Yes, we know who is backing the yellow mob. But we can only gossip and whisper. We are not allowed to say it. It is FORBIDDEN. That’s Thailand’s biggest problem – INEQUALITY and (lack of) freedom of speech . How can we change this? When will we get freedom of speech? When will we be heard? When will our voice be respected? How do we get rid of repressive laws and the ‘Sakdina’ system? The upper-class have all the power and ‘APISIT’ (meaning privilege). They are Sakdina. They do everything to keep us lower-class under their feet. They think we are stupid and they treat us like dirt. Please, you Farang, HELP and give us some answers. We ordinary Thai people are desperate and in despair.
In case Ji hadn’t noticed, Thai politics had always been the domain of cockroaches. Some of us don’t forget. Some of us will never forgive the mainstream of thai politics. Have some principles and stick to them! Raise your own leaders instead of accepting the first rich idiot that comes along.
Despite the fact I disagree with so much of his work, I admire and place great value on Ji Unpakorn. He often brings a logic and viewpoint that many Thais seem to lack the faculty to reach. However, Ji’s views of Thaksin and the TRT often seem one sided. For example, he quite rightly opposes the Lese Majeste law yet always fails to mention Thaksin’s often ruthless opposition or – more often – subtle suppression of the media in Thailand.
Nigel, after reading your comment I re-read Ji’s editorial/comment. I don’t see any place in there where he said Thaksin was a man of the left, nor that TRT was a party of the left. I also didn’t see anyplace in there where he said Thaksin or his party were not corrupt. In one place he did say that no real vote-buying had been proven, which I happen to agree with, and that Thaksin, Samak, and the PPP were convicted on technicalities, which I also agree with. Especially Samak. Although Ji is a Marxist, I don’t see that he is using a Marxist framework in this analysis. I believe your analysis is exactly right, that Thaksin’s aim was to become another Lee Kwan Yew. Whether he would have succeeded or not is moot now. The point I think Ji was making was simply that to finally win an election the Cockroach Party will probably have to adopt some of Thaksin’s techniques.
As for Angelo, you need to get out more and stop watching so much ASTV.
While it was Samak who initiated the deal, Apirak had a chance to review and reject it.
Apirak, despite the warning from Banyat and other Democrats members to avoid corruption charge by stalling the deal, decided to give a green light to the deal. It is this act that costs him the Governor seat.
If you can read Thai, then go to the news link here:
Sorry, but I fail to see why figures of the political left such as Giles Ungpakorn get so excited by Thaksin Shinawatra and his motley assortment of crony capitalist buddies. Lest we forget, Thaksin Shinawatr entered politics with a view to becoming a Thai version of Lee Kwan Yew, the Singaporean strongman who ruled the city state of Singapore for decades unchallenged. With this in mind, he set about constructing a political party that would control the rural heartland of northern and northeastern Thailand. To do this, he turned to the very same figures that were anathema to modern democracy in Thailand, the regional power brokers and godfathers who had used money politics and patronage networks to take control of political power and dine on the state budget. Although it is true that Thaksin’s TTT party had on board some figures from the political left who undoubtedly influenced policy, the core of the party were the same local godfathers and overlords who had been feasting on state budgets in preceding years. Thaksin’s main innovation, if you can call it that, was to use his financial clout to bring this raft of local feudal lords under the ticket of a single party, thus ensuring its electoral success with a hefty majority. He was still, however, beholden to the regional power brokers who put him in power.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the Thaksin government, rather than being a pillar of modern democratic values focused on narrowing the enormous gap between rich and poor, instead turned out to be deeply corrupt and, in many fundamental ways, little different to preceding regimes. Thaksin systematically undermined and took control of the checks and balances laid down within the 1997 constitution, gagged the free press through the use of either financial means (withdrawing advertising revenue from dissenting press voices) or legal threats (prosecution using Thailand’s arcane libel laws), and allegedly backed a wave of extra-judicial killings during the so-called “war on drugs.” The main difference between the Thaksin regime and others that had gone before was that he had secured a significant electoral majority by cozying up or buying off such a large number of regional power brokers and thus had a free reign to run Thailand and change the rules to consolidate his stranglehold on power. If the strength of multi-party democracy is in the assurance of accountability, something had clearly gone wrong.
