai people”?
this video was taken at Din Daeng about 6am, before dawn, 13 April 09 just after the soldiers advanced on the protesters, it includes footage of soldiers loading apparently dead(?) and wounded into 3 army medical minibusses…
I suspect these are the events eyewitnessed by the monk
it would be nice to link this to where the minibusses took the people/bodies, for example correlating with the time the injured arrived at hospital(s) or whether they were taken into the army camp or the crocodile farm in time for morning breakfast
David & Stinky: I’m just trying to do my bit to help move along that realization process, but its not quite that simple because even when the opposition parties come up with similar policies they are still rejected, despite them being arguably less corrupt or less ethically challenged.
I do accept that it can take quite a while, based on other democracies around the world (8 years for USA, 11 years for Australia etc)
My problem has never really been with the pro-poor policies, but rather with the drug war, the tax evasion, business conflicts of interest and the manipulation of the institutions & media (and his general lack of remorse for certain things).
I also accept that Thaksin is just a part of the problems in Thailand, not the be all end all of it – he’s served his purpose, and I think it would be nice to move beyond him, not back to him.
@David – that’s my point exactly – the opposition to Thaksin is largely made up of forces/affiliations/political parties who don’t really understand democracy at all.
Hence Thaksin kept winning.
RE: your idea that people shift allegiances in democracies – true – but that should also be measured on time – 4 elections in 7 years from 2001 to 2007 with a year and a bit off for the military junta makes it 4elections in 5 1/2 years – just over the standard single term length in more stable democracies (4 to 5 years). So Thaksin never completed two full terms.
thats what democracy is about, the majority do review and update their choices of MPs and hence PM every 3 or 4 years (depending on the agreed period)… and provided there is an opposition with some ideas and commitment to the people it is rare for a leader to get reelected more than 2 or 3 times
which raises the question, why did Thaksin win 3 elections in a row and then his supporters won yet another
maybe, just maybe we should blame it on the woeful opposition made up of Prem, army, Democrats and the PAD… no wonder he kept winning… noone in their right mind would vote for that authoritarnian rabble!
so, invent a reasonable opposition and people may not vote for Thaskin again!
The PAD’s push for a coup back in 2006 was completely undemocratic and illiberal. This is very very clear. Their actions in 2008 were even less democratic and lacked any popular legitimacy whatsoever. To even bring them into a debate about democracy is a waste of time – they are irrelevant to it given both their practice and their policy. Their numbers are also very small now even if they can still call on “muscle” to further their interests.
As for Thaksin – he can correctly claim that on 3 occasions the party he headed won democratic elections that were accepted as valid by the entire international community. On a fourth occasion he was deemed to be the leader in all but name. I personally don’t doubt Thaksin’s cronyism, corruption nor his push for a benevolent Singaporean style dictatorship. But he did achieve power via the ballot box and was only removed from it by a military coup.
Abhisit, while able to secure power constitutionally, heads a party that hasn’t won a general election for a generation. And even today, given all the troubles of the last weeks, would possibly lose a vote should one be called. The Democrat Party’s leader became PM via some of the most transparently undemocratic set of circumstances imaginable – backing the fundamentally undemocratic PAD; army support; dodgy court decisions. On top of all this PM Abhisit, in order to secure power has jumped into bed with some of the most corrupt and thuggish elements of the previous Thaksin-led coalition (Newin faction).
Yet somehow, as if by sleight of hand Thaksin is painted as the personification of non-democracy by various commentators and PAD fantasists. These same fantasists champion the army-led constitution of 2007 and point to the 57% yes vote for its legitimacy. Yet they cannot accept the results of 4 previous general elections. The hypocrisy is as staggering as it is obvious.
Now I’m not saying I support Thaksin. A genuinely progressive social democrat alternative to him would be far more preferable. Unfortunately the Democrat Party don’t come anywhere near to that and rely hugely on the cronyism and corruption that Thaksin stands accused of. They have no broad base in the rural poor and ultimately reflect the interests of Thailand’s elites so are unrepresentative.
