There is a quite valid concept of “functional differentiation”. Following this view, the task of academics, scientists etc. is to formulate critique (what science is all about, namely critique of other concepts)and to develop certain alternatives and may be utopias. The task of politician is quite different. I would not like academicians being politicians! It would mean that bad academicians become even worse politicians. We can see this, from a slightly different angle, with regards to Mafia leader like f.e. Suthep. They are not what we would like politicians to be are we?
Exdctly. The Peoples Power “heroes” espcially the Aquinos are dirtier. How come nobody’s talking about the Do├▒a Luisita killings? Those who remember the Marcos Regime as th country’s golden age are accused of having forgotten their history. Now, the Aquino and Cojuangco abuse of our poor farmers and manipulations of the country’s political economy has been part of both our past, present, maybe even our future. So have we all gone blind of what’s happening now? It is important to note that the poor, urban poor, and middle class are pro-Marcos. Only the elites of this country are clamoring and in cognizant of the “darkness” of the Marcos regime. Isn’t that something to brood upon?
I feel as if it is the money being spent that is the issue. This is a generalisation but overall I think that Western tourists tend to spend money in a greater number of establishments with less being spent in each but in more areas- which is good for the local economy as a whole, when compared to Chinese tourists who often frequent the same restaurants or tours in large amounts or spend a large amount of money doing the more high end stuff. Obviously, that is their prerogative and the tourism sector must learn to work with this. But, as someone working in the tourism sector, the money isn’t being spread around as much with larger and more expensive resorts and establishments doing well while the smaller stalls, bars and certain tours not seeing any of this so called ‘tourism boom’ which seems like a joke or a down right lie when you actually talk, as I have, to other low level players in the business.. That is my thoughts/ opinions.. I don’t claim to be 100% correct but this is the feeling- I don’t know anyone who feels that the tourism sector is getting better. The racism thing is a red-herring.. even the behaviour thing seems bizarre (apart from perhaps the driving).. It’s the economy stupid, someone might say.. Even if the industry is growing in the statistics, where is the money being spent? Who is gaining from it.. we aren’t seeing it…
Is there any evidence the Thai Royals object to these cartoons ? Some Thai Royals – eg. His Royal Highness The Crown Prince – have a tremendously typically Thai sense of humour . Though it is quite possible – and very understandable – if His Royal Highness takes exception to any misportrayal of the late, great Field Marshall Fufu, who regrettably has no right of reply.
You have the fingerprints of the army and judiciary supporting Suthep and his whistle blowers from behind everywhere. Arrested thugs, attacking the police and government buildings, were always released within hours by the courts, sending them back out to the street. The army was caught on video handing out weapons to them. In the end they also setup bases around Bangkok to protect the protest sites. Possibly also to ensure that the nightly attacks could be carried out without incidents. Conveniently Suthep had turned off all cameras.
There may have been a lack of commitment to the rule of law on behalf of Thaksin. But considering that the other side has ripped up two constitutions, given themselves absolute power and amnesty for anything done in the past or the future, there is a pretty distinct difference. To just say that there are two sides that do not want a rule of law is not especially fair.
Many of your accusations against Thaksin are similar to what oppositions accuse their PM off anywhere. Hiring of loyal friends, lack of commitment, having the wrong attitude…
The main criticism against Thaksin in 2004-5 was the conflict of interest imposed by his ownership of Shin Corp. So you would think that selling it would be greeted with applause by the opposition. Instead it became his downfall.
The changed law to allow telecoms 50% foreign ownership, from 25%, had been on the table for several years and had support from both parties. At the time, both Orange and DTAC had a greater than 25% foreign ownership already.
I don’t understand the tax avoidance. Thailand doesn’t have any capital gains tax. What tax is it that you can avoid when selling stocks? I thought the shareholding rearrangement was about hiding wealth.
NHRC estimated that 2,275 people were killed in the war on drugs. They based this number on the total number of homicides during that period as if nobody got killed for other reasons. Bangkok Pundit wrote an article about this in 2007: https://asiancorrespondent.com/2007/08/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/
This is the same NHRC that concluded that red shirts violated human rights because they blocked roads, but said nothing of shutting down Bangkok ( or attitude adjustments and reeducation camps for that matter).