It would be disingenuous to demonize Thaksin and his regime in comparison, say, to the opposition Democrat Party. All party politics in Thailand is deeply mired in the same cesspool of money politics and patronage. Arguably, the roots of this run deep within Thai culture and belief systems. In Thailand, the animistic belief system in which the environment is inhabited by a host of amoral spirits which must be placated through offerings left at spirit houses has its counterpart in the way Thais react to influential figures within their own communities. Such figures are potentially dangerous and, likewise, must also be placated not challenged. The morality of political leaders may not be part of the equation when people are making their mark on a ballot paper. Neither will considerations of how the corrupt practices of locally elected leaders may impact on the state and its ultimate ability to develop sectors such as education in the medium to long term. People are more likely to look for short to medium term benefits to themselves and their community, which local leaders may deliver once elected. The millions of baht stolen by the said leaders once they are in power are unlikely to concern most of the electorate.
The current political quagmire in which Thailand finds itself cannot be understood within the framework of left and right wing politics typical of Western political discourse and the elevation of Thaksin by certain political writers to the moral high ground of the political left is misplaced. The most convincing interpretation of the current situation is that of various groupings of powerful and wealthy figures jockeying for position in the twilight of King Bumiphol Adulyadej’s reign. This is largely a battle between wealthy elite groupings for the spoils of the state; it is not a fight between a rich elite on the one hand and a poor rural population on the other.
“The Democrat governor of Bangkok had to resign recently under a corruption cloud”
Wasn’t it PPP’s Samak who set the price and signed the contract for the purchase of the fire trucks? I believe Apirak, when starting his term as governor, paid the price in that contract, which was the cause of the corruption charges.
I agree with most of this article and it raises some very important questions. But maybe it’s not very useful to discuss corruption when comparing Thai political parties. Corruption is a part of Thai society and happens at all levels, I don’t think many people believe that there is a party/side that is completely clean.
Corruption accusations are being made by all sides, and however valid, don’t really make much of a difference in choosing sides.
It takes cojones of steel for a Thai citizen to write and sign this. For the time being, I’m afraid it will be in vain, but without people like Ji there would be no hope for change.
I dunno… ascribing motives carte blanche tends of overlook other aspects or motivations. Men like Newin and Thaksin, for example, ARE just men and are bound to do good things from time to time whether they intend to or not. As well, they may be doing them for self-serving reasons or because they are the right thing to do. As to the latter, this is a tough call. Over the four decades of my experience with politicians, Thai or otherwise, their ability and/or willingness to do good rather than not depends generally on what it does for them and their supporters, but more so for them as they need to be stable to help their cause.
So, in short, whenever those two in particular do something good per se, I have deep reservations about their motives.
# 18: “I’m all for locking up a few ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ leaders, so the rest of the country can get on living with and tolerating each other.”
Charging the PAD leaders and putting them into jail for, say, 15-20 years each, was not amongst the 13 demands that the PAD has put to the Abhisit government. Fat chance it will happen. And what about all the often-photographed protest participants? Will they be subjected to criminal and civil charges? Suriyasai still insists that all the PAD’s actions were based on the constitutional right to freedom of assembly…
I agree with Dr J. Please do not belittle(whether intentionally or not) the dissent voices within Thailand. Our voices may not be that powerful right now but they will continue to strengthen and grow into maturity some day. Please avoid reinforcing the stereotype of Thai people as ‘sabai sabai’, ‘Mai pen rai ‘(‘never mind” ), or simply passive.
I see myself (and Dr. J as well)as belonging to another group of Thais who do not fit into this stereotype ( which is promoted by mainstream Thai culture and some foreigners alike) and we will continue to hold on to our belief that Thailand can change for better (no matter how long this will take).