However, I would surmise that on a personal level Abhisit is probably more of an instinctive democrat than Thaksin. But Abhisit has been fatally hamstrung by the way he took power and the allies he has chosen. Furthermore his attempts to reconcile the differences in Thailand have been nothing short of pathetic – the arrogance of the present regime (epitomised by Kasit’s appointment as FM) has had a direct impact on creating the present situation. I am not sure how much of that is of Abhisit’s choosing but he needs to lead the “liberal” part of The Democrats towards the centrist part of the Red Shirts. It is the only way stability can be achieved and that the wounds can be healed enough for new elections to be called.
The other alternative – and one I fear will come to pass – is another coup followed by 5+ years of military rule.
Hopefully, sometime in the future, the majority will be able to reject a Thaksin (for his dark side), without an elite minority doing it for them (by the wrong means, and most probably for the wrong reasons).
Those who wish to argue that Thaksin is unsuitable PM material based on his record, and use those arguments to attempt to persuade others (including existing supporters of Thaksin)
Let me remind you and others that Plato doesn’t just ‘wish to argue that Thaksin is unsuitable PM material..’ but criticize those ‘demos’ supporters of Thaksin that their claim to fight for justice and democracy is not credible and that he will only join their fight if they didn’t stop insisting on fighting with Thaksin as their leader.
But even disregard what I just said, from justice and democracy standpoint, I still find the people you characterise above pretentious for two reasons:
First, even if it’s true that ‘Thaksin is unsuitable PM material’, was he not unconstitutionally (illegally) and therefore unjustly removed? The removal of an elected PM by unconstutionaly means (the coup) is unjust not only to him by to all citizens who live under the constituton. And its’ undemocratic because it’s against the will of the majority of people who elected that PM.
Therefore if one uphold justice and democracy, no matter how one feel about the PM that was unconstitutionally removed one has to join, or at least support, the fight to undo the injustice and undemocratic way that removed him. To criticize, as Plato does, that the demos’ movement has no justice and democratic credential because they insist on choosing leader of their own (not accepting leader like Abhisit who was in effect elected by all the unaccountable elements of the elite) and on fighting for justice for him, make one’s claim of upholding justice and democracy, pretentious.
Second, I just said that ‘even if it’s true that Thaksin is unsuitable PM material’, but of course in modern society, in today’s Thailand, it’s just impossible to achieve uninamity on such issue. For every person who thinks Thaksin unsuitable, there are others, possibly more, who think exactly the opposite. One shouldn’t have the illusion that one is a ‘de-va-da’ whose opinion must be followed by others or whose status allows one to disregard the opinion of others, more numerous (the ‘demos’). (Notice the difference with issue I argue at #91 Everyone is entitled to think his/her opinion is right, and others’ wrong. But to try to impose one’s opinion – by coup d’tat, no less – against the majority, or not to accept the majority rule, is different matter.) Democracy in the sense of political rule and decision by the majority is just the fairest way to ‘manage’ this inevitable division of modern society. It is in this sense that I’d accept what you sum up for me, Thaksin elected, therefore he is acceptable, provided that it’s understood to be the consequence of this division of opinions in modern society, based on principle that no one or no group of persons has the ‘de-va-da’ status over others, especially the majority. To claim to love democracy or justice, but cannot accept the choice of the majority is for me just ‘dat-ja-rit’.
P.S. to ‘Portman’ #94: my view is ‘convoluted’ and ‘arcane’? How?
So far they have been fairly restrained, but hopefully the current government does not follow it’s predecessors by adding things like ‘communist’ and ‘republican’ to the above list.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Great thanks for this riveting first-hand account.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
amazing post !
Thanks ….
Cambodia’s four letter word: NGOs
The NGO’s help virtually no one but themselves. They stay in their own cosseted section of Phnom Penh and live the high life. It is a disgrace. They should be expelled from the country. They are as corrupt as the government. Ordinary people cannot be blamed for being cynical in the face of this carry on. Get the NGO’s out…yesterday!
Crackdown on the reds?
Well, Somsak’s #96 and stinkyturner’s #98 comments are very interesting. Even though I find these posts highly sensible, there are still one or two things that bother me. But before I elaborate, please understand that I’ve been an engineer all my life, not a social scientist or a historian. Secondly, English is not my native language. These two things have definitely prevented me from being able to express myself as eloquently as I’d like to.
