Some more pics at Prachatai Thai version, with more than 200 revealing comments (although the better ones are now censored) referring to the king and queen by nicknames and by various terms well known to Thais. If NM readers were expressing doubt as to who the graffiti referred to, Prachatai readers seem convinced of identities.
Had a quick scan of it and there seems nothing much in this, unless you want to know what songs he likes. A bit of hagiography. But even hagiographies can be useful I guess when there is relatively little about.
No need to be excited about this book. Her previous one was about the coup. Just an endless journalistic narrative with no references to the public discussions about the event, and with no obvious research gone into it. There also is a chapter on Prem in that text–very weak, barely even mentioning the obvious. So, I would not expect too much from her new book.
In general I think the statement is good, especially the last/second paragraph…
The last sentence of the first paragraph I have a problem with:
“PAD argues that ethics are more important than the principle of one-person/one-vote, and many liberal democratic activists support PAD on those grounds.”
The issue here is that the PAD in general and particularly as personified in Sondhi L and its other leaders are completely unethical themselves. They lie and abuse and commit illegalities (with impunity!). I find it utterly reprehensible to honour them by using any of their statements to support an argument.
As it happens I also disagree with the statement that ethics are more important than the democratic one-person/one-vote principle.
Ethics and the democratic principle are independent concepts and not interchangeable. Its a confusion in thinking to believe that reducing the franchise for voting will affect a change in the level of political ethics.
Because the democratic principle does incorporate a measure of accountability its likely, if anything that there will be increased pressure toward improved ethics in a (real, not liberal bullshit!) democratic system.
The most important issue with ethics in Thailand including in politics is the skewing of the legal system into one system for the rich and another for the poor. Reduce the impunity of Mercedes with darkened windows to traffic offences and the ability of the rich to have poor punished to cover their own murders and other offences will be the best step towards a more ethical Thai society.
Empowering the poor by ensuring their influence in the government of the country is a major step toward pressuring th legal system to change!
I don’t readily see how this will develop into additional arms for the KNLA.
One of the rules of the KNU/KNLA is no drug smuggling, which puts them at odds with the UWSA. They – the KNLA – have offered many times to assist the DEA in stopping drug smuggling within their areas of control.
In addition, The Shan State Army (SSA) has disavowed drug smuggling and is actively working with the American DEA to break up drug labs and interdict drug routes into Thailand from SSA held territory.
While the SSA is most likely getting some funding – and probably arms -from the DEA, the KNLA is the orphan boy at the door with the empty begging bowl. They’ve been spurned by every western govt., save one.
Perhaps it is the end of the Royal Taboo. Perhaps in this, the information age, with an ever more educated populace and expanding middle class people are indeed beginning to reflect critically on traditional institutions and their role in a modern world.
But the monarchy is not the only institution off limits to discussion; the other is the military. I have never heard, and bet I never will hear, Aphisit (or any other current aspiring politician for that matter) talk seriously about reigning in the generals and placing the army (in particular) more directly under elected civilian jurisdiction. As in the past, a self perpetuating, self serving, clique of generals continues to prevent Thailand evolving into a modern democratic state.
Some would say it’s about time somebody somewhere succeeded in this particular venture. Evidently it’s the Wa who have the incentive, the endeavour and the wherewithal. It beats the opium poppy hands down I guess. Will they be crucial in arming, for love or money, all the groups ready and willing to fight? Who’s going to be the unifier?
Yes, western powers have in practice never shirked from covert or overt intervention for better or for worse. It would be naive to expect them not to. The real strength however lies in the people. The Wa have set an example here. Talk is cheap.
Does “Ahimsa”, Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience strategy, still has a glimmer of hope to work in Burma? Are people really going to unite in their struggle, armed or no, like they once did against colonial rule and the Japanese Occupation? Interesting questions for sure, but absolutely critical at this juncture for the entire Burmese nation including the myriad nationalities of this great albeit cursed land.
