The name of the writer in Matichon is “Wasit”. Through his numerous writings, Wasit has shown himself to be a fair-minded man. What he is trying to do here is probably to moderate a ‘turbulent sea’.
There were several copies of The Devil’s Discus, both in Thai and English, at high prices at the current Bangkok International Book Fair. I found a copy of the yellow cover variant of р╕Бр╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ыр╕╡р╕ир╕▓р╕И for THB 18,000 which puts it in the same league as DD’s first edition in English. The yellow cover variants are much more scarce. Perhaps Ajarn Somsak will be so kind as to enlighten us as to р╕Бр╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ыр╕╡р╕ир╕▓р╕И’s printing history.
Yes, the first 16 pages are still missing! If anyone has these as scans or photocopies, I would be most grateful for them.
I also found another recent book in Thai on the King Ananda death case of which I was not aware:
Title: р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕╢р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕нр╕Ър╕кр╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕кр╕зр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕Хр╕гр╕▒р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕ер╕Чр╕╡р╣И 8
[Records of the Investigation into the Death of King Rama VIII (King Ananda Mahidol):
A Documentary History]
Editor:
Committee Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of Pridi Banomyong 11/5/2443-11/5/2543 (Sulak Sivaraksa, Chair)
In Matichon of October 21, staunch old royalist Khun Visit tries to “translate” the Princess’ remarks, based on the element “on behalf of.” He stresses that this meant “as a representative,” or as somebody who had been “assigned” by the monarchy to perform certain actions. Thus, the princess had only said that the monarchy had not assigned the PAD to do what they have been doing, or that they did not act as a representative of the monarchy.
Visit does not mention that “on behalf of” also meant “for the benefit of somebody” or “to help somebody.” In fact, nobody had ever assumed that the monarchy assignd the PAD to do certain actions, etc. The question was clearly contextualized by the constant claim of the PAD that they wanted to help the monarchy to be strong, to defend the monarchy against threats, i.e. to benefit it, etc. This was the point of reference of “on behalf of.”
“The result confirms that there are more close contests under the multi-member format…” > I wonder how the situation would have looked like if there had been MMC in 2001, and especially in 2005, that is under rather different political conditions compared to the 2007 election.
I suspected that you were referring to that expression. Only wonder why you did not use the usual translation of “democratic system of government with the king as head of state,” or “Section 2. Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”
Concentrating on the worst aspects of the opposing side, whilst at the same time ignoring the deficiencies of ones own ‘side’ is one of the main reasons why this political standoff shows no sign of ending.
(whichever ‘side’ you happen to be on)
Unlike AW, I do not want to see HMK step in to solve things (again) and would prefer it if the people can sort things out amongst themselves (without violence).
Nor do I want to see one group of elites prevail at the expense of the other, enabling the usual ‘winner take all’ plunder.
IMO, the first step required to move forward is for the moderate elements on both sides to acknowledge the democratic deficiciences of their own side, marginalise their more radical leaders, and then try to find common ground with the moderates of the other side.
In short, the PAD mob need to acknowledge that the rural masses have a right to an equal vote, and the Red’s need to accept that some of the things that Thaksin did were unacceptable to many reasonable people.
Once the moderate/reasonable people are on they same page they could them work on how one patronage system can be dismantled without creating another one.
I refute “Neil” – it is a four letter word. I have never been to Cambodia so I can afford to give advice to others. It is correct to refute “benighted”: my comments, however, were spawned not by French Colonialisism but by Operation Menu (another for letter word).
“Chuck,
You should have warned people those pictures are disturbing. That was sick. Looks like war in Bangkok not very “Enlightening”.
You Jerk ”
I am from the USA and I appreciate the honest graphic depiction of the TRUTH. In the USA we are so removed from this type of violence we start to see reality as a unreal, we cannot accept it, it is just the news, so we do not feel deeply as we should.
COT: I don’t think we are that far apart. My point is that you say, “I just want to remind people that like all the politicians before him [etc.] …”. My point is that if we have to say these things every single time we comment on Thailand’s contemporary politics, we’ll be writing books not blogging. If any of the authors of newspaper article and the blog comment above is not aware of this literature, then they can’t use Google. I am willing to allow that they are not such dull persons and don’t require that they continually explain every problem of the Thaksin period.
I am unsure just how to respond to Portman and stay within the NM guidelines for I am tempted to engage in unimaginative point-scoring to counter idle abuse, but let me try.