The removal of Thaksin had nothing to do with these issues. He became a threat to the establishment in Bangkok and the middle class hated his “populist” policies. This is a class war. Everything else is a side show.
Without doubt, the 2007 Constitution whittled away some of the democratic elements of the 1997 version. And the next constitution will signal a much bigger retreat.
The jury is still out on the extent to which Suthep and Prayuth conspired to overthrow Yingluck. But, even if they did conspire, until Thaksin loyalists made the gross political mistake of seeking an amnesty for him, the prospects of Yingluck’s government running its full term (to 2015) were quite good. The Democrat Party was making no headway in Parliament or in the electorate, and the ‘yellow’ opposition could not draw a crowd on to the streets of Bangkok, despite several highly publicised efforts.
Some selected examples of Thaksin’s lack of commitment to the rule of law: his intimidating approach in 2001 to the Constitutional Court before the decision on his assets concealment case. The following public comment in 2002 about the independent institutions: “Their attitude has to be the correct one. At present we are spending an annual Bt3 million on independent bodies. If they become antagonistic, I think spending even one baht would be expensive.” His connivance with the Senate to appoint loyalists as judges and commissioners, including a long-time friend and former mentor to the Anti Corruption Commission and a compromised customs official and former business partner as judges on the Constitutional Court. His sponsorship of a law to raise the foreign ownership limits for telecom companies on the eve of selling his Shin Corporation to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings for Bt73 billion, and his rearrangement of family shareholdings to avoid paying any tax on the sale.
Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission estimated that 2,637 people were killed in the 2003 war on drugs, including a nine-year-old boy and and a 16-month old baby in her mother’s arms. Reflecting community attitudes to the rule of law (and high levels of concern about the scourge of drugs in Thailand), the war on drugs enjoyed widespread public support.
[…] evasion of culpability for the abuses of civil liberties under his father. Furthermore, the demand that this period of Philippine history is never forgotten is gaining new momentum. The backlash […]
IMHO the poor, uneducated and unkempt masses of Pilipino society are actually doing their “damndest” to make sure the other segments of the nation are punished just the way they see themselves as punished w/ch would explain why they continually vote in any & all incorrigibles onto gov’t. positions, revenge is the reason why they do what they do during elections, think about it & you’ll all see that they’ve no other recourse but to “get even” for their misfortune(s)!?!
The Philippines is the inutil nation. When you have about 40% of uneducated or undereducated, and poor voting in elections, this is the result that you get. Entertainers, and well known personalities and family names are elected, because the inutils don’t know better, and those are names that they know and can recall. Until a fair majority of the voting populace are educated and lifted from poverty, nothing will ever change.
When I say that one side is for democracy, I mean that they are for the 1997 constitution, which is a democratic charter based on a system of checks and balances. The 2007 constitution messed this up with senators, appointed by judges, appointing the same judges. And when a court have the power to dismiss a prime minister, there are checks, but not much of a balance. Semi-democracy is probably a better name under this charter.
When people say that Thaksin was not committed to the rule of law etc, I never know exactly what they refer to. The war on drugs is usually brought up. I have never managed to find any documentation of what actually happened. But if there is actually anything of substance against Thaksin, why is there no charges on him for this? The Ratchada land purchase case is at the most a technicality that can be compared with Samak’s appearance in a cooking show.
I think you overestimate the independence between the Democrats, the army and the judiciary. As Suthep said before being sent into monkhood, he had conspired with Prayuth for 3 years to overthrow the Yingluck administration. It wouldn’t matter if Yingluck was the Messiah; she had no chance of surviving.
In any case, no government in Thailand will survive very long without the support of the army, and being committed to democracy and the rule of law is a sure path into losing that support.
Thai Royalism is a mandatory state religion. Any negative potrayal of the Sacred God of the mandatory state religion is heresy. Not that different than putting out a negative potrayal of Prophet Mohammed in Saudi Arabia.
Yes, broadly speaking, there are two sides. But neither side wants the rule of law and checks and balances.
Both sides want, above all, power. On one side is the Pheu Thai Party which supports elections because elections offer the most likely avenue to power. But Thaksin showed that he is not committed to the rule of law or checks and balances, even though at the same time he implemented beneficial economic and social policies like a universal health system.
