WLD #19, I agree that Thaksin’s best chance now would be to come back to Thailand and go to trial from jail on the charges that are still pending against him. I think the cases in the Supreme Court’s division for political office holders are already public. It is up to the discretion of the court but I can’t remember any recent trials there (e.g. Thaksin, Wattana) being held in camera. At Pojaman’s trial the Criminal Court allowed TV coverage. Thaksin was allowed permission to travel presumably to allow him to go into exile, as the idea of him becoming a jailed martyr was not viewed in certain quarters as being in the nation’s interests. If Thaksin develops his latest phone in references to “901” much further he will risk adding LM charges to the ones he is already facing. That would guarantee him a trial in camera on a criminal charge that could not be dismissed under an amnesty or constitutional amendment revoking the legality of acts under the authority of the junta.
Sidh, you raised an interesting point regarding the question of whose ideals (religious, political (if i understand u correctly)) . I don’t think ‘ideals ‘should be imposed on people. I guess what is much more important is to create a society in which different group of people have equal freedom and right to propose and adhere to their ‘ideals’ without the fear of being intimidated, threatened or branded as traitors. Thi s is not the case in Thai society because difference is hardly accepted here, let alone appreciated. And as u said, a number of mainstream norms and beliefs are problematic, so to allow them to remain unchallenged will make a society more conservative and oppressive. I notice that many times in yr posts u emphasize that LM law is not a major concern of the majority of Thai people at all.Well, but u can’t deny that some Thais are worried abt it and even if they are not that many in number, u can’t dismiss their worry as insignificant. Doing so means that u implicitly impose the mainstream view on the minority(but are there really very few Thais who are concerned abt LM law as u put it?) and in a way this can be applied to religious stuff as well.Simply because many Thais believe in ‘mainstream’ Buddhist teachings do not mean that Buddhadasa’s teachings are not worth discussing (well, I know u didn’t say this though), and I don’t think those who encourage others to follow his teachings can do so without ‘imposing’ their ideals on others..there should be other better ways.. if a society is truly pluralistic, open and willing to accept difference .
It’s easy to dismiss the UDD as being scattered, unfocused, and lacking real leadership. But a year ago, when the PAD started making noise again, many of us (certainly I) dismissed them as has-beens whose peak had been the 2006 coup. With Thaksin gone, surely the PAD lacked the Bangkok middle-class support needed for any real impact? We all know what happened next.
Granted the UDD is unlikely to get the same white knight protection as the PAD, but it’s unwise to dismiss them based on current appearances.
I think Thaksin’s best move would be to come to Thailand, go to jail, and demand a public trial. He’s got the resources to mount a massive defense that implicates just about every one of his enemies for crimes that he’s been charged with. Being here would make a rallying point for his followers, especially as a jailed martyr. Showing some guts would also win over much of the center, though not all of course. Sure, he’d have only a 50% chance of living another year, but reward is always proportional to risk.
Is Hedda right about Thaksin? A contrary argument could go something like this:-
The real reason for the coup is that in corruptly doling out opportunities for rich profits, Thaksin got the balance wrong: too many for his civilian cronies and not enough for key generals. This is what those generals mean by “disloyal”. Thaksin was too much part of the old, essentially lawless system to lead his country out of captivity. If he had got the balance right and stayed prime minister, behind the scenes Thailand would have remained, as it does now, very much in the hands of the armed robbers in uniform.
Today, Giles Ji Ungpakorn’s cousin, the Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij explains the steeper-than-expected economic deterioration that Thailand’s economy will shrink by a sharp 3% this year, worse than previously forecast.
Korn says, “The 3% shrinkage forecast has already taken into account figures that are the expected outcomes of the government’s finance policies that will be implemented this year. Without economic stimulus measures from the government, Thailand’s economy could contract by 8% or 9% this year, which could cause almost 2 million workers nationwide to lose their jobs. The government would also issue a royal decree to authorize the government to spend the existing 17 billion baht in revenues gained from the digit lottery program launched in 2003 during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration.”
Being Giles’s cousin, Korn practices the family’s tradition of being honest. I appreciate this fact. I would like to see able people with integrity lead the country. The country is deeply divided with serious economic deterioration, I hope to see Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Jakrapob Penkair, Thaksin Shinawatra, Korn Chatikavanij, Boonsrang Niempradit come together.