The divisiveness is cused by the Democratic party and its backers who refuse to accept election results. With control of the militry and the police, it is easy to cause divisiveness. – Simply refuse to take orders from the elected govt – then blame the govt for ineffectiveness. other than the Democratic / Military /PAD triad of endless protest and blockades, please tell me, how else have the PPP govt failed???
Ultimately, always needing to upturn the country to get to be the govt, does not reflect well on the democratic party in the eyes of outsiders who have no vested interest. If it is institutionalised then I say, please dismantle the institution. Warlords and roving gangs of maurauders were institutionalised in early civilisations – we did not really want to keep them!
having said that, I guess is a form of political system, however if you subscribe to that, then please do not insult the rest of us by calling it “democratic”
I would *love* to hear what Thaksin said against the ‘people behind’, word for word in his state of anger.
Given the nature of openness that NM like to talk about, don’t you think they should broadcast what he said word for word, and let the enlightened public of Thailand decide for themselves?
actually I think after infamous predecesors such as Phibun and Sarit, Khun Thaksin headed the most “stable” period of government in Thai history
As far as I know the Democrats have not managed any extended “stability” in office
it will be interesting to see if Abhisit can head a “stable” “consensual” government … perhaps he will be consensual because his lack of political and business experience means he will be led around by the team of Democrat executives that according to the Bangkok Post will be making all the real decisions
actually the hallmark of democracy is not stability, its tensions between opposing views resolved by voting
of course setting up a reputable and reliable legal system is the stabilising factor that is needed no matter what political system a country has…
we await reform of Thailands legal system so that rich (PAD, etc) and poor (red shirts, etc) are not treated differently!
This is just the latest incarnation of the “tale of two democracies” identified in Anek Laothamatas’s 1996 paper. The problem statement at the end of the paper remains unsolved a decade later: “to retain middle-class support for democracy, these people’s desire for efficient and honest government must be acknowledged…To realize fully its quest for a virtuous democracy, the middle class must actively support rural developments that will turn patronage-ridden villages into small towns of middle-class farmers or well-paid workers.”
How Thailand’s longstanding rural-urban divide differs from other comparable states such as South Korea always seems to be the missing factor. Unlike the “all roads lead to Bangkok” situation in Thailand, South Korea now has multiple economic centers spread out over the whole country though some regions have lagged such as Kwangju where the Kwangju massacre happened. The New Village Movement under Park Chung Hee was hardly democratic yet seems to have achieved its objectives. Teaching at Korean universities and companies I was always surprised how many urban middle class had rural origins. In Thailand’s case often even food processing is not even performed at the rural point of origin of food crops. There was a regional econometric input-output model at the university I worked at in Thailand but that university did not promote publication, seminars, or free flow of information and academic debate, so it is unclear how such academic endeavours could ever become widely known much less help people.
This is a very good and concise statement of the current situation and events leading up to it. Some relatively neutral statement of the problem or conflict that both sides can agree on is an essential first step to resolving a conflict. Otherwise both sides are just talking past each other and calling each other names.
Trying to find a legitimate politician or Govt in Thailand is like working for SETI (Search for Extra terrestial Intelligence) After 50 years, there is still a lot of hope, but no results.
When the law is always selectively applied, it is no longer a justice system. When a senior judge can say “occupying the airport by the PAD” is really not that bad, then all hope is lost.
“liberal” democratic activist description would stretch one credibility seriously if one support the PAD declared principles.
– PAD wants this – PAD wants that – PAD accept this to be PM – PAD do not accept that as PM, we will occupy airport again if we don not get what we want –
Those are not democratic principles unless, as Nodorm said ‘you are high on weed”
“Ethics are more important” for heaven sake, Mr. Walker, one should put statements like this by the PAD in quotes ” “. What ethics are we talking about here? The ethics of the Chinese triad gansters? The ethics of the Italian mafia who guarantees your safety if “protection” money is paid?
BTW, are we insinuating that the Democratic party, the PAD and their military / royal backers are clean and free from corruption? Just who was running the country before Thaksin?
