Your attempt to find an ironic truism, or the theme of an academic thesis, in Aphisit’s rise isn’t supported at all in experience.
You only have one example in modern Thai history of a leader with a strong parliamentary mandate — Thaksin. You also have only one example of a leader with strong parliamentary legitimacy who lacked (or in fact lost while in office) palace support — Thaksin. Thaksin was also of course unique in having served out his elected term before holding new elections.
One example is not very useful in setting up a pattern. All other Thai governments founded on a parliamentary majority have been coalitions, which I think by your example means a government with a weak leader. And among them longevity and legitimacy has been a mixed bag. Even Prem, royally the most legitimate leader of the Ninth Reign, dissolved the government I think four times in his eight years.
And during the post-Prem period none of the elected governments lasted an entire mandate, yet none but Chatichai (three years) were particularly opposed by the palace.
In this context then the only thing then you can say about Apisit’s goverment is it is in pretty much the same position as government with an elected PM, and most of those non-junta governments with an unelected PM, since 1946.
The only unique characteristics are that, 1), he takes power when nervousness about what happens to the monarchy is at an all-time high, and 2) there is a powerful and motivated non-military challenger (Thaksin) who remains a threat.
And while percieved royal legitimacy helps him, experience of the past for elected leaders suggests percieved royal legitimacy is as strong as a tissue — it wouldn’t survive a little tugging, much less a rainstorm.
One final point: while the Democrats have shamefully not stood on principle over the past two years, given the history of Thai coalition governments I don’t think there’s much basis for questioning his legitimacy as PM just because his party doesn’t have the mandate that TRT/PPP had.
Seems to me (and I’m no expert on this) that the idea of improving someone’s life by bringing them to a developed country can more fruitfully be achieved through sponsoring a skilled young adult for employment, rather than adopting an orphan.
This way the person receives pay for their skills far in excess of what would be possible domestically, and they retain personal sovereignty (which as you point out, is questionable through adoptions).
Timbergen puts it thus: first, there should be as many independent policy instruments as objectives, and second, each instrument should only be assigned to the objective on which it has the most impact.
If reducing global poverty is the objective, invest in poverty dense areas. If having a baby is the objective, make like a rabbit.
I am Thai. I know very well what dose “ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช! ” referred to which group between yellow or red shirt. And also who are behind โัโฃะัโะัโะณโ ัโะปัโะฉัโโัโะฉัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช! . If you were recently following what was happened in Thailand. you will know as I do.
sackman // The answer is “we must stand-up to change” ัโะัโะณัโโัโะช.
Along with Nigel I am often alarmed by the left/democracy purists’ support for Thaksin. To believe that his party was popularly elected in the same sense that Barack Obama was, is blinkered beyond belief. The undemocratic way in which he was deposed and his ‘party’ consequently obstructed is no measure of his democratic legitimacy.
The hope I see with Aphisit is that like his mentor Leekpai, his political style is more ‘consensual’ than most other leaders and potentially lead Thailand through this mess. His might not be the most ‘democratic’ or ‘popular’ ascension to power, but it may prove to be the least divisive and ultimately stable.
Just curious: TRT and PPP were dissolved because they had alledgedly acquired power by unconstitutional means. Has Abhisit not acquired power by systematically supporting massive street protests, and even the closure on Thailand’s major airport? And is this not unconstitutional? Legally speaking, why are the Democrats not charged with the same offensive (but by using different means) and dissolved? And since the Democrats’ board was fully aware of what had been going on, and even came out to support it publicly, should they not be disqualified from politics for five years?
This weakness suits the military-stacked Privy Council in its decades-old power struggle with the Parliament. The Privy Council and the Monarchy represent absolutism and the rule of personalities, quite similar to the power structure of pre-Enlightenment Europe. The Parliament, sick child though it is, represents the possibility of democracy and the rule of laws made strong by the people’s consent. It could be argued that the King in his prime prevented the Privy Council from degenerating into a Burmese-style junta, but the evidence of the last few years suggests that this is no longer the case.
The sad thing about the Thai character is that most people are stuck in the old days of the rule of personalities, and they are much less inclined to obey laws than to obey people whom they regard as superior. (The education system is largely to blame). This applies equally to the top as to the bottom of Thai society. The cream of the Thai bureaucracy, the diplomats, who regard themselves as important servants of the King, are amongst the world’s worst parking offenders in New York. Thai diplomats feel themselves to be far above New York parking policemen, but western observers see their behaviour as a measure of corruption, and have ranked them accordingly. The word “corrupt” is, of course, only a western metaphor for the social behaviour I have described more objectively, but literally it means “rotten and stinking”, far from the self-image of important bureaucrats. Of course, it’s not peculiar to Thailand. Before the Western Enlightenment this corruption was universal.