Giles is one of the best son Thailand ever produced. Thailand can trust Giles on the matters of national security, economy, and politics. I look forward to his leadership.
First a quick note about the limitations of anecdotal evidence: the very next day after my passing by the largely deserted UDD ‘sit in’ at Wat Phra Singh(#11), I hear that over 10 000 redshirts gathered at 700 year stadium just outside Chiang Mai… I was not there, but I am certain that that would have looked a whole lot more inspiring 😉
Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go for the UDD… and I don’t think Thaksin can be the man to move them forward (Hedda, #13). My reasons:
Firstly, he is just too polarizing a figure these days; Thaksin carries too much ‘baggage’. Indeed, I believe that only a full scale and probably bloody revolution which totally redraws the power-political map in Thailand could bring him back to power. I think that that is neither a likely nor desirable scenario.
Secondly, I have some uneasiness about his long-term commitment to democratic values – it is after all easy to be a champion of democracy so long as people vote for you, but true democratic values are shown in accepting electoral defeat (lets keep in mind that Robert Mugabe too started out as a ‘committed democrat’). Basically, I am not (yet) totally convinced that Thaksin views democracy as an end in itself. Thus, if the UDD is to become a true force for democratic change in Thailand, I believe that they would be well advised to move beyond Thaksin.
Don’t get me wrong, Thaksin did much good for Thailand. I certainly appreciate the invaluable contribution he made in ‘awakening’ and empowering the rural and urban poor. This is undoubtedly his lasting and greatest contribution to the democratization of Thailand, for which he will and should be remembered – regardless of any concerns about whether he did this out of genuine commitment to democracy or clever political calculation, because in the end it is the result that matters. But now it should be up to new leaders, civil society groups and the people themselves to utilize the potential he unleashed.
“There was fear that a government would use its absolute MAJORITY .. for its own self-interest, this is why when the military staged a coup in 2006, it was met with a sense of relief among the majority of people”
I wondered which head he used to come up with such an idiotic statement! If the 2006 coup was such a relief among the MAJORITY, one would think those MAJORITY would get rid of Thaksin’s government at the BALLOT BOX!
Just in case he forgets to learn from Oxford – “Democracy” is “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system”. In other words, it is the will of the people that governs, not one person or a group of persons, and if the government is doing its job then the will of the people who elected them is being put forth. Not only that, but the “will of the people” means that the people have the absolute right to overthrow the government at the next scheduled election, IF a majority of them want that government overthrown.
If the Thai elitists accusing the Thai democracy of having a government elected by the uneducated, then the government by the aristocracy as the statement by PM Apisit stated above it must then be a dictatorship government by the badly educated! And by that, I mean that the aristocracy has simply chosen to ignore “one person, one vote” in favor of a government that favors its own narrow interests.
The government in Thailand today is not a “democratic” government in any sense at all. It is merely a dictatorship by a minority who has chosen to serve its own interests over that of the majority and of the nation as a whole.
regarding “Thaksin, regardless of his tarnished democratic credentials”
despite my efforts to discover fire where there is smoke I still find that Thaksin is quite unfairly smeared by his enemies, Sondhi Lim et al…. much less if at all corrupt than any of his accusers
and thankfully, many people retain their faith in him
I think THaksin should be allowed to throw his hat into a new free election and, if elected, as you say he has the best chance to subjugate the military!
then Thailand can move forward with more equal opportunity for all… and the rich, even with their power trimmed will not be treated badly, just have to compete more fairly with their current servants and economic slaves .
David, I am not sure I can agree with Giles’ view of Jakropob Penkair’s leadership potential and ability to broaden out the red shirts’ aims to encompass real political development. I do agree he has performed fairly well recently in helping to keep the red shirts relatively well behaved to avoid the same type of excesses as the yellow shirts. However, when I think back to his performance as Thaksin’s government spokesman he appeared more than willing to spout the usual vacuous nonsense that is the hallmark of Thai ganster politicians, military and police who believe they are above the law and don’t need to even take the trouble to think up convincing lies.