Got to read the excellent article on prostitution in Thailand. Really appreciate the author’s attempt to do the in-dept analysis of the problem of prostitution in Thailand. It’s so true that a lot of middle-class (or upper) Thai men play a significantl role in perpetuating (if not actually causing) this problem, and make Thailand the way it is nowadays… Take the way many of these men treat women—nothing but sex objects–the things that they can purchase with cash and show off among friends to boost up the image of being a ‘virile’ man. Many of the so-called middle-class educated Thai men are incredibly sexist and so hypocrite when the issue of prostituion is concerned. (For the purpose of my term paper)I’m a regular visitor of a Thai forum whose members are largely middle-class, ‘educated’ men and I’m appalled by the way men there discuss about women. With such an entrenched sexist attitude and a very strong patriachal culture, i don’t think it’s easy for Thailand to alleviate the problem of prostitution.. Easy for these Thai men to put the blame on government or foreign or western tourists than review or change their own attitude towards women that contributes to the booming of the sex industry and the subordinate position of women in Thailand.. Sadly, many Thai women also internalized sexist attitudes that can only disempower them…
When the likes of Newin and Thaksin do good things, it is even more obvious than usual that credit should go to the environment in which they operate, rather than to the individuals. Democratic institutions tend to be responsible for the good things power-hungry people do, and natural human frailty and the more sordid aspects of their backgrounds, for the bad. A world view dominated by heroes and villains (like that of the yellows and the reds) is a childish one.
Continuing the theme of selective memories, I hope Kwanchai and Uthai are included in those interviewed and charged – it should be a clear cut case as I seem to recall Kwanchai admitted doing it, and basically warned the PAD to stay away or they would be attacked again.
I’m all for locking up a few ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ leaders, so the rest of the country can get on living with and tolerating each other.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The writing on the wall
It’s clearly about Thaksin backing the red mob!!
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
All this having been said, the Democratic Party is the only party in Thailand with an institutional basis. The other are lead by personallities.
Political organizations must mature beyond the godfather level for a democracy to flourish.
Frank Lombard
BKK
The writing on the wall
Yes, we know who is backing the yellow mob. But we can only gossip and whisper. We are not allowed to say it. It is FORBIDDEN. That’s Thailand’s biggest problem – INEQUALITY and (lack of) freedom of speech . How can we change this? When will we get freedom of speech? When will we be heard? When will our voice be respected? How do we get rid of repressive laws and the ‘Sakdina’ system? The upper-class have all the power and ‘APISIT’ (meaning privilege). They are Sakdina. They do everything to keep us lower-class under their feet. They think we are stupid and they treat us like dirt. Please, you Farang, HELP and give us some answers. We ordinary Thai people are desperate and in despair.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
For heaven’s sake Nigel, read Giles’s post again and try and understand it this time.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
In case Ji hadn’t noticed, Thai politics had always been the domain of cockroaches. Some of us don’t forget. Some of us will never forgive the mainstream of thai politics. Have some principles and stick to them! Raise your own leaders instead of accepting the first rich idiot that comes along.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Despite the fact I disagree with so much of his work, I admire and place great value on Ji Unpakorn. He often brings a logic and viewpoint that many Thais seem to lack the faculty to reach. However, Ji’s views of Thaksin and the TRT often seem one sided. For example, he quite rightly opposes the Lese Majeste law yet always fails to mention Thaksin’s often ruthless opposition or – more often – subtle suppression of the media in Thailand.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Nigel, after reading your comment I re-read Ji’s editorial/comment. I don’t see any place in there where he said Thaksin was a man of the left, nor that TRT was a party of the left. I also didn’t see anyplace in there where he said Thaksin or his party were not corrupt. In one place he did say that no real vote-buying had been proven, which I happen to agree with, and that Thaksin, Samak, and the PPP were convicted on technicalities, which I also agree with. Especially Samak. Although Ji is a Marxist, I don’t see that he is using a Marxist framework in this analysis. I believe your analysis is exactly right, that Thaksin’s aim was to become another Lee Kwan Yew. Whether he would have succeeded or not is moot now. The point I think Ji was making was simply that to finally win an election the Cockroach Party will probably have to adopt some of Thaksin’s techniques.
As for Angelo, you need to get out more and stop watching so much ASTV.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Khun Joost (comment 3)
While it was Samak who initiated the deal, Apirak had a chance to review and reject it.
Apirak, despite the warning from Banyat and other Democrats members to avoid corruption charge by stalling the deal, decided to give a green light to the deal. It is this act that costs him the Governor seat.