Well, I tend to agree with the term ‘proven loser’. Democrat party is scared of elections. They lost a couple recently. They even boycotted one before. And they know that if there is one today then they would lose again.
But as Mr Walker might have hinted, the whole thing is ‘by design’. A weak loser is what some important people want in this position at this point in the game.
K. Frank, being a political party with an institutional basis does not make the Democrat Party more legitimate to rule than the others, nor is it necessarily a contribution to democratization. In this most recent case, the Democrats’ legitimacy and popular mandate are rather questionable. Who could blame the weak party system, when it has not been allowed to institutionalize. Doesn’t it say something to you that the Democrat Party always emerges unscathed from a political struggle between the military and politicians? Isn’t it the party’s royalist, elitist, pro-establishment stand one of the main reasons it has survived this long? I would be happy to see Thai political parties mature beyond personalistic contest too. But how do you expect we get there if extra-parliamentary forces keep interfering with politics?
“The Cockroach Party”? Are we talking ัโะฎัโะณัโะณัโะัโฃะัโะฑัโะตัโะัโะบัโโัโะช or ัโะฎัโะณัโะณัโะัโฃะัโะฑัโะัโะคัโโ? Considering the colloquial meaning of ัโฃะัโะฑัโะัโะคัโโ, I think the later is much more appropriate. ๐
In popular vernacular, which side is most often described as “ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช”? I have heard about red-shirt rallies, demonstrations, movements, etc. Even the PAD uses terms other than ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช to refer to them, as far as I have heard. The reds are more often described as an elite cabal ruling over ignorant masses rather than a mob.
So, correct me if I am wrong, but ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช can only mean the ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช that took over the airport. I would also guess that the word was FIRST used in that context.
Proven “loser” because his party lost one election? Is Mugabe a “proven winner” then? Is Churchill a “proven loser” for not getting elected in 1945? If Manchester United lose one match, they are “proven losers” right? Shall I go on?
Mr Walker your comment there may be factually correct but the way you use it simply exposes your own bias. Shame on you for such intellectual slopiness.
“Why would a vandal protect a reference to Thaksin with such careful language?”
Maybe this “vandal” was worrying for the wealth of his father ?
Surely if “someone” found about the author, he or his father would be hacked to death after having been sent coffins …
Actually it reads ัโะซัโะณัโโัโะัโโัโะัโะฉัโะณัโโฃัโฃะ ‘ัโฃะัโะัโะณ’ ัโะปัโะฉัโโัโะฉัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช! with quotation markers around the “who.” This is unambiguous to me. Why would a vandal protect a reference to Thaksin with such careful language? Wouldn’t they just use some Thaksin epitaph writing anonymously as they did? Who in Bangkok refers to Thaksin as ‘ัโฃะัโะัโะณ’ out of subtlety or fear? I’d expect some reference to his square head. This is clearly anti-PAD/anti-monarchy graffiti.
The mob here refers to the kotex mob for sure. Red shirts people are only a recent phenomenon while pantamit/pantamarn mob has been terrorizing the country for years !
I would like to respond to your comments, but you seem hell-bent on turning any discussion here into a mess of tu quoque. Therefore, I shall endeavor to turn this conversation back to Thailand, as to earn the Walker/Farrelly imprimatur.
I earned that research by living it not reading it from some book that an egghead from some ivory tower wrote in an effort to publish or perish.
Well, if you’re talking about the School of Hard Knocks, I think that, in this case, my “credentials” from growing up non-White in America outweigh yours, no? Make no mistake, personally-mediated racism does exist in America; however, my point was that in 2008, the institutionalized racism present is no longer strong enough to severely inhibit the American dream of social equity and social mobility.
Now, can we say the same thing about Thailand in 2551 B.E.? Of course not. Indeed, one could go as far to say that most of the racism present in Thailand is institutional and systemic; from the propiska-like ัโะงัโโัโฃะัโะชัโโกัโะฒัโะฉัโะชัโฃะัโโัโะฉ, to the assumptions behind the various proclamations of culture-warrior Ladda Tangsupachai, to the attitudes and atmospherics of the PAD and Sonthi Limthongkul’s media empire.
Hey Mr.Graham, if this writing infers to Thaksin, it ‘s not necessary to circuitously say like this. Except that you want to speak sarcastically for censorship in Thailand.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The writing on the wall
I’m sure Mr. Graham was being sarcastic hence the !! at the end of this comment.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Why Unity is Important. from Ko Latt
scribd in burmese and english
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8993686/Why-Unity-is-Important
Weakness and legitimacy
Thaksin (as reported in the TN, Dec. 18):
“He added that he was confident he could stage his comeback and return to serve the country once again.”
This statement might even scare Andrew! ๐
Weakness and legitimacy
Your attempt to find an ironic truism, or the theme of an academic thesis, in Aphisit’s rise isn’t supported at all in experience.