I don’t agree with Giles that Thailand needs a Marxist style revolution or to get rid of the monarchy. But I do think it is high time that Thailand had a political movement based on democratic principles, social justice and zero tolerance for corruption. Key to this is persuading the middle classes that they are actually disadvantaged by corruption which drains national resources away from economic and social development . As it is, it is a face thing for the middle class to believe that corruption benefits them and every one knows of secretaries who are proud of knowing a policeman or customs officer that gives them some miniscule advantages. Why bother with old fashioned class war dialectics when the middle class is so much larger and more powerful than in the 70s when the class war failed anyway? It would make much more sense to bring the new bourgeoisie on board with interests aligned with rural people and workers to uproot corruption and make the police, military, police and other civil servants accountable. The red shirts are too steeped in gansterism and corruption to be this movement.
On the other hand, Giles absolutely hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Thaksin is a capitalist politician for whom populist policies were only a cynical means to achieve social peace at the lowest possible price. As Giles said, Thaksin had no interest in ensuring that his policies were properly funded, so that they would be of substantive benefit to the poor, because that would have meant raising taxation of the wealthy to levels comparable to developed countries that have sustainable social welfare programmes.
Personally I don’t see anything good coming out a movement centred on Thaksin. Perhaps a non-economic cataclysmic event is, indeed, on the way, David. Otherwise social and political reform will be more evolutionary over the next couple of generations when Thaksin, Jakrophob, Sondhi et al are mere blots in sanitised Thai history books.
The debate on the lèse–majesté law quickly becomes clouded by thoughts of and respect for HM King Bhumipol Adulyadej and that should not be so, at least not for the “obvious” reasons..
The lèse–majesté law has nothing to do with HM or with any Thai king. The Thai King has no say in its application. He can only act after the fact to undo the damages done in his name. In this sense the lèse–majesté law enables routine acts of lèse–majesté by those enforcing it.
In truth the lèse–majesté law is in place to provide those in power, whoever they may be at the time, with unassailable grounds on which to imprison people without trial and to prevent discussion of their actions in doing so. This is not unlike the powers wielded by the Islamic Taleban today or the Christian inquisitions that occur from time to time in the West. Even when sufficient evidence of the authorities’ abuses reaches broad enough dissemination for HM the King to act and to release their victims from the grasp of their enemies in government those so abused will still have served months or years of their “sentence” prior to their finally being tried, sentenced, and subsequently freed by royal decree.
After a long discussion of the history of the lèse–majesté laws in “Ramification and Re-Sacralization of the Lèse Majesté Law in Thailand”, Somchai Preechasilpakul and David Streckfuss made three suggestions to bring the lèse–majesté more nearly in line with its avowed purpose. One cut to the heart of the matter : add the condition that “Prosecution of any defamation pursuant to Section 112 shall be initiated only by order of the King or with his consent”
As it is now the lèse–majesté law, despite its title, is nothing but a carte blanche means of arbitrary oppression of the government’s political opponents the very use of which amounts to an act of lèse–majesté itself.
Some interesting analysis about who might lead a genuine democratic movement in Thailand, which largely ignores the question of whether Thaksin, regardless of his tarnished democratic credentials, may be the only living Thai politician who has the smarts, guts and self-interest to get the Thai army under civilian control and out of catering coups for the Bangkok elite.
Unless and until the boys in tanks are brought to heel, the cycle of coups “defending the monarchy” will continue, leaving the revolution of 1932 an aborted dream. Thaksin may be the only politician with a national reputation and motive to break that vicious cycle and establish civilian control over the army once and for all.
I take it that James is one of those assigned to get good publicity for Abhisit and Thailand. A stooge of the government. Oh, sorry, jumping to conclusions that might be unwarranted. But, then again, James seems to be able to assess a contributor’s position from a short post. Which bit of Jessie’s post was offensive James? Can’t be the bit about the military backing the Democrats as that is well known.
Quote from The Committee to Protect Journalists re the 2001 FEER LM incident: “Problems began to surface in January after the Dow Jones–owned Far Eastern Economic Review published a short article about tensions between Thaksin and the country’s revered monarch, King Bumibol Adulyadej. Police banned the issue and threatened to expel the magazine’s two Bangkok correspondents, claiming that the pair had violated Thailand’s tough lèse majesté laws, which forbid public discussion of internal palace issues and ban critical commentary about the royal family. The royal palace did not publicly complain about the article, and many observers believe the magazine’s frequently harsh criticism of Thaksin motivated the action.”