The other side, the Democrat Party, recognises that elections will likely bring them power only if the electoral system is changed to allow the proliferation of smaller parties, creating an opportunity of the Democrats to lead a coalition government. Otherwise the Democrats will rely on the military and ‘establishment’ to create conditions that allow them to form a government (as happened in 2008). The Democrats supine response to the PDRC, led by a Democrat Party strongman and openly supported by Abhisit and other Democrat leaders, shows that they are not committed to the rule of law or checks and balances.
Between them, these political parties and the judiciary, which failed to conduct itself as a genuinely independent arm of the state, broke a more-or-less democratic system and opened the way for the 2014 coup. The military didn’t break the system; politicians and judges (and ‘independent’ commissioners) did.
This is not a justification for the coup, but it explains why the coup happened. Until a majority of civilian politicians in both major parties recognise that they have a shared interest in promoting – and respecting – the rule of law and checks and balances, the military will continue to intervene in Thai politics.
As far as I am concern, this family are all human being just like all of us, they are certainly not divine entities. The most important thing is all Thai are not just dusts under their feet, far from it.
At least five foreign countries are digging into the 1MDB missing billions that PM Najib was directly controlling: Singapore, Luxemburg, USA, Switzerland and UK. Yet Najib remains untouchable to this day. That says a lot about how impotent and corrupted to the roots Malaysian institutions had become.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
It takes a nation to raise a dictator’s son
Padre Damaso though is a Spanish friar…
Donald Trump is Thailand’s friend
There is a quite valid concept of “functional differentiation”. Following this view, the task of academics, scientists etc. is to formulate critique (what science is all about, namely critique of other concepts)and to develop certain alternatives and may be utopias. The task of politician is quite different. I would not like academicians being politicians! It would mean that bad academicians become even worse politicians. We can see this, from a slightly different angle, with regards to Mafia leader like f.e. Suthep. They are not what we would like politicians to be are we?
It takes a nation to raise a dictator’s son
Exdctly. The Peoples Power “heroes” espcially the Aquinos are dirtier. How come nobody’s talking about the Do├▒a Luisita killings? Those who remember the Marcos Regime as th country’s golden age are accused of having forgotten their history. Now, the Aquino and Cojuangco abuse of our poor farmers and manipulations of the country’s political economy has been part of both our past, present, maybe even our future. So have we all gone blind of what’s happening now? It is important to note that the poor, urban poor, and middle class are pro-Marcos. Only the elites of this country are clamoring and in cognizant of the “darkness” of the Marcos regime. Isn’t that something to brood upon?
Horror headlines, tourism and the Thai junta
I feel as if it is the money being spent that is the issue. This is a generalisation but overall I think that Western tourists tend to spend money in a greater number of establishments with less being spent in each but in more areas- which is good for the local economy as a whole, when compared to Chinese tourists who often frequent the same restaurants or tours in large amounts or spend a large amount of money doing the more high end stuff. Obviously, that is their prerogative and the tourism sector must learn to work with this. But, as someone working in the tourism sector, the money isn’t being spread around as much with larger and more expensive resorts and establishments doing well while the smaller stalls, bars and certain tours not seeing any of this so called ‘tourism boom’ which seems like a joke or a down right lie when you actually talk, as I have, to other low level players in the business.. That is my thoughts/ opinions.. I don’t claim to be 100% correct but this is the feeling- I don’t know anyone who feels that the tourism sector is getting better. The racism thing is a red-herring.. even the behaviour thing seems bizarre (apart from perhaps the driving).. It’s the economy stupid, someone might say.. Even if the industry is growing in the statistics, where is the money being spent? Who is gaining from it.. we aren’t seeing it…
Sticking it to the crown
Is there any evidence the Thai Royals object to these cartoons ? Some Thai Royals – eg. His Royal Highness The Crown Prince – have a tremendously typically Thai sense of humour . Though it is quite possible – and very understandable – if His Royal Highness takes exception to any misportrayal of the late, great Field Marshall Fufu, who regrettably has no right of reply.
Donald Trump is Thailand’s friend
To repeat my earlier question: What can academics, analysts and commentators do to direct greater attention at HOW Thailand might be better governed?