You only have one example in modern Thai history of a leader with a strong parliamentary mandate — Thaksin. You also have only one example of a leader with strong parliamentary legitimacy who lacked (or in fact lost while in office) palace support — Thaksin. Thaksin was also of course unique in having served out his elected term before holding new elections.
One example is not very useful in setting up a pattern. All other Thai governments founded on a parliamentary majority have been coalitions, which I think by your example means a government with a weak leader. And among them longevity and legitimacy has been a mixed bag. Even Prem, royally the most legitimate leader of the Ninth Reign, dissolved the government I think four times in his eight years.
And during the post-Prem period none of the elected governments lasted an entire mandate, yet none but Chatichai (three years) were particularly opposed by the palace.
In this context then the only thing then you can say about Apisit’s goverment is it is in pretty much the same position as government with an elected PM, and most of those non-junta governments with an unelected PM, since 1946.
The only unique characteristics are that, 1), he takes power when nervousness about what happens to the monarchy is at an all-time high, and 2) there is a powerful and motivated non-military challenger (Thaksin) who remains a threat.
And while percieved royal legitimacy helps him, experience of the past for elected leaders suggests percieved royal legitimacy is as strong as a tissue — it wouldn’t survive a little tugging, much less a rainstorm.
One final point: while the Democrats have shamefully not stood on principle over the past two years, given the history of Thai coalition governments I don’t think there’s much basis for questioning his legitimacy as PM just because his party doesn’t have the mandate that TRT/PPP had.
Angelina’s baby
Maylee,
Seems to me (and I’m no expert on this) that the idea of improving someone’s life by bringing them to a developed country can more fruitfully be achieved through sponsoring a skilled young adult for employment, rather than adopting an orphan.
This way the person receives pay for their skills far in excess of what would be possible domestically, and they retain personal sovereignty (which as you point out, is questionable through adoptions).
Timbergen puts it thus: first, there should be as many independent policy instruments as objectives, and second, each instrument should only be assigned to the objective on which it has the most impact.
If reducing global poverty is the objective, invest in poverty dense areas. If having a baby is the objective, make like a rabbit.
The writing on the wall
Dear respondents
I am Thai. I know very well what dose “ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช! ” referred to which group between yellow or red shirt. And also who are behind โัโฃะัโะัโะณโ ัโะปัโะฉัโโัโะฉัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช! . If you were recently following what was happened in Thailand. you will know as I do.
sackman // The answer is “we must stand-up to change” ัโะัโะณัโโัโะช.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Along with Nigel I am often alarmed by the left/democracy purists’ support for Thaksin. To believe that his party was popularly elected in the same sense that Barack Obama was, is blinkered beyond belief. The undemocratic way in which he was deposed and his ‘party’ consequently obstructed is no measure of his democratic legitimacy.
The hope I see with Aphisit is that like his mentor Leekpai, his political style is more ‘consensual’ than most other leaders and potentially lead Thailand through this mess. His might not be the most ‘democratic’ or ‘popular’ ascension to power, but it may prove to be the least divisive and ultimately stable.
Weakness and legitimacy
Just curious: TRT and PPP were dissolved because they had alledgedly acquired power by unconstitutional means. Has Abhisit not acquired power by systematically supporting massive street protests, and even the closure on Thailand’s major airport? And is this not unconstitutional? Legally speaking, why are the Democrats not charged with the same offensive (but by using different means) and dissolved? And since the Democrats’ board was fully aware of what had been going on, and even came out to support it publicly, should they not be disqualified from politics for five years?
Weakness and legitimacy
This weakness suits the military-stacked Privy Council in its decades-old power struggle with the Parliament. The Privy Council and the Monarchy represent absolutism and the rule of personalities, quite similar to the power structure of pre-Enlightenment Europe. The Parliament, sick child though it is, represents the possibility of democracy and the rule of laws made strong by the people’s consent. It could be argued that the King in his prime prevented the Privy Council from degenerating into a Burmese-style junta, but the evidence of the last few years suggests that this is no longer the case.
The sad thing about the Thai character is that most people are stuck in the old days of the rule of personalities, and they are much less inclined to obey laws than to obey people whom they regard as superior. (The education system is largely to blame). This applies equally to the top as to the bottom of Thai society. The cream of the Thai bureaucracy, the diplomats, who regard themselves as important servants of the King, are amongst the world’s worst parking offenders in New York. Thai diplomats feel themselves to be far above New York parking policemen, but western observers see their behaviour as a measure of corruption, and have ranked them accordingly. The word “corrupt” is, of course, only a western metaphor for the social behaviour I have described more objectively, but literally it means “rotten and stinking”, far from the self-image of important bureaucrats. Of course, it’s not peculiar to Thailand. Before the Western Enlightenment this corruption was universal.