Perhaps Thaksin was under pressure, as FEER’s comments could have been interpreted as far more offensive than Harry Nicolaides’ unreadable and unread twaddle, but no doubt he found the LM law very convenient in that instance. There is no reason to suspect that, if restored to power, he would not see it again as a useful tool to have in his arsenal to silence critics or that the red shirts, if they ever evolve any political platform other than restoring their sponsor to power and getting their own snouts back into the trough, would see it any differently. Meanwhile, Thaksin is still instructing his lawyers to file defamation suits in Thailand, indicating that he retains faith in the Thai legal system that he has fled.
to amberwves (#8)… yes, revolutions are born of wishful thinking, but they need a lot more than that to grow up… but point taken, maybe I should have said that Giles ‘analysis is’ “for the time being at least”, above all wishful thinking…
Many thanks indeed for your insightful comments so far!
I would definetly agree that Giles ‘analysis’ is above all wishful thinking… if this can count as anecdotal evidence, I passed by the UDD ‘sit in’ near Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai on Saturday; a middle age lady giving a half-hearted speech to eight rows of largely empty chairs (there was perhaps a total of 15 people gathered) did not look too inspiring…
As regards the UDD’s need for “real political leadeship” (#2 and #5)… some see Jakrapob Penkair as someone who should step up (it seems Giles shares this view)… I know he is not exactly a ‘fresh face’… but he does represent a younger generation and seems to be genuinely committed and an honest guy. Could he be someone to bring a “real political program” and thus a different style of leadership in the medium-long term, or is he just another smooth-talker (perhaps a ‘red’ Abhisit)? What do you think of him?
Portman (#4), I believe that a potentially ‘cataclysmic’ event might not be too far off, and I dont mean the economic crisis… interesting as it would be to talk about this, I absolutely agree with Jeffrey (#1), discussion of certain things is not a completely undangerous thing in Thailand these days…
“Giles is not the right messenger for the Red Shirts. He is a marginal player in Thai politics at best and primarily served as a gad-fly. Even in the Thai labour movement, his support was marginal and limited at best.” > The refreshing voice of a realist…
seems to me that the Redshirts do have a solid underpinning:
Based on rule by freely and universally elected government rather than by military supported politicians
I have found many arguments about current political affairs are
dismissed by those that are for the military side, as foreigners not understanding “thainess”.
My understanding now is that Thailand is “different” because, like
Burma, the military has strengthened their hold on business and politics in Thailand unlike most other societies (worth comparing) where the military are subjugated to civilian political control.
In Thailand, unlike Burma, the military have achieved this by using the Monarchy and its popular appeal as cover. Why the Thai Monarchy has seen fit to support the military is a real question, probably bound up with strong military personalities and their ability to convince the Monarch that His reign is in danger, from democrats, communists and now republicans.
How in Europe and other developed societies did the civilian politicians manage to subjugate the military? How did they enforce rules such as no public servants, including the military, can engage in private business while serving? How did they enforce rules that the military are not permitted to engage in actions against their own people?
While I think Giles has gone too far and too fast in calling directly for the abolition of the monarchy I think Giles has raised serious questions about the history and current performance of the monarchy that have to be resolved. Why, in Thailand, has the Monarch appointed “retired” military officers to his Privy Council and implicitly given them power over the Thai people? Why does the Monarch permit a continuation of the exercise of Lese Majeste when He has no control over who is charged and for what?
On this last point, I would support (the Netherlands?) Les Majeste where:
– charges can be brought only by a senior member of the Royal Family who claims to be affected,
– all facts of the case and proceedings are published and,
– like ordinary defamation, truth is a defence,
– trial by jury of Thai citizens is required,
– punishments fit the crime and are proportionate.
I think these questions and their resolution are all steps on the path of the redshirt movement.
I agree Joy – however, the challenge will always remain on how to get from the ‘problematic’ mainstream (e.g. current crop of elected politicians) to those ‘ideal’ fringe practices (e.g. the ideals of democracy). Then there’s the question of who’s ideals are we discussing here? A small section of Thai society? Western academics? Yours? Mine?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
UDD – where to?