In my response on Portman’s post at #49 I explained that Portman “sometimes inaccurate and based on a memory of events that may not always be accurate and that is sometimes coloured by political hopes.” I provided one example of that: that Portman had mis-stated Jaruvan’s position as chairman as the AEC. I did not claim that that one identified error (quite an important one) “resulted in an utter misunderstanding by [Portman] of the work of the AEC.” I was merely making a case that in matters such as legal cases, one might want to be careful with the facts.
To then accused of using a “logic as akin to Thaksin’s” is not just missing the point but is entirely misleading regarding the points made in my post regarding Jaruvan. If Portman is to be taken seriously, then Portman needs to at least attempt to get the facts right. This is not always easy, for as I pointed out, even Wikipedia got this one wrong. To rely on memory is not good enough in these matters.
To then demand facts of Somkid in the same post while not demanding a similar rigor in his/her own posts is a bit rich.
I am not going to take up each and every point in Portman’s posts, but just one more for a bit of fun. Portman states: “I think the 2006 election ruling and the convictions of the electoral commissioners were perfectly just.” All well and good, but there are other interpretations that probably deserve more attention. For example, then Senator and lawyer and soon to be AEC member Kaewsan Atibodhi, no friend of Thaksin or TRT, was reported as being taken aback by this decision, calling it a “judicial hijacking” (“Thaksin in the Dock” by James Vander Meer, Asia Sentinel, 9 Aug 2006). Was his logic Thaksin-like as well?
I m Thailand women, I want all person read and understand about this tragedy send to your friends know more and more….please…..Thailand may go to scourge and die if Taksin still not cashed and his colleagues still be powerful р╕┤р╕▒by law.
The people must to be success and free from them. I love my king and real trust all people love King Phumiphol because he have been sacrificer for people and the Nation all his life, I have seen all my life. So we dont want to change the democracy be the United nation and dont want someone who’s live in London come to be Thai President on his mind, he havent match coz he dont love The Nation and people. That’s enought!!!
Ralph Cramden: I don’t see the issues raised by those authors, reports and newspapers stories being represented in the article that we’re commenting on here, nor have I in most other articles and debates in the general western press.
Indeed it is bizarre that it has been repeated many times as you say, that none of it is a secret, and people who are writing articles such as Jim Taylor or Gwynne Dyer http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy/news/article.cfm?c_id=171&objectid=10531139 who seem to know so much yet seem anything but fain to highlight the darker side of the coin along with the light. Why is this?
I am seeing parallels to the Saddam/Iraq debate where some people moan about how Iraq is now is so bad and then some make the leap o don rose tinted glasses for Saddam.
Is Thailand/Iraq in a bad way right now? Yes. Were there some good points about Thaksin/Saddam? Yes. Was getting rid of them a good thing? Hell yes.
I would not argue with what Jim Taylor has to say about the PAD and those behind them, but to leave out the contextualisation of Thaksin’s contribution to the fire that is now smoking is negligent.
That was an ugly comment from me. The first sentence, and ‘contributing to our apology’, was more aimed at goading my Uncle’s sentiment than denying horrors Westerners have fostered in Cambodia.
I like the sentiment behind Andrew and Nic’s little exercise, but the figures are not so optimistic. I did a simple exercise on the 2007 poll returns
At the 2001 and 2005 polls with all single-member constituencies, most victors won by a mile with only a very small number of close contests. Reverting to multi-member constituencies was expected to produce a fuzzier result, and indeed it did. A shift of 1 percent of voters to the top losing candidate(s) could have changed the result of 11 seats; a shift of 5 percent could have changed 60 seats; and a shift of 10 percent could have changed 104 seats.
But the impact of such shifts on the final party composition is not so decisive. If all the seats vulnerable to a 1 percent shift did change, the Democrats would make a net gain of 3 seats, 2 from the PPP and 1 from a minor party. At a 5 percent shift level, 32 PPP MPs would lose, but 23 PPP losers elsewhere would gain; while 18 Democrats would gain but 14 lose. The net effect would be a net loss of 9 seats for PPP, and a gain of 4 for the Democrats and 5 for other parties. At the 10 percent shift level, the net loss by the PPP rises to 20 seats, but the net gain for the Democrats is only 3, and the other 17 fall to the minor parties.
There is no reason to predict any regular and consistent ‘swing’ in Thai elections. This is just a statistical exercise. The result confirms that there are more close contests under the multi-member format, but there is no support for the proposition that the Democrats are close to an electoral breakthrough. While there are several seats which look within their grasp, there are almost as many others where they look vulnerable, particularly in parts of Bangkok and the east where they “took” the seat from PPP at the last poll.