Somsak: “… if one uphold justice and democracy, no matter how one feel about the PM that was unconstitutionally removed one has to join, or at least support, the fight to undo the injustice and undemocratic way that removed him. …”
It’s quite clear that Somsak’s argument is based on an assumption that democracy is the highest value that any man must uphold. But democracy can also be looked upon as just a western notion which is, arguably, still alienated in many cultures. While I do value democracy and would never support any coup, I also believe that democracy is not equivalent to justice or virtue. This is, however, not to say that I’ll choose a coup over Thaksin nor that I’d approved of everything the PAD had done. But since Thaksin is out, I simply deem it’s in the best interest of Thailand not to have him back into power. Incidentally, that means I’d have to support Abhisit and the Democrat party by default. (I know by saying the last two sentences, I’m open myself to being lambasted by Somsak. He has done it before to Nidhi Eowsriwong when Nidhi said something along this line.)
Somsak: “… Abhisit who was in effect elected by all the unaccountable elements of the elite ….”
Stinkyturner: “… The Democrat Party’s leader became PM via some of the most transparently undemocratic set of circumstances imaginable….”
I agree that the above accusation is valid to some extent. But when you said that Thaksin is democratically elected, how would you respond to the accusation that Thaksin abused his power to rig the process of electing the Election Commission in his favor and that vote buying was rampant among his party members? Isn’t such accusation is equally valid? And please don’t respond by saying that every party does the same thing!
nganadeeleg: This is probably my last post too on this thread. I’m a bit tired. Writing in English on a subject I’m not really a pundit on has taken too much of my time. But I’ll keep coming back to read. This is a highly intellectual forum and I enjoy reading it so much. Thanks everybody here for your contribution. 🙂
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
Dear Sidh S, as a person who was at the same place with those media (the press area at bakc state over 12 April night)! I could say there was no such a call-off to hunt the media like that from the Red leader. If yes, why a lot of international media persons can walk around the scence “UNTOUCH”. Thairath report just implied a part of story since there were a lot of the media (both thai and international) there captured the scenes but only things favoured the government were reported on both TV and newspaper. Yes, some people (not everyone) attained the red-protest got angry since they recognized only haft-truth reported on the media to help painting the picture of how violent the red could be. There was no report to coverage any cause of how the red protesters got into that angry!! But only the action when the violent act happened. The government have total power to control the media this round with no such a call-out like attact-the-media or control-the-press shouted out of their mounth!
For Thairath’s report, did they tell you “WHICH LEADER” announced that? The phase you quoted is only “THEIR HEAD LINE”. So, are you telling me that only the head line can tell you a full story without any kind of distortion? Thai media had such a history that they put an interesting, emoitonal headline to catch an eye but when you read the inside story… they were different!
Please do answer yourself why people attended the protest got so angry and/or depress with the media? By well cooperating with the government to present only one-side-story is such a good thing any media and journalists could do!! And answer yourself how thai media reacted when the yellow PAD protest happened last year!!
Crackdown on the reds?
David Brown: My silence does not necessarily mean I agree or disagree with you – I just cannot be bothered further arguing about Thaksin – I want to move on.
Crackdown on the reds?
nga…. good grief…..
“arguably less corrupt or less ethically challenged.”
are you talking about politicians directly supported and serving the privy councillors, senior generals and certain infamous big business?
should you rather say…. “those whose patterns of graft and corruption are accepted because they are shielded by the carefully constructed edifice of Nation, Religion and Monarchy that cannot be questioned by ordinary Thai people”?
Curry ordeal tests personal constitution
Those put to death by Thaksin’s esquadras de muerte were not offered any colour curry or due process.
Upcoming piece from Nick Nostitz
Now at last we may be able to see the trucks loaded with dead red shirts – or were they really blue shirts in disguise.
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
note that the photoblog at
http://photojourn.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/monk-i-saw-thai-army-shoot-monk-and-people-at-din-daeng/
now contains link to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_vjXQntWeQ
this video was taken at Din Daeng about 6am, before dawn, 13 April 09 just after the soldiers advanced on the protesters, it includes footage of soldiers loading apparently dead(?) and wounded into 3 army medical minibusses…
I suspect these are the events eyewitnessed by the monk
it would be nice to link this to where the minibusses took the people/bodies, for example correlating with the time the injured arrived at hospital(s) or whether they were taken into the army camp or the crocodile farm in time for morning breakfast
Crackdown on the reds?