If you can read Thai, then go to the news link here:
http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/view_news.php?newsid=01pol05201151§ionid=0133&day=2008-11-20
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Abhisit was described on SBS News this evening as being associated with “clean politics”. Is this at all true, or total garbage ?
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Sorry, but I fail to see why figures of the political left such as Giles Ungpakorn get so excited by Thaksin Shinawatra and his motley assortment of crony capitalist buddies. Lest we forget, Thaksin Shinawatr entered politics with a view to becoming a Thai version of Lee Kwan Yew, the Singaporean strongman who ruled the city state of Singapore for decades unchallenged. With this in mind, he set about constructing a political party that would control the rural heartland of northern and northeastern Thailand. To do this, he turned to the very same figures that were anathema to modern democracy in Thailand, the regional power brokers and godfathers who had used money politics and patronage networks to take control of political power and dine on the state budget. Although it is true that Thaksin’s TTT party had on board some figures from the political left who undoubtedly influenced policy, the core of the party were the same local godfathers and overlords who had been feasting on state budgets in preceding years. Thaksin’s main innovation, if you can call it that, was to use his financial clout to bring this raft of local feudal lords under the ticket of a single party, thus ensuring its electoral success with a hefty majority. He was still, however, beholden to the regional power brokers who put him in power.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the Thaksin government, rather than being a pillar of modern democratic values focused on narrowing the enormous gap between rich and poor, instead turned out to be deeply corrupt and, in many fundamental ways, little different to preceding regimes. Thaksin systematically undermined and took control of the checks and balances laid down within the 1997 constitution, gagged the free press through the use of either financial means (withdrawing advertising revenue from dissenting press voices) or legal threats (prosecution using Thailand’s arcane libel laws), and allegedly backed a wave of extra-judicial killings during the so-called “war on drugs.” The main difference between the Thaksin regime and others that had gone before was that he had secured a significant electoral majority by cozying up or buying off such a large number of regional power brokers and thus had a free reign to run Thailand and change the rules to consolidate his stranglehold on power. If the strength of multi-party democracy is in the assurance of accountability, something had clearly gone wrong.
It would be disingenuous to demonize Thaksin and his regime in comparison, say, to the opposition Democrat Party. All party politics in Thailand is deeply mired in the same cesspool of money politics and patronage. Arguably, the roots of this run deep within Thai culture and belief systems. In Thailand, the animistic belief system in which the environment is inhabited by a host of amoral spirits which must be placated through offerings left at spirit houses has its counterpart in the way Thais react to influential figures within their own communities. Such figures are potentially dangerous and, likewise, must also be placated not challenged. The morality of political leaders may not be part of the equation when people are making their mark on a ballot paper. Neither will considerations of how the corrupt practices of locally elected leaders may impact on the state and its ultimate ability to develop sectors such as education in the medium to long term. People are more likely to look for short to medium term benefits to themselves and their community, which local leaders may deliver once elected. The millions of baht stolen by the said leaders once they are in power are unlikely to concern most of the electorate.
The current political quagmire in which Thailand finds itself cannot be understood within the framework of left and right wing politics typical of Western political discourse and the elevation of Thaksin by certain political writers to the moral high ground of the political left is misplaced. The most convincing interpretation of the current situation is that of various groupings of powerful and wealthy figures jockeying for position in the twilight of King Bumiphol Adulyadej’s reign. This is largely a battle between wealthy elite groupings for the spoils of the state; it is not a fight between a rich elite on the one hand and a poor rural population on the other.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
“The Democrat governor of Bangkok had to resign recently under a corruption cloud”
Wasn’t it PPP’s Samak who set the price and signed the contract for the purchase of the fire trucks? I believe Apirak, when starting his term as governor, paid the price in that contract, which was the cause of the corruption charges.
I agree with most of this article and it raises some very important questions. But maybe it’s not very useful to discuss corruption when comparing Thai political parties. Corruption is a part of Thai society and happens at all levels, I don’t think many people believe that there is a party/side that is completely clean.
Corruption accusations are being made by all sides, and however valid, don’t really make much of a difference in choosing sides.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Well written.