WLD #19, I agree that Thaksin’s best chance now would be to come back to Thailand and go to trial from jail on the charges that are still pending against him. I think the cases in the Supreme Court’s division for political office holders are already public. It is up to the discretion of the court but I can’t remember any recent trials there (e.g. Thaksin, Wattana) being held in camera. At Pojaman’s trial the Criminal Court allowed TV coverage. Thaksin was allowed permission to travel presumably to allow him to go into exile, as the idea of him becoming a jailed martyr was not viewed in certain quarters as being in the nation’s interests. If Thaksin develops his latest phone in references to “901” much further he will risk adding LM charges to the ones he is already facing. That would guarantee him a trial in camera on a criminal charge that could not be dismissed under an amnesty or constitutional amendment revoking the legality of acts under the authority of the junta.
From the archives: Region of Revolt
Sidh, you raised an interesting point regarding the question of whose ideals (religious, political (if i understand u correctly)) . I don’t think ‘ideals ‘should be imposed on people. I guess what is much more important is to create a society in which different group of people have equal freedom and right to propose and adhere to their ‘ideals’ without the fear of being intimidated, threatened or branded as traitors. Thi s is not the case in Thai society because difference is hardly accepted here, let alone appreciated. And as u said, a number of mainstream norms and beliefs are problematic, so to allow them to remain unchallenged will make a society more conservative and oppressive. I notice that many times in yr posts u emphasize that LM law is not a major concern of the majority of Thai people at all.Well, but u can’t deny that some Thais are worried abt it and even if they are not that many in number, u can’t dismiss their worry as insignificant. Doing so means that u implicitly impose the mainstream view on the minority(but are there really very few Thais who are concerned abt LM law as u put it?) and in a way this can be applied to religious stuff as well.Simply because many Thais believe in ‘mainstream’ Buddhist teachings do not mean that Buddhadasa’s teachings are not worth discussing (well, I know u didn’t say this though), and I don’t think those who encourage others to follow his teachings can do so without ‘imposing’ their ideals on others..there should be other better ways.. if a society is truly pluralistic, open and willing to accept difference .
UDD – where to?
It’s easy to dismiss the UDD as being scattered, unfocused, and lacking real leadership. But a year ago, when the PAD started making noise again, many of us (certainly I) dismissed them as has-beens whose peak had been the 2006 coup. With Thaksin gone, surely the PAD lacked the Bangkok middle-class support needed for any real impact? We all know what happened next.
Granted the UDD is unlikely to get the same white knight protection as the PAD, but it’s unwise to dismiss them based on current appearances.
I think Thaksin’s best move would be to come to Thailand, go to jail, and demand a public trial. He’s got the resources to mount a massive defense that implicates just about every one of his enemies for crimes that he’s been charged with. Being here would make a rallying point for his followers, especially as a jailed martyr. Showing some guts would also win over much of the center, though not all of course. Sure, he’d have only a 50% chance of living another year, but reward is always proportional to risk.
UDD – where to?
Is Hedda right about Thaksin? A contrary argument could go something like this:-
The real reason for the coup is that in corruptly doling out opportunities for rich profits, Thaksin got the balance wrong: too many for his civilian cronies and not enough for key generals. This is what those generals mean by “disloyal”. Thaksin was too much part of the old, essentially lawless system to lead his country out of captivity. If he had got the balance right and stayed prime minister, behind the scenes Thailand would have remained, as it does now, very much in the hands of the armed robbers in uniform.
UDD – where to?
Today, Giles Ji Ungpakorn’s cousin, the Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij explains the steeper-than-expected economic deterioration that Thailand’s economy will shrink by a sharp 3% this year, worse than previously forecast.
Korn says, “The 3% shrinkage forecast has already taken into account figures that are the expected outcomes of the government’s finance policies that will be implemented this year. Without economic stimulus measures from the government, Thailand’s economy could contract by 8% or 9% this year, which could cause almost 2 million workers nationwide to lose their jobs. The government would also issue a royal decree to authorize the government to spend the existing 17 billion baht in revenues gained from the digit lottery program launched in 2003 during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration.”
Being Giles’s cousin, Korn practices the family’s tradition of being honest. I appreciate this fact. I would like to see able people with integrity lead the country. The country is deeply divided with serious economic deterioration, I hope to see Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Jakrapob Penkair, Thaksin Shinawatra, Korn Chatikavanij, Boonsrang Niempradit come together.
Giles is one of the best son Thailand ever produced. Thailand can trust Giles on the matters of national security, economy, and politics. I look forward to his leadership.
UDD – where to?