Donald Trump is Thailand’s friend
You have the fingerprints of the army and judiciary supporting Suthep and his whistle blowers from behind everywhere. Arrested thugs, attacking the police and government buildings, were always released within hours by the courts, sending them back out to the street. The army was caught on video handing out weapons to them. In the end they also setup bases around Bangkok to protect the protest sites. Possibly also to ensure that the nightly attacks could be carried out without incidents. Conveniently Suthep had turned off all cameras.
There may have been a lack of commitment to the rule of law on behalf of Thaksin. But considering that the other side has ripped up two constitutions, given themselves absolute power and amnesty for anything done in the past or the future, there is a pretty distinct difference. To just say that there are two sides that do not want a rule of law is not especially fair.
Many of your accusations against Thaksin are similar to what oppositions accuse their PM off anywhere. Hiring of loyal friends, lack of commitment, having the wrong attitude…
The main criticism against Thaksin in 2004-5 was the conflict of interest imposed by his ownership of Shin Corp. So you would think that selling it would be greeted with applause by the opposition. Instead it became his downfall.
The changed law to allow telecoms 50% foreign ownership, from 25%, had been on the table for several years and had support from both parties. At the time, both Orange and DTAC had a greater than 25% foreign ownership already.
I don’t understand the tax avoidance. Thailand doesn’t have any capital gains tax. What tax is it that you can avoid when selling stocks? I thought the shareholding rearrangement was about hiding wealth.
NHRC estimated that 2,275 people were killed in the war on drugs. They based this number on the total number of homicides during that period as if nobody got killed for other reasons. Bangkok Pundit wrote an article about this in 2007: https://asiancorrespondent.com/2007/08/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/
This is the same NHRC that concluded that red shirts violated human rights because they blocked roads, but said nothing of shutting down Bangkok ( or attitude adjustments and reeducation camps for that matter).
The removal of Thaksin had nothing to do with these issues. He became a threat to the establishment in Bangkok and the middle class hated his “populist” policies. This is a class war. Everything else is a side show.
Donald Trump is Thailand’s friend
Without doubt, the 2007 Constitution whittled away some of the democratic elements of the 1997 version. And the next constitution will signal a much bigger retreat.
The jury is still out on the extent to which Suthep and Prayuth conspired to overthrow Yingluck. But, even if they did conspire, until Thaksin loyalists made the gross political mistake of seeking an amnesty for him, the prospects of Yingluck’s government running its full term (to 2015) were quite good. The Democrat Party was making no headway in Parliament or in the electorate, and the ‘yellow’ opposition could not draw a crowd on to the streets of Bangkok, despite several highly publicised efforts.
Some selected examples of Thaksin’s lack of commitment to the rule of law: his intimidating approach in 2001 to the Constitutional Court before the decision on his assets concealment case. The following public comment in 2002 about the independent institutions: “Their attitude has to be the correct one. At present we are spending an annual Bt3 million on independent bodies. If they become antagonistic, I think spending even one baht would be expensive.” His connivance with the Senate to appoint loyalists as judges and commissioners, including a long-time friend and former mentor to the Anti Corruption Commission and a compromised customs official and former business partner as judges on the Constitutional Court. His sponsorship of a law to raise the foreign ownership limits for telecom companies on the eve of selling his Shin Corporation to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings for Bt73 billion, and his rearrangement of family shareholdings to avoid paying any tax on the sale.
Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission estimated that 2,637 people were killed in the 2003 war on drugs, including a nine-year-old boy and and a 16-month old baby in her mother’s arms. Reflecting community attitudes to the rule of law (and high levels of concern about the scourge of drugs in Thailand), the war on drugs enjoyed widespread public support.
It takes a nation to raise a dictator’s son
[…] evasion of culpability for the abuses of civil liberties under his father. Furthermore, the demand that this period of Philippine history is never forgotten is gaining new momentum. The backlash […]
It takes a nation to raise a dictator’s son
IMHO the poor, uneducated and unkempt masses of Pilipino society are actually doing their “damndest” to make sure the other segments of the nation are punished just the way they see themselves as punished w/ch would explain why they continually vote in any & all incorrigibles onto gov’t. positions, revenge is the reason why they do what they do during elections, think about it & you’ll all see that they’ve no other recourse but to “get even” for their misfortune(s)!?!