It takes cojones of steel for a Thai citizen to write and sign this. For the time being, I’m afraid it will be in vain, but without people like Ji there would be no hope for change.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Typical fascist discourse, the “beloved great leader”, “the red hero” is out for good, he will probably never return, his “people” are furious !
TRT/PPP/PT are all the same thing : a tool to put, keep or bring back THE LEADER to power, they failed, hence the furor …
NB: What’s the german translation for LEADER ?
End of the royal taboo?
Nation has come out with a response: “Foreign Media coverage of our crisis is distorted,” (Sat. 12th Dec.) @ http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/12/opinion/opinion_30090774.php
Dishonourable but parliamentary
I dunno… ascribing motives carte blanche tends of overlook other aspects or motivations. Men like Newin and Thaksin, for example, ARE just men and are bound to do good things from time to time whether they intend to or not. As well, they may be doing them for self-serving reasons or because they are the right thing to do. As to the latter, this is a tough call. Over the four decades of my experience with politicians, Thai or otherwise, their ability and/or willingness to do good rather than not depends generally on what it does for them and their supporters, but more so for them as they need to be stable to help their cause.
So, in short, whenever those two in particular do something good per se, I have deep reservations about their motives.
Violence and politics
# 18: “I’m all for locking up a few ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ leaders, so the rest of the country can get on living with and tolerating each other.”
Charging the PAD leaders and putting them into jail for, say, 15-20 years each, was not amongst the 13 demands that the PAD has put to the Abhisit government. Fat chance it will happen. And what about all the often-photographed protest participants? Will they be subjected to criminal and civil charges? Suriyasai still insists that all the PAD’s actions were based on the constitutional right to freedom of assembly…
“Thailand will soon quiet down…”
I agree with Dr J. Please do not belittle(whether intentionally or not) the dissent voices within Thailand. Our voices may not be that powerful right now but they will continue to strengthen and grow into maturity some day. Please avoid reinforcing the stereotype of Thai people as ‘sabai sabai’, ‘Mai pen rai ‘(‘never mind” ), or simply passive.
I see myself (and Dr. J as well)as belonging to another group of Thais who do not fit into this stereotype ( which is promoted by mainstream Thai culture and some foreigners alike) and we will continue to hold on to our belief that Thailand can change for better (no matter how long this will take).
On prostitution and Thailand today
Got to read the excellent article on prostitution in Thailand. Really appreciate the author’s attempt to do the in-dept analysis of the problem of prostitution in Thailand. It’s so true that a lot of middle-class (or upper) Thai men play a significantl role in perpetuating (if not actually causing) this problem, and make Thailand the way it is nowadays… Take the way many of these men treat women—nothing but sex objects–the things that they can purchase with cash and show off among friends to boost up the image of being a ‘virile’ man. Many of the so-called middle-class educated Thai men are incredibly sexist and so hypocrite when the issue of prostituion is concerned. (For the purpose of my term paper)I’m a regular visitor of a Thai forum whose members are largely middle-class, ‘educated’ men and I’m appalled by the way men there discuss about women. With such an entrenched sexist attitude and a very strong patriachal culture, i don’t think it’s easy for Thailand to alleviate the problem of prostitution.. Easy for these Thai men to put the blame on government or foreign or western tourists than review or change their own attitude towards women that contributes to the booming of the sex industry and the subordinate position of women in Thailand.. Sadly, many Thai women also internalized sexist attitudes that can only disempower them…
Dishonourable but parliamentary
When the likes of Newin and Thaksin do good things, it is even more obvious than usual that credit should go to the environment in which they operate, rather than to the individuals. Democratic institutions tend to be responsible for the good things power-hungry people do, and natural human frailty and the more sordid aspects of their backgrounds, for the bad. A world view dominated by heroes and villains (like that of the yellows and the reds) is a childish one.
Violence and politics
Continuing the theme of selective memories, I hope Kwanchai and Uthai are included in those interviewed and charged – it should be a clear cut case as I seem to recall Kwanchai admitted doing it, and basically warned the PAD to stay away or they would be attacked again.
I’m all for locking up a few ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ leaders, so the rest of the country can get on living with and tolerating each other.