The real reason The democratic /military mob is so vehement about getting to Thaksin is that they felt he betrayed them. Thaksin came from the system – (Pol Lt Col). Took early retirement and was originally awarded the Nokia distributorship followed by several other telecommunication licences. These are awarded to “own” people for wealth distribution amongst the clique. Thaksin did not re-distribute the money but went on to accumulate even more and finally cummulated into the TRT party. – That, to the ruling elite was a serious stab in the back.
Yes, the conflict is far from over. And it’s getting worse because the elites are abusing their power. The elites (Sakdina) are addicted to their privilege and will not let go. They do not want equality. Their network is very strong though, and it revolves around that ‘apex’ institution; hence it’s almost impossible to be shaken. We ‘Red’ people see how unfair and unjust the elites’ organisations (eg the courts and other ‘kormorchor’-related organisations) have become. Their shameless double-standard treatments anger us. We try to fight but we lack good direction and leadership. To make the matter worse, we are not allowed to speak our mind. Freedom of speech does not exist here. Some might have tried, but they are either ignored or jailed. As you can see, only liars (like Sondhi and Apisit) are reaping the benefits from this dirty, manipulated situation.
I think this is a good article that explains the situation for people who haven’t followed the story. The authors are people whose work I really like. Their “A History of Thailand” is excellent, and I know they have written several other books including one about Thaksin’s rise to power. I would consider them to be experts.
he has manipulated it to make billions
I suppose we were all smoking weed to think Thaksin was not a billionaire before he came into office and the Democrats were just taking a nap?
Some of the things that has happened in Thai politics can be explained simply:
1) Allegations of corruption and freezing of Thaksin’s assets were 1: to prevent Thaksin from returning and 2: based on the assumption of money politics – that he uses his vast sums of money to buy votes, to buy politicians, etc. What we saw in the previous election was that Samak merely had to associate PPP as Thaksin’s party to win majority. The democrats sensed that and thus rose the issue of the whole nominee government.
2) Thaksin should be praised for returning home to fight these allegations of corruption. But, no one in their logical mind would want to face a court ruling based not by facts and or laws, but by the dictatorial military. It is nonsensical for he and his family to return.
3) Abhisit after taking over leadership from Banyat has turn the political system into a child’s play just like the spoiled hot tempered child that he is. From the recent CNN interview, you could see that he wanted to punch Dan River’s. Dan though, does a good job keeping a professional face even when he knows Abhisit is shamelessly lying to him when he said that he did not consult with the military at all, that the Newin’s faction switched sides out of their good hearts (even when they were locked in a hotel).
From the corruption, to the killing of innocent people, to the restrictions on free speech, to the meddling of independent systems, etc. This is not representative of Thaksin at all, but it is representative of his opponents. Please be wary of propaganda.
Isn’t the claim that Thailand isn’t and has never been a democracy an equally wide brush?
“Democracy” is a trope that has been mobilized and contested by all sides of this conflict. It would be most puzzling if it turned out that all these angry Thais were not actually talking about democracy after all.
Today the BP reported that arrest warrants have been issued for the Pro-/Gvt “red shirts” who threw rocks at the cars of some members of parliament. The police are using video to identify them. These men will be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms most likely. Meanwhile, leaders of PAD who Illegally occupied Government House, destroyed and stole government property, illegally took over two airports, attacked unarmed police with weapons and destroyed police vehicles, are walking around congratulating themselves on a job well done, with absolutely no worries about being arrested. Thailand only has one set of laws. Their definition of “Justice” is “Just Us”. As in Just Us with the money and the right connections can ignore or violate the law whenever we want, in any manner we want, as much as we want.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The writing on the wall
Some more pics at Prachatai Thai version, with more than 200 revealing comments (although the better ones are now censored) referring to the king and queen by nicknames and by various terms well known to Thais. If NM readers were expressing doubt as to who the graffiti referred to, Prachatai readers seem convinced of identities.
The “invisible hand”?
Had a quick scan of it and there seems nothing much in this, unless you want to know what songs he likes. A bit of hagiography. But even hagiographies can be useful I guess when there is relatively little about.