David & Stinky: I’m just trying to do my bit to help move along that realization process, but its not quite that simple because even when the opposition parties come up with similar policies they are still rejected, despite them being arguably less corrupt or less ethically challenged.
I do accept that it can take quite a while, based on other democracies around the world (8 years for USA, 11 years for Australia etc)
My problem has never really been with the pro-poor policies, but rather with the drug war, the tax evasion, business conflicts of interest and the manipulation of the institutions & media (and his general lack of remorse for certain things).
I also accept that Thaksin is just a part of the problems in Thailand, not the be all end all of it – he’s served his purpose, and I think it would be nice to move beyond him, not back to him.
Crackdown on the reds?
@David – that’s my point exactly – the opposition to Thaksin is largely made up of forces/affiliations/political parties who don’t really understand democracy at all.
Hence Thaksin kept winning.
RE: your idea that people shift allegiances in democracies – true – but that should also be measured on time – 4 elections in 7 years from 2001 to 2007 with a year and a bit off for the military junta makes it 4elections in 5 1/2 years – just over the standard single term length in more stable democracies (4 to 5 years). So Thaksin never completed two full terms.
Crackdown on the reds?
nga #97
thats what democracy is about, the majority do review and update their choices of MPs and hence PM every 3 or 4 years (depending on the agreed period)… and provided there is an opposition with some ideas and commitment to the people it is rare for a leader to get reelected more than 2 or 3 times
which raises the question, why did Thaksin win 3 elections in a row and then his supporters won yet another
maybe, just maybe we should blame it on the woeful opposition made up of Prem, army, Democrats and the PAD… no wonder he kept winning… noone in their right mind would vote for that authoritarnian rabble!
so, invent a reasonable opposition and people may not vote for Thaskin again!
keep the same opposition, he will keep winning!
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
They have found Thaksin a new career. He’s now a singer/rapper. The music starts at 0:40. Please watch and comment it there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLW1G1vhxWM
Crackdown on the reds?
My view is this –
The PAD’s push for a coup back in 2006 was completely undemocratic and illiberal. This is very very clear. Their actions in 2008 were even less democratic and lacked any popular legitimacy whatsoever. To even bring them into a debate about democracy is a waste of time – they are irrelevant to it given both their practice and their policy. Their numbers are also very small now even if they can still call on “muscle” to further their interests.
As for Thaksin – he can correctly claim that on 3 occasions the party he headed won democratic elections that were accepted as valid by the entire international community. On a fourth occasion he was deemed to be the leader in all but name. I personally don’t doubt Thaksin’s cronyism, corruption nor his push for a benevolent Singaporean style dictatorship. But he did achieve power via the ballot box and was only removed from it by a military coup.
Abhisit, while able to secure power constitutionally, heads a party that hasn’t won a general election for a generation. And even today, given all the troubles of the last weeks, would possibly lose a vote should one be called. The Democrat Party’s leader became PM via some of the most transparently undemocratic set of circumstances imaginable – backing the fundamentally undemocratic PAD; army support; dodgy court decisions. On top of all this PM Abhisit, in order to secure power has jumped into bed with some of the most corrupt and thuggish elements of the previous Thaksin-led coalition (Newin faction).
Yet somehow, as if by sleight of hand Thaksin is painted as the personification of non-democracy by various commentators and PAD fantasists. These same fantasists champion the army-led constitution of 2007 and point to the 57% yes vote for its legitimacy. Yet they cannot accept the results of 4 previous general elections. The hypocrisy is as staggering as it is obvious.
Now I’m not saying I support Thaksin. A genuinely progressive social democrat alternative to him would be far more preferable. Unfortunately the Democrat Party don’t come anywhere near to that and rely hugely on the cronyism and corruption that Thaksin stands accused of. They have no broad base in the rural poor and ultimately reflect the interests of Thailand’s elites so are unrepresentative.
