A quote from Dale Bailey written to Bangkok Post’s Postbag on the 1st October that perfectly sums up the root cause of Thailand’s deep societal conflict. Jim Taylor is merely polishing the “so shiny” side of that Thaksin coin for us here while PADites dwell on the “so dark” side.
This is why Thai democracy is “withering”. However, it will never be a Burma. The simple fact is that 1) PMThaksin is not Aung San Su Kyi (even if he did not flee and took a stint in Thai jail) 2) He will not live forever – and out of his shadow, Thai democracy will re-adjust to another reality – it will most likely bloom 3) The Thai military has clearly evolved through its involvement in politics marked by critical events in 1932, 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 (etc.) – being more aware of its limitations each round…
““Monarchy-Democracy” System > Can you provide the Thai expression?
DB:
“what, what, what do the PAD want? after getting rid of all the current politicians and everyone else, what do you want?” > Indeed, the PAD’s proposals for “New Politics” are rather lame given the PAD’s extreme analysis. Some of the discourse in Phuchatkan, however, depicts the PAD as an avangarde movement–under the leadership not of Lenin, but the five “kaennam.” The rest of Thailand’s population is supposed to follow the decisions of this avangarde. In order not to confuse this with Leninist Communism, they have called it “Thai-style People’s Democracy.”
However, this is all rather vague (although one cam construct a nice, though scary, model by analyzing all the articles on the protests on New Politics), and it is difficult to see how much of a model the “kaennam” really have, and whether they are united behind it.
In the 1970s, the then-famous German communist revolutionary, Rudi Dutschke, was asked on mainstream TV by an equally famous host, Guenther Gaus, what Dutschke’s movement wanted to put in place after they had achieved their aim to destroy German democracy. Dutschke said something to the effect of, “I can’t say that. Let’s burn our house first. What we will do afterwards, we will have to decide upon when the house has burnt down.”
Somkid, >Fact: The Princess donated 800,000 Baht to police stating that the money was from