The “invisible hand”?
No need to be excited about this book. Her previous one was about the coup. Just an endless journalistic narrative with no references to the public discussions about the event, and with no obvious research gone into it. There also is a chapter on Prem in that text–very weak, barely even mentioning the obvious. So, I would not expect too much from her new book.
The “invisible hand”?
I also would love to read the book! I think I can get hold of it soon after the New year break!!
Far from over
In general I think the statement is good, especially the last/second paragraph…
The last sentence of the first paragraph I have a problem with:
“PAD argues that ethics are more important than the principle of one-person/one-vote, and many liberal democratic activists support PAD on those grounds.”
The issue here is that the PAD in general and particularly as personified in Sondhi L and its other leaders are completely unethical themselves. They lie and abuse and commit illegalities (with impunity!). I find it utterly reprehensible to honour them by using any of their statements to support an argument.
As it happens I also disagree with the statement that ethics are more important than the democratic one-person/one-vote principle.
Ethics and the democratic principle are independent concepts and not interchangeable. Its a confusion in thinking to believe that reducing the franchise for voting will affect a change in the level of political ethics.
Because the democratic principle does incorporate a measure of accountability its likely, if anything that there will be increased pressure toward improved ethics in a (real, not liberal bullshit!) democratic system.
The most important issue with ethics in Thailand including in politics is the skewing of the legal system into one system for the rich and another for the poor. Reduce the impunity of Mercedes with darkened windows to traffic offences and the ability of the rich to have poor punished to cover their own murders and other offences will be the best step towards a more ethical Thai society.
Empowering the poor by ensuring their influence in the government of the country is a major step toward pressuring th legal system to change!
Volunteering to fight in Burma
I don’t readily see how this will develop into additional arms for the KNLA.
One of the rules of the KNU/KNLA is no drug smuggling, which puts them at odds with the UWSA. They – the KNLA – have offered many times to assist the DEA in stopping drug smuggling within their areas of control.
In addition, The Shan State Army (SSA) has disavowed drug smuggling and is actively working with the American DEA to break up drug labs and interdict drug routes into Thailand from SSA held territory.
While the SSA is most likely getting some funding – and probably arms -from the DEA, the KNLA is the orphan boy at the door with the empty begging bowl. They’ve been spurned by every western govt., save one.
End of the royal taboo?
Perhaps it is the end of the Royal Taboo. Perhaps in this, the information age, with an ever more educated populace and expanding middle class people are indeed beginning to reflect critically on traditional institutions and their role in a modern world.
But the monarchy is not the only institution off limits to discussion; the other is the military. I have never heard, and bet I never will hear, Aphisit (or any other current aspiring politician for that matter) talk seriously about reigning in the generals and placing the army (in particular) more directly under elected civilian jurisdiction. As in the past, a self perpetuating, self serving, clique of generals continues to prevent Thailand evolving into a modern democratic state.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
jud, a unified armed struggle is the message your friend Ko Latt is trying to get across. Perhaps he will take heart from the news item below:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14804
Some would say it’s about time somebody somewhere succeeded in this particular venture. Evidently it’s the Wa who have the incentive, the endeavour and the wherewithal. It beats the opium poppy hands down I guess. Will they be crucial in arming, for love or money, all the groups ready and willing to fight? Who’s going to be the unifier?
Yes, western powers have in practice never shirked from covert or overt intervention for better or for worse. It would be naive to expect them not to. The real strength however lies in the people. The Wa have set an example here. Talk is cheap.
Does “Ahimsa”, Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience strategy, still has a glimmer of hope to work in Burma? Are people really going to unite in their struggle, armed or no, like they once did against colonial rule and the Japanese Occupation? Interesting questions for sure, but absolutely critical at this juncture for the entire Burmese nation including the myriad nationalities of this great albeit cursed land.
The “invisible hand”?
I am really surprised, the book seems to be published by Post Books, related presumably to the Bangkok Post…
Is the book banned in Thailand?