First a quick note about the limitations of anecdotal evidence: the very next day after my passing by the largely deserted UDD ‘sit in’ at Wat Phra Singh(#11), I hear that over 10 000 redshirts gathered at 700 year stadium just outside Chiang Mai… I was not there, but I am certain that that would have looked a whole lot more inspiring 😉
Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go for the UDD… and I don’t think Thaksin can be the man to move them forward (Hedda, #13). My reasons:
Firstly, he is just too polarizing a figure these days; Thaksin carries too much ‘baggage’. Indeed, I believe that only a full scale and probably bloody revolution which totally redraws the power-political map in Thailand could bring him back to power. I think that that is neither a likely nor desirable scenario.
Secondly, I have some uneasiness about his long-term commitment to democratic values – it is after all easy to be a champion of democracy so long as people vote for you, but true democratic values are shown in accepting electoral defeat (lets keep in mind that Robert Mugabe too started out as a ‘committed democrat’). Basically, I am not (yet) totally convinced that Thaksin views democracy as an end in itself. Thus, if the UDD is to become a true force for democratic change in Thailand, I believe that they would be well advised to move beyond Thaksin.
Don’t get me wrong, Thaksin did much good for Thailand. I certainly appreciate the invaluable contribution he made in ‘awakening’ and empowering the rural and urban poor. This is undoubtedly his lasting and greatest contribution to the democratization of Thailand, for which he will and should be remembered – regardless of any concerns about whether he did this out of genuine commitment to democracy or clever political calculation, because in the end it is the result that matters. But now it should be up to new leaders, civil society groups and the people themselves to utilize the potential he unleashed.
Full text of Abhisit speech in Oxford
“There was fear that a government would use its absolute MAJORITY .. for its own self-interest, this is why when the military staged a coup in 2006, it was met with a sense of relief among the majority of people”
I wondered which head he used to come up with such an idiotic statement! If the 2006 coup was such a relief among the MAJORITY, one would think those MAJORITY would get rid of Thaksin’s government at the BALLOT BOX!
Just in case he forgets to learn from Oxford – “Democracy” is “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system”. In other words, it is the will of the people that governs, not one person or a group of persons, and if the government is doing its job then the will of the people who elected them is being put forth. Not only that, but the “will of the people” means that the people have the absolute right to overthrow the government at the next scheduled election, IF a majority of them want that government overthrown.
If the Thai elitists accusing the Thai democracy of having a government elected by the uneducated, then the government by the aristocracy as the statement by PM Apisit stated above it must then be a dictatorship government by the badly educated! And by that, I mean that the aristocracy has simply chosen to ignore “one person, one vote” in favor of a government that favors its own narrow interests.
The government in Thailand today is not a “democratic” government in any sense at all. It is merely a dictatorship by a minority who has chosen to serve its own interests over that of the majority and of the nation as a whole.
UDD – where to?
Hedda #13…. agreed…..
regarding “Thaksin, regardless of his tarnished democratic credentials”
despite my efforts to discover fire where there is smoke I still find that Thaksin is quite unfairly smeared by his enemies, Sondhi Lim et al…. much less if at all corrupt than any of his accusers
and thankfully, many people retain their faith in him
I think THaksin should be allowed to throw his hat into a new free election and, if elected, as you say he has the best chance to subjugate the military!
then Thailand can move forward with more equal opportunity for all… and the rich, even with their power trimmed will not be treated badly, just have to compete more fairly with their current servants and economic slaves .
Rambo and the real war in Burma
Thailand to ask KNU to reconcile with Myanmar government
http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=9176
UDD – where to?
David, I am not sure I can agree with Giles’ view of Jakropob Penkair’s leadership potential and ability to broaden out the red shirts’ aims to encompass real political development. I do agree he has performed fairly well recently in helping to keep the red shirts relatively well behaved to avoid the same type of excesses as the yellow shirts. However, when I think back to his performance as Thaksin’s government spokesman he appeared more than willing to spout the usual vacuous nonsense that is the hallmark of Thai ganster politicians, military and police who believe they are above the law and don’t need to even take the trouble to think up convincing lies.