South Korea and Taiwan have already undergone massive economic transition over several decades under non-democratic regimes and cannot reasonably be compared to Thailand.
Divisive democratic institutions in Thailand over the same period have made it essentially a rudderless ship.
In economics there is the question of whether an emerging market economy ever musters enough political will to become a prosperous modern economy.
South Korea, Taiwan, and China have been able to do this. Thaksin had the requisite political willpower but the same left-leaning forces pushing for his reinstatement now on grounds of democracy, were exactly the forces working against his push for the economic liberalization of the economy back then.
This is the sort of political schizophrenia exhibited by so many political actors in Thailand that makes the country weak.
Ultimately, the only way to increase the share of the economic pie for farmers, is to increase the size of the economic pie for everyone in the society, i.e. economic growth.
Unlike South Korea and Taiwan very little research has been done on the political economy of Thailand’s industrialization, for instance of the Eastern Seaboard under the Prem cabinets. Most research is focus on the agricultural hinterland. Until this work is done how can Thailand be compared to countries that have managed to fully industrialize themselves?
Neil, I think that the horrors are only added when we Occidentals perceive we are adding them. The objective of the story was (for me) to get at perspectives beyond the arrogance of being an apologist, which I was, (and still am a little) — I think staying away would only contribute to our apology and impose a perpetuating poverty of our values. I don’t think it’s possible to say Cambodia is benighted, maybe if you were a French colonialist it would be more appropriate.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
On royal silence
The name of the writer in Matichon is “Wasit”. Through his numerous writings, Wasit has shown himself to be a fair-minded man. What he is trying to do here is probably to moderate a ‘turbulent sea’.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
There were several copies of The Devil’s Discus, both in Thai and English, at high prices at the current Bangkok International Book Fair. I found a copy of the yellow cover variant of р╕Бр╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ыр╕╡р╕ир╕▓р╕И for THB 18,000 which puts it in the same league as DD’s first edition in English. The yellow cover variants are much more scarce. Perhaps Ajarn Somsak will be so kind as to enlighten us as to р╕Бр╕Зр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ыр╕╡р╕ир╕▓р╕И’s printing history.
Yes, the first 16 pages are still missing! If anyone has these as scans or photocopies, I would be most grateful for them.
I also found another recent book in Thai on the King Ananda death case of which I was not aware:
Title: р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕╢р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕нр╕Ър╕кр╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕кр╕зр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕Хр╕гр╕▒р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕ер╕Чр╕╡р╣И 8
[Records of the Investigation into the Death of King Rama VIII (King Ananda Mahidol):
A Documentary History]
Editor:
Committee Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of Pridi Banomyong 11/5/2443-11/5/2543 (Sulak Sivaraksa, Chair)
Co-publishers:
Pridi Banomyong Institute (02-381-3860-1) http://www.pridi.or.th
Children’s Foundation Publishing (02-881-1734) http://www.ffc.or.th
Bangkok
1st edition: Commercial News, Issues 1 – 41, 2489 [1946]
1st book edition: March 2546 [2003]
2nd printing: March 2547 [2004] (2000 copies)
ISBN: 9747834944
Price: THB 300
The book may be found online by ISBN.
One verdict on Thaksin
With this biased judiciary, Thaksin and his wife would surely be found guilty.
On royal silence
K. Srithanonchai
Your comment is straightforward and crystal clear!
Can anybody forward your comment to K.Sondhi
On royal silence
In Matichon of October 21, staunch old royalist Khun Visit tries to “translate” the Princess’ remarks, based on the element “on behalf of.” He stresses that this meant “as a representative,” or as somebody who had been “assigned” by the monarchy to perform certain actions. Thus, the princess had only said that the monarchy had not assigned the PAD to do what they have been doing, or that they did not act as a representative of the monarchy.
Visit does not mention that “on behalf of” also meant “for the benefit of somebody” or “to help somebody.” In fact, nobody had ever assumed that the monarchy assignd the PAD to do certain actions, etc. The question was clearly contextualized by the constant claim of the PAD that they wanted to help the monarchy to be strong, to defend the monarchy against threats, i.e. to benefit it, etc. This was the point of reference of “on behalf of.”
Blood rather than ballots
“The result confirms that there are more close contests under the multi-member format…” > I wonder how the situation would have looked like if there had been MMC in 2001, and especially in 2005, that is under rather different political conditions compared to the 2007 election.
Connors takes aim at conventional wisdom
Goodbye:
I suspected that you were referring to that expression. Only wonder why you did not use the usual translation of “democratic system of government with the king as head of state,” or “Section 2. Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”
Whither Thai democracy?