Demokrasi Indonesia Dalam Bahaya
hidup Demokrasi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It takes a nation to raise a dictator’s son
The Philippines is the inutil nation. When you have about 40% of uneducated or undereducated, and poor voting in elections, this is the result that you get. Entertainers, and well known personalities and family names are elected, because the inutils don’t know better, and those are names that they know and can recall. Until a fair majority of the voting populace are educated and lifted from poverty, nothing will ever change.
Donald Trump is Thailand’s friend
When I say that one side is for democracy, I mean that they are for the 1997 constitution, which is a democratic charter based on a system of checks and balances. The 2007 constitution messed this up with senators, appointed by judges, appointing the same judges. And when a court have the power to dismiss a prime minister, there are checks, but not much of a balance. Semi-democracy is probably a better name under this charter.
When people say that Thaksin was not committed to the rule of law etc, I never know exactly what they refer to. The war on drugs is usually brought up. I have never managed to find any documentation of what actually happened. But if there is actually anything of substance against Thaksin, why is there no charges on him for this? The Ratchada land purchase case is at the most a technicality that can be compared with Samak’s appearance in a cooking show.
I think you overestimate the independence between the Democrats, the army and the judiciary. As Suthep said before being sent into monkhood, he had conspired with Prayuth for 3 years to overthrow the Yingluck administration. It wouldn’t matter if Yingluck was the Messiah; she had no chance of surviving.
In any case, no government in Thailand will survive very long without the support of the army, and being committed to democracy and the rule of law is a sure path into losing that support.
Alice in Juntaland and autocracy in Thailand
Are you sure you are not living in Taiwan? A lot of people make that mistake, noting to be ashamed of.
Sticking it to the crown
[…] New Mandala has tracked down the “offending” LINE “stickers” that recently caused a royalist kerfuffle. […]
Sticking it to the crown
Thai Royalism is a mandatory state religion. Any negative potrayal of the Sacred God of the mandatory state religion is heresy. Not that different than putting out a negative potrayal of Prophet Mohammed in Saudi Arabia.
Donald Trump is Thailand’s friend
Yes, broadly speaking, there are two sides. But neither side wants the rule of law and checks and balances.
Both sides want, above all, power. On one side is the Pheu Thai Party which supports elections because elections offer the most likely avenue to power. But Thaksin showed that he is not committed to the rule of law or checks and balances, even though at the same time he implemented beneficial economic and social policies like a universal health system.
The other side, the Democrat Party, recognises that elections will likely bring them power only if the electoral system is changed to allow the proliferation of smaller parties, creating an opportunity of the Democrats to lead a coalition government. Otherwise the Democrats will rely on the military and ‘establishment’ to create conditions that allow them to form a government (as happened in 2008). The Democrats supine response to the PDRC, led by a Democrat Party strongman and openly supported by Abhisit and other Democrat leaders, shows that they are not committed to the rule of law or checks and balances.
Between them, these political parties and the judiciary, which failed to conduct itself as a genuinely independent arm of the state, broke a more-or-less democratic system and opened the way for the 2014 coup. The military didn’t break the system; politicians and judges (and ‘independent’ commissioners) did.
This is not a justification for the coup, but it explains why the coup happened. Until a majority of civilian politicians in both major parties recognise that they have a shared interest in promoting – and respecting – the rule of law and checks and balances, the military will continue to intervene in Thai politics.
Sticking it to the crown
Expect any day now the junta to issue a fatwa prohibiting any and all depictions of the Thai royal family.
Sticking it to the crown
As far as I am concern, this family are all human being just like all of us, they are certainly not divine entities. The most important thing is all Thai are not just dusts under their feet, far from it.
Personalities and institutional power in Malaysia
Abu Dhabi fund didn’t get $3.5B sent by Malaysia’s 1MDB
Abu Dhabi’s wealth fund said a subsidiary never received $3.5 billion that troubled 1MDB sent to a British Virgin Islands firm with a similar name.
Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/id/103538743
At least five foreign countries are digging into the 1MDB missing billions that PM Najib was directly controlling: Singapore, Luxemburg, USA, Switzerland and UK. Yet Najib remains untouchable to this day. That says a lot about how impotent and corrupted to the roots Malaysian institutions had become.