I don’t agree with Giles that Thailand needs a Marxist style revolution or to get rid of the monarchy. But I do think it is high time that Thailand had a political movement based on democratic principles, social justice and zero tolerance for corruption. Key to this is persuading the middle classes that they are actually disadvantaged by corruption which drains national resources away from economic and social development . As it is, it is a face thing for the middle class to believe that corruption benefits them and every one knows of secretaries who are proud of knowing a policeman or customs officer that gives them some miniscule advantages. Why bother with old fashioned class war dialectics when the middle class is so much larger and more powerful than in the 70s when the class war failed anyway? It would make much more sense to bring the new bourgeoisie on board with interests aligned with rural people and workers to uproot corruption and make the police, military, police and other civil servants accountable. The red shirts are too steeped in gansterism and corruption to be this movement.
On the other hand, Giles absolutely hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Thaksin is a capitalist politician for whom populist policies were only a cynical means to achieve social peace at the lowest possible price. As Giles said, Thaksin had no interest in ensuring that his policies were properly funded, so that they would be of substantive benefit to the poor, because that would have meant raising taxation of the wealthy to levels comparable to developed countries that have sustainable social welfare programmes.
Personally I don’t see anything good coming out a movement centred on Thaksin. Perhaps a non-economic cataclysmic event is, indeed, on the way, David. Otherwise social and political reform will be more evolutionary over the next couple of generations when Thaksin, Jakrophob, Sondhi et al are mere blots in sanitised Thai history books.
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
The debate on the lèse–majesté law quickly becomes clouded by thoughts of and respect for HM King Bhumipol Adulyadej and that should not be so, at least not for the “obvious” reasons..
The lèse–majesté law has nothing to do with HM or with any Thai king. The Thai King has no say in its application. He can only act after the fact to undo the damages done in his name. In this sense the lèse–majesté law enables routine acts of lèse–majesté by those enforcing it.
In truth the lèse–majesté law is in place to provide those in power, whoever they may be at the time, with unassailable grounds on which to imprison people without trial and to prevent discussion of their actions in doing so. This is not unlike the powers wielded by the Islamic Taleban today or the Christian inquisitions that occur from time to time in the West. Even when sufficient evidence of the authorities’ abuses reaches broad enough dissemination for HM the King to act and to release their victims from the grasp of their enemies in government those so abused will still have served months or years of their “sentence” prior to their finally being tried, sentenced, and subsequently freed by royal decree.
After a long discussion of the history of the lèse–majesté laws in “Ramification and Re-Sacralization of the Lèse Majesté Law in Thailand”, Somchai Preechasilpakul and David Streckfuss made three suggestions to bring the lèse–majesté more nearly in line with its avowed purpose. One cut to the heart of the matter : add the condition that “Prosecution of any defamation pursuant to Section 112 shall be initiated only by order of the King or with his consent”
As it is now the lèse–majesté law, despite its title, is nothing but a carte blanche means of arbitrary oppression of the government’s political opponents the very use of which amounts to an act of lèse–majesté itself.
UDD – where to?
Some interesting analysis about who might lead a genuine democratic movement in Thailand, which largely ignores the question of whether Thaksin, regardless of his tarnished democratic credentials, may be the only living Thai politician who has the smarts, guts and self-interest to get the Thai army under civilian control and out of catering coups for the Bangkok elite.
Unless and until the boys in tanks are brought to heel, the cycle of coups “defending the monarchy” will continue, leaving the revolution of 1932 an aborted dream. Thaksin may be the only politician with a national reputation and motive to break that vicious cycle and establish civilian control over the army once and for all.
Full text of Abhisit speech in Oxford
I take it that James is one of those assigned to get good publicity for Abhisit and Thailand. A stooge of the government. Oh, sorry, jumping to conclusions that might be unwarranted. But, then again, James seems to be able to assess a contributor’s position from a short post. Which bit of Jessie’s post was offensive James? Can’t be the bit about the military backing the Democrats as that is well known.
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
Well, hobby, that’d be true for any “reformer” in Thailand, wouldn’t it?
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
Quote from The Committee to Protect Journalists re the 2001 FEER LM incident: “Problems began to surface in January after the Dow Jones–owned Far Eastern Economic Review published a short article about tensions between Thaksin and the country’s revered monarch, King Bumibol Adulyadej. Police banned the issue and threatened to expel the magazine’s two Bangkok correspondents, claiming that the pair had violated Thailand’s tough lèse majesté laws, which forbid public discussion of internal palace issues and ban critical commentary about the royal family. The royal palace did not publicly complain about the article, and many observers believe the magazine’s frequently harsh criticism of Thaksin motivated the action.”