I would love to see the text in english… my wasted life… I could have learned to read Thai!!!
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
The divisiveness is cused by the Democratic party and its backers who refuse to accept election results. With control of the militry and the police, it is easy to cause divisiveness. – Simply refuse to take orders from the elected govt – then blame the govt for ineffectiveness. other than the Democratic / Military /PAD triad of endless protest and blockades, please tell me, how else have the PPP govt failed???
Ultimately, always needing to upturn the country to get to be the govt, does not reflect well on the democratic party in the eyes of outsiders who have no vested interest. If it is institutionalised then I say, please dismantle the institution. Warlords and roving gangs of maurauders were institutionalised in early civilisations – we did not really want to keep them!
having said that, I guess is a form of political system, however if you subscribe to that, then please do not insult the rest of us by calling it “democratic”
The “invisible hand”?
I would *love* to hear what Thaksin said against the ‘people behind’, word for word in his state of anger.
Given the nature of openness that NM like to talk about, don’t you think they should broadcast what he said word for word, and let the enlightened public of Thailand decide for themselves?
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
markle…
actually I think after infamous predecesors such as Phibun and Sarit, Khun Thaksin headed the most “stable” period of government in Thai history
As far as I know the Democrats have not managed any extended “stability” in office
it will be interesting to see if Abhisit can head a “stable” “consensual” government … perhaps he will be consensual because his lack of political and business experience means he will be led around by the team of Democrat executives that according to the Bangkok Post will be making all the real decisions
actually the hallmark of democracy is not stability, its tensions between opposing views resolved by voting
of course setting up a reputable and reliable legal system is the stabilising factor that is needed no matter what political system a country has…
we await reform of Thailands legal system so that rich (PAD, etc) and poor (red shirts, etc) are not treated differently!
Far from over
“Far from over…”
This is just the latest incarnation of the “tale of two democracies” identified in Anek Laothamatas’s 1996 paper. The problem statement at the end of the paper remains unsolved a decade later: “to retain middle-class support for democracy, these people’s desire for efficient and honest government must be acknowledged…To realize fully its quest for a virtuous democracy, the middle class must actively support rural developments that will turn patronage-ridden villages into small towns of middle-class farmers or well-paid workers.”
How Thailand’s longstanding rural-urban divide differs from other comparable states such as South Korea always seems to be the missing factor. Unlike the “all roads lead to Bangkok” situation in Thailand, South Korea now has multiple economic centers spread out over the whole country though some regions have lagged such as Kwangju where the Kwangju massacre happened. The New Village Movement under Park Chung Hee was hardly democratic yet seems to have achieved its objectives. Teaching at Korean universities and companies I was always surprised how many urban middle class had rural origins. In Thailand’s case often even food processing is not even performed at the rural point of origin of food crops. There was a regional econometric input-output model at the university I worked at in Thailand but that university did not promote publication, seminars, or free flow of information and academic debate, so it is unclear how such academic endeavours could ever become widely known much less help people.
This is a very good and concise statement of the current situation and events leading up to it. Some relatively neutral statement of the problem or conflict that both sides can agree on is an essential first step to resolving a conflict. Otherwise both sides are just talking past each other and calling each other names.
Weakness and legitimacy
Trying to find a legitimate politician or Govt in Thailand is like working for SETI (Search for Extra terrestial Intelligence) After 50 years, there is still a lot of hope, but no results.
When the law is always selectively applied, it is no longer a justice system. When a senior judge can say “occupying the airport by the PAD” is really not that bad, then all hope is lost.
Far from over
“liberal” democratic activist description would stretch one credibility seriously if one support the PAD declared principles.
– PAD wants this – PAD wants that – PAD accept this to be PM – PAD do not accept that as PM, we will occupy airport again if we don not get what we want –
Those are not democratic principles unless, as Nodorm said ‘you are high on weed”
“Ethics are more important” for heaven sake, Mr. Walker, one should put statements like this by the PAD in quotes ” “. What ethics are we talking about here? The ethics of the Chinese triad gansters? The ethics of the Italian mafia who guarantees your safety if “protection” money is paid?