Concentrating on the worst aspects of the opposing side, whilst at the same time ignoring the deficiencies of ones own ‘side’ is one of the main reasons why this political standoff shows no sign of ending.
(whichever ‘side’ you happen to be on)
Unlike AW, I do not want to see HMK step in to solve things (again) and would prefer it if the people can sort things out amongst themselves (without violence).
Nor do I want to see one group of elites prevail at the expense of the other, enabling the usual ‘winner take all’ plunder.
IMO, the first step required to move forward is for the moderate elements on both sides to acknowledge the democratic deficiciences of their own side, marginalise their more radical leaders, and then try to find common ground with the moderates of the other side.
In short, the PAD mob need to acknowledge that the rural masses have a right to an equal vote, and the Red’s need to accept that some of the things that Thaksin did were unacceptable to many reasonable people.
Once the moderate/reasonable people are on they same page they could them work on how one patronage system can be dismantled without creating another one.
Tour
I refute “Neil” – it is a four letter word. I have never been to Cambodia so I can afford to give advice to others. It is correct to refute “benighted”: my comments, however, were spawned not by French Colonialisism but by Operation Menu (another for letter word).
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Excellent explanation of this situation, I have a Travel Blog and I am presently in Thailand. I have traveled for over 10 years and 79 countries.
A reader put this link on my site in the comments, then another reader, (Probably from the USA) wrote about the pictures on this page:
I Wish to Live Deliberately
“Chuck,
You should have warned people those pictures are disturbing. That was sick. Looks like war in Bangkok not very “Enlightening”.
You Jerk ”
I am from the USA and I appreciate the honest graphic depiction of the TRUTH. In the USA we are so removed from this type of violence we start to see reality as a unreal, we cannot accept it, it is just the news, so we do not feel deeply as we should.
Andy of HoboTraveler.com Travel Blog
Whither Thai democracy?
COT: I don’t think we are that far apart. My point is that you say, “I just want to remind people that like all the politicians before him [etc.] …”. My point is that if we have to say these things every single time we comment on Thailand’s contemporary politics, we’ll be writing books not blogging. If any of the authors of newspaper article and the blog comment above is not aware of this literature, then they can’t use Google. I am willing to allow that they are not such dull persons and don’t require that they continually explain every problem of the Thaksin period.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
I am unsure just how to respond to Portman and stay within the NM guidelines for I am tempted to engage in unimaginative point-scoring to counter idle abuse, but let me try.
In my response on Portman’s post at #49 I explained that Portman “sometimes inaccurate and based on a memory of events that may not always be accurate and that is sometimes coloured by political hopes.” I provided one example of that: that Portman had mis-stated Jaruvan’s position as chairman as the AEC. I did not claim that that one identified error (quite an important one) “resulted in an utter misunderstanding by [Portman] of the work of the AEC.” I was merely making a case that in matters such as legal cases, one might want to be careful with the facts.
To then accused of using a “logic as akin to Thaksin’s” is not just missing the point but is entirely misleading regarding the points made in my post regarding Jaruvan. If Portman is to be taken seriously, then Portman needs to at least attempt to get the facts right. This is not always easy, for as I pointed out, even Wikipedia got this one wrong. To rely on memory is not good enough in these matters.
To then demand facts of Somkid in the same post while not demanding a similar rigor in his/her own posts is a bit rich.
I am not going to take up each and every point in Portman’s posts, but just one more for a bit of fun. Portman states: “I think the 2006 election ruling and the convictions of the electoral commissioners were perfectly just.” All well and good, but there are other interpretations that probably deserve more attention. For example, then Senator and lawyer and soon to be AEC member Kaewsan Atibodhi, no friend of Thaksin or TRT, was reported as being taken aback by this decision, calling it a “judicial hijacking” (“Thaksin in the Dock” by James Vander Meer, Asia Sentinel, 9 Aug 2006). Was his logic Thaksin-like as well?
What happened on 7/10/2008?
I m Thailand women, I want all person read and understand about this tragedy send to your friends know more and more….please…..Thailand may go to scourge and die if Taksin still not cashed and his colleagues still be powerful р╕┤р╕▒by law.
The people must to be success and free from them. I love my king and real trust all people love King Phumiphol because he have been sacrificer for people and the Nation all his life, I have seen all my life. So we dont want to change the democracy be the United nation and dont want someone who’s live in London come to be Thai President on his mind, he havent match coz he dont love The Nation and people. That’s enought!!!
Whither Thai democracy?