Perhaps Thaksin was under pressure, as FEER’s comments could have been interpreted as far more offensive than Harry Nicolaides’ unreadable and unread twaddle, but no doubt he found the LM law very convenient in that instance. There is no reason to suspect that, if restored to power, he would not see it again as a useful tool to have in his arsenal to silence critics or that the red shirts, if they ever evolve any political platform other than restoring their sponsor to power and getting their own snouts back into the trough, would see it any differently. Meanwhile, Thaksin is still instructing his lawyers to file defamation suits in Thailand, indicating that he retains faith in the Thai legal system that he has fled.
UDD – where to?
to amberwves (#8)… yes, revolutions are born of wishful thinking, but they need a lot more than that to grow up… but point taken, maybe I should have said that Giles ‘analysis is’ “for the time being at least”, above all wishful thinking…
UDD – where to?
Many thanks indeed for your insightful comments so far!
I would definetly agree that Giles ‘analysis’ is above all wishful thinking… if this can count as anecdotal evidence, I passed by the UDD ‘sit in’ near Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai on Saturday; a middle age lady giving a half-hearted speech to eight rows of largely empty chairs (there was perhaps a total of 15 people gathered) did not look too inspiring…
As regards the UDD’s need for “real political leadeship” (#2 and #5)… some see Jakrapob Penkair as someone who should step up (it seems Giles shares this view)… I know he is not exactly a ‘fresh face’… but he does represent a younger generation and seems to be genuinely committed and an honest guy. Could he be someone to bring a “real political program” and thus a different style of leadership in the medium-long term, or is he just another smooth-talker (perhaps a ‘red’ Abhisit)? What do you think of him?
Portman (#4), I believe that a potentially ‘cataclysmic’ event might not be too far off, and I dont mean the economic crisis… interesting as it would be to talk about this, I absolutely agree with Jeffrey (#1), discussion of certain things is not a completely undangerous thing in Thailand these days…
UDD – where to?
“Giles is not the right messenger for the Red Shirts. He is a marginal player in Thai politics at best and primarily served as a gad-fly. Even in the Thai labour movement, his support was marginal and limited at best.” > The refreshing voice of a realist…
UDD – where to?
seems to me that the Redshirts do have a solid underpinning:
Based on rule by freely and universally elected government rather than by military supported politicians
I have found many arguments about current political affairs are
dismissed by those that are for the military side, as foreigners not understanding “thainess”.
My understanding now is that Thailand is “different” because, like
Burma, the military has strengthened their hold on business and politics in Thailand unlike most other societies (worth comparing) where the military are subjugated to civilian political control.
In Thailand, unlike Burma, the military have achieved this by using the Monarchy and its popular appeal as cover. Why the Thai Monarchy has seen fit to support the military is a real question, probably bound up with strong military personalities and their ability to convince the Monarch that His reign is in danger, from democrats, communists and now republicans.
How in Europe and other developed societies did the civilian politicians manage to subjugate the military? How did they enforce rules such as no public servants, including the military, can engage in private business while serving? How did they enforce rules that the military are not permitted to engage in actions against their own people?
While I think Giles has gone too far and too fast in calling directly for the abolition of the monarchy I think Giles has raised serious questions about the history and current performance of the monarchy that have to be resolved. Why, in Thailand, has the Monarch appointed “retired” military officers to his Privy Council and implicitly given them power over the Thai people? Why does the Monarch permit a continuation of the exercise of Lese Majeste when He has no control over who is charged and for what?
On this last point, I would support (the Netherlands?) Les Majeste where:
– charges can be brought only by a senior member of the Royal Family who claims to be affected,
– all facts of the case and proceedings are published and,
– like ordinary defamation, truth is a defence,
– trial by jury of Thai citizens is required,
– punishments fit the crime and are proportionate.
I think these questions and their resolution are all steps on the path of the redshirt movement.
From the archives: Region of Revolt
I agree Joy – however, the challenge will always remain on how to get from the ‘problematic’ mainstream (e.g. current crop of elected politicians) to those ‘ideal’ fringe practices (e.g. the ideals of democracy). Then there’s the question of who’s ideals are we discussing here? A small section of Thai society? Western academics? Yours? Mine?