BTW, are we insinuating that the Democratic party, the PAD and their military / royal backers are clean and free from corruption? Just who was running the country before Thaksin?
The real reason The democratic /military mob is so vehement about getting to Thaksin is that they felt he betrayed them. Thaksin came from the system – (Pol Lt Col). Took early retirement and was originally awarded the Nokia distributorship followed by several other telecommunication licences. These are awarded to “own” people for wealth distribution amongst the clique. Thaksin did not re-distribute the money but went on to accumulate even more and finally cummulated into the TRT party. – That, to the ruling elite was a serious stab in the back.
The truth is out there – agent Scully
Far from over
Yes, the conflict is far from over. And it’s getting worse because the elites are abusing their power. The elites (Sakdina) are addicted to their privilege and will not let go. They do not want equality. Their network is very strong though, and it revolves around that ‘apex’ institution; hence it’s almost impossible to be shaken. We ‘Red’ people see how unfair and unjust the elites’ organisations (eg the courts and other ‘kormorchor’-related organisations) have become. Their shameless double-standard treatments anger us. We try to fight but we lack good direction and leadership. To make the matter worse, we are not allowed to speak our mind. Freedom of speech does not exist here. Some might have tried, but they are either ignored or jailed. As you can see, only liars (like Sondhi and Apisit) are reaping the benefits from this dirty, manipulated situation.
Dear NoDorm – I like you comment. Thanks.
Far from over
I think this is a good article that explains the situation for people who haven’t followed the story. The authors are people whose work I really like. Their “A History of Thailand” is excellent, and I know they have written several other books including one about Thaksin’s rise to power. I would consider them to be experts.
Far from over
he has manipulated it to make billions
I suppose we were all smoking weed to think Thaksin was not a billionaire before he came into office and the Democrats were just taking a nap?
Some of the things that has happened in Thai politics can be explained simply:
1) Allegations of corruption and freezing of Thaksin’s assets were 1: to prevent Thaksin from returning and 2: based on the assumption of money politics – that he uses his vast sums of money to buy votes, to buy politicians, etc. What we saw in the previous election was that Samak merely had to associate PPP as Thaksin’s party to win majority. The democrats sensed that and thus rose the issue of the whole nominee government.
2) Thaksin should be praised for returning home to fight these allegations of corruption. But, no one in their logical mind would want to face a court ruling based not by facts and or laws, but by the dictatorial military. It is nonsensical for he and his family to return.
3) Abhisit after taking over leadership from Banyat has turn the political system into a child’s play just like the spoiled hot tempered child that he is. From the recent CNN interview, you could see that he wanted to punch Dan River’s. Dan though, does a good job keeping a professional face even when he knows Abhisit is shamelessly lying to him when he said that he did not consult with the military at all, that the Newin’s faction switched sides out of their good hearts (even when they were locked in a hotel).
From the corruption, to the killing of innocent people, to the restrictions on free speech, to the meddling of independent systems, etc. This is not representative of Thaksin at all, but it is representative of his opponents. Please be wary of propaganda.
Does Thailand need democracy?
Isn’t the claim that Thailand isn’t and has never been a democracy an equally wide brush?
“Democracy” is a trope that has been mobilized and contested by all sides of this conflict. It would be most puzzling if it turned out that all these angry Thais were not actually talking about democracy after all.
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
Today the BP reported that arrest warrants have been issued for the Pro-/Gvt “red shirts” who threw rocks at the cars of some members of parliament. The police are using video to identify them. These men will be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms most likely. Meanwhile, leaders of PAD who Illegally occupied Government House, destroyed and stole government property, illegally took over two airports, attacked unarmed police with weapons and destroyed police vehicles, are walking around congratulating themselves on a job well done, with absolutely no worries about being arrested. Thailand only has one set of laws. Their definition of “Justice” is “Just Us”. As in Just Us with the money and the right connections can ignore or violate the law whenever we want, in any manner we want, as much as we want.