Weakness and legitimacy
Well, I tend to agree with the term ‘proven loser’. Democrat party is scared of elections. They lost a couple recently. They even boycotted one before. And they know that if there is one today then they would lose again.
But as Mr Walker might have hinted, the whole thing is ‘by design’. A weak loser is what some important people want in this position at this point in the game.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
K. Frank, being a political party with an institutional basis does not make the Democrat Party more legitimate to rule than the others, nor is it necessarily a contribution to democratization. In this most recent case, the Democrats’ legitimacy and popular mandate are rather questionable. Who could blame the weak party system, when it has not been allowed to institutionalize. Doesn’t it say something to you that the Democrat Party always emerges unscathed from a political struggle between the military and politicians? Isn’t it the party’s royalist, elitist, pro-establishment stand one of the main reasons it has survived this long? I would be happy to see Thai political parties mature beyond personalistic contest too. But how do you expect we get there if extra-parliamentary forces keep interfering with politics?
Kudos to Ajarn Ji.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
“The Cockroach Party”? Are we talking ัโะฎัโะณัโะณัโะัโฃะัโะฑัโะตัโะัโะบัโโัโะช or ัโะฎัโะณัโะณัโะัโฃะัโะฑัโะัโะคัโโ? Considering the colloquial meaning of ัโฃะัโะฑัโะัโะคัโโ, I think the later is much more appropriate. ๐
The writing on the wall
Folks, no use arguing about something so obvious!
The writing on the wall
In popular vernacular, which side is most often described as “ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช”? I have heard about red-shirt rallies, demonstrations, movements, etc. Even the PAD uses terms other than ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช to refer to them, as far as I have heard. The reds are more often described as an elite cabal ruling over ignorant masses rather than a mob.
So, correct me if I am wrong, but ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช can only mean the ัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช that took over the airport. I would also guess that the word was FIRST used in that context.
Weakness and legitimacy
“Proven electoral loser Abhisit Vejjajiva…”
Proven “loser” because his party lost one election? Is Mugabe a “proven winner” then? Is Churchill a “proven loser” for not getting elected in 1945? If Manchester United lose one match, they are “proven losers” right? Shall I go on?
Mr Walker your comment there may be factually correct but the way you use it simply exposes your own bias. Shame on you for such intellectual slopiness.
The writing on the wall
“Why would a vandal protect a reference to Thaksin with such careful language?”
Maybe this “vandal” was worrying for the wealth of his father ?
Surely if “someone” found about the author, he or his father would be hacked to death after having been sent coffins …
The writing on the wall
Actually it reads ัโะซัโะณัโโัโะัโโัโะัโะฉัโะณัโโฃัโฃะ ‘ัโฃะัโะัโะณ’ ัโะปัโะฉัโโัโะฉัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะช! with quotation markers around the “who.” This is unambiguous to me. Why would a vandal protect a reference to Thaksin with such careful language? Wouldn’t they just use some Thaksin epitaph writing anonymously as they did? Who in Bangkok refers to Thaksin as ‘ัโฃะัโะัโะณ’ out of subtlety or fear? I’d expect some reference to his square head. This is clearly anti-PAD/anti-monarchy graffiti.
The writing on the wall
The mob here refers to the kotex mob for sure. Red shirts people are only a recent phenomenon while pantamit/pantamarn mob has been terrorizing the country for years !
New Mandala in The Age
re:bosunj
I would like to respond to your comments, but you seem hell-bent on turning any discussion here into a mess of tu quoque. Therefore, I shall endeavor to turn this conversation back to Thailand, as to earn the Walker/Farrelly imprimatur.
I earned that research by living it not reading it from some book that an egghead from some ivory tower wrote in an effort to publish or perish.
Well, if you’re talking about the School of Hard Knocks, I think that, in this case, my “credentials” from growing up non-White in America outweigh yours, no? Make no mistake, personally-mediated racism does exist in America; however, my point was that in 2008, the institutionalized racism present is no longer strong enough to severely inhibit the American dream of social equity and social mobility.
Now, can we say the same thing about Thailand in 2551 B.E.? Of course not. Indeed, one could go as far to say that most of the racism present in Thailand is institutional and systemic; from the propiska-like ัโะงัโโัโฃะัโะชัโโกัโะฒัโะฉัโะชัโฃะัโโัโะฉ, to the assumptions behind the various proclamations of culture-warrior Ladda Tangsupachai, to the attitudes and atmospherics of the PAD and Sonthi Limthongkul’s media empire.
The writing on the wall
Hey Mr.Graham, if this writing infers to Thaksin, it ‘s not necessary to circuitously say like this. Except that you want to speak sarcastically for censorship in Thailand.