Ralph Cramden: I don’t see the issues raised by those authors, reports and newspapers stories being represented in the article that we’re commenting on here, nor have I in most other articles and debates in the general western press.
Indeed it is bizarre that it has been repeated many times as you say, that none of it is a secret, and people who are writing articles such as Jim Taylor or Gwynne Dyer http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy/news/article.cfm?c_id=171&objectid=10531139 who seem to know so much yet seem anything but fain to highlight the darker side of the coin along with the light. Why is this?
I am seeing parallels to the Saddam/Iraq debate where some people moan about how Iraq is now is so bad and then some make the leap o don rose tinted glasses for Saddam.
Is Thailand/Iraq in a bad way right now? Yes. Were there some good points about Thaksin/Saddam? Yes. Was getting rid of them a good thing? Hell yes.
I would not argue with what Jim Taylor has to say about the PAD and those behind them, but to leave out the contextualisation of Thaksin’s contribution to the fire that is now smoking is negligent.
Tour
That was an ugly comment from me. The first sentence, and ‘contributing to our apology’, was more aimed at goading my Uncle’s sentiment than denying horrors Westerners have fostered in Cambodia.
PAD, consumed democracy and self-dramatization: A comparative view from Taiwan
That is one of the best contribution for New Politics in Thailand.
Blood rather than ballots
I like the sentiment behind Andrew and Nic’s little exercise, but the figures are not so optimistic. I did a simple exercise on the 2007 poll returns
At the 2001 and 2005 polls with all single-member constituencies, most victors won by a mile with only a very small number of close contests. Reverting to multi-member constituencies was expected to produce a fuzzier result, and indeed it did. A shift of 1 percent of voters to the top losing candidate(s) could have changed the result of 11 seats; a shift of 5 percent could have changed 60 seats; and a shift of 10 percent could have changed 104 seats.
But the impact of such shifts on the final party composition is not so decisive. If all the seats vulnerable to a 1 percent shift did change, the Democrats would make a net gain of 3 seats, 2 from the PPP and 1 from a minor party. At a 5 percent shift level, 32 PPP MPs would lose, but 23 PPP losers elsewhere would gain; while 18 Democrats would gain but 14 lose. The net effect would be a net loss of 9 seats for PPP, and a gain of 4 for the Democrats and 5 for other parties. At the 10 percent shift level, the net loss by the PPP rises to 20 seats, but the net gain for the Democrats is only 3, and the other 17 fall to the minor parties.
There is no reason to predict any regular and consistent ‘swing’ in Thai elections. This is just a statistical exercise. The result confirms that there are more close contests under the multi-member format, but there is no support for the proposition that the Democrats are close to an electoral breakthrough. While there are several seats which look within their grasp, there are almost as many others where they look vulnerable, particularly in parts of Bangkok and the east where they “took” the seat from PPP at the last poll.
PAD, consumed democracy and self-dramatization: A comparative view from Taiwan
South Korea and Taiwan have already undergone massive economic transition over several decades under non-democratic regimes and cannot reasonably be compared to Thailand.
Divisive democratic institutions in Thailand over the same period have made it essentially a rudderless ship.
In economics there is the question of whether an emerging market economy ever musters enough political will to become a prosperous modern economy.
South Korea, Taiwan, and China have been able to do this. Thaksin had the requisite political willpower but the same left-leaning forces pushing for his reinstatement now on grounds of democracy, were exactly the forces working against his push for the economic liberalization of the economy back then.
This is the sort of political schizophrenia exhibited by so many political actors in Thailand that makes the country weak.
Ultimately, the only way to increase the share of the economic pie for farmers, is to increase the size of the economic pie for everyone in the society, i.e. economic growth.
Unlike South Korea and Taiwan very little research has been done on the political economy of Thailand’s industrialization, for instance of the Eastern Seaboard under the Prem cabinets. Most research is focus on the agricultural hinterland. Until this work is done how can Thailand be compared to countries that have managed to fully industrialize themselves?
Tour
Neil, I think that the horrors are only added when we Occidentals perceive we are adding them. The objective of the story was (for me) to get at perspectives beyond the arrogance of being an apologist, which I was, (and still am a little) — I think staying away would only contribute to our apology and impose a perpetuating poverty of our values. I don’t think it’s possible to say Cambodia is benighted, maybe if you were a French colonialist it would be more appropriate.
Connors takes aim at conventional wisdom
Srithanonchai:
“Monarchy-Democracy” System = “Kaanpokkrong-raborb-prachathipatai-anmii-phra-mahaakasat pen pramuk”