However, I would surmise that on a personal level Abhisit is probably more of an instinctive democrat than Thaksin. But Abhisit has been fatally hamstrung by the way he took power and the allies he has chosen. Furthermore his attempts to reconcile the differences in Thailand have been nothing short of pathetic – the arrogance of the present regime (epitomised by Kasit’s appointment as FM) has had a direct impact on creating the present situation. I am not sure how much of that is of Abhisit’s choosing but he needs to lead the “liberal” part of The Democrats towards the centrist part of the Red Shirts. It is the only way stability can be achieved and that the wounds can be healed enough for new elections to be called.
The other alternative – and one I fear will come to pass – is another coup followed by 5+ years of military rule.
Crackdown on the reds?
Ajarn Somsak: Thanks for the explanation.
Hopefully, sometime in the future, the majority will be able to reject a Thaksin (for his dark side), without an elite minority doing it for them (by the wrong means, and most probably for the wrong reasons).
Crackdown on the reds?
nganadeelek #95:
Those who wish to argue that Thaksin is unsuitable PM material based on his record, and use those arguments to attempt to persuade others (including existing supporters of Thaksin)
Let me remind you and others that Plato doesn’t just ‘wish to argue that Thaksin is unsuitable PM material..’ but criticize those ‘demos’ supporters of Thaksin that their claim to fight for justice and democracy is not credible and that he will only join their fight if they didn’t stop insisting on fighting with Thaksin as their leader.
But even disregard what I just said, from justice and democracy standpoint, I still find the people you characterise above pretentious for two reasons:
First, even if it’s true that ‘Thaksin is unsuitable PM material’, was he not unconstitutionally (illegally) and therefore unjustly removed? The removal of an elected PM by unconstutionaly means (the coup) is unjust not only to him by to all citizens who live under the constituton. And its’ undemocratic because it’s against the will of the majority of people who elected that PM.
Therefore if one uphold justice and democracy, no matter how one feel about the PM that was unconstitutionally removed one has to join, or at least support, the fight to undo the injustice and undemocratic way that removed him. To criticize, as Plato does, that the demos’ movement has no justice and democratic credential because they insist on choosing leader of their own (not accepting leader like Abhisit who was in effect elected by all the unaccountable elements of the elite) and on fighting for justice for him, make one’s claim of upholding justice and democracy, pretentious.
Second, I just said that ‘even if it’s true that Thaksin is unsuitable PM material’, but of course in modern society, in today’s Thailand, it’s just impossible to achieve uninamity on such issue. For every person who thinks Thaksin unsuitable, there are others, possibly more, who think exactly the opposite. One shouldn’t have the illusion that one is a ‘de-va-da’ whose opinion must be followed by others or whose status allows one to disregard the opinion of others, more numerous (the ‘demos’). (Notice the difference with issue I argue at #91 Everyone is entitled to think his/her opinion is right, and others’ wrong. But to try to impose one’s opinion – by coup d’tat, no less – against the majority, or not to accept the majority rule, is different matter.) Democracy in the sense of political rule and decision by the majority is just the fairest way to ‘manage’ this inevitable division of modern society. It is in this sense that I’d accept what you sum up for me, Thaksin elected, therefore he is acceptable, provided that it’s understood to be the consequence of this division of opinions in modern society, based on principle that no one or no group of persons has the ‘de-va-da’ status over others, especially the majority. To claim to love democracy or justice, but cannot accept the choice of the majority is for me just ‘dat-ja-rit’.
P.S. to ‘Portman’ #94: my view is ‘convoluted’ and ‘arcane’? How?
Upcoming piece from Nick Nostitz
I sincerely hope it is objective, as it’s getting quite depressing wading through all the spin.
My advice: Just show it as it was, irrespective of whether the ‘team’ you barracked for did right or wrong.
The yellow lesson
So far they have been fairly restrained, but hopefully the current government does not follow it’s predecessors by adding things like ‘communist’ and ‘republican’ to the above list.
The yellow lesson
HRK: So do you condone and justify all and any violent acts by the red shirts and Thaksin?
Starting to sound a bit like the drug war to me, except substitute ‘elite’, ‘yellow’, or ‘Abhisit’ for the word ‘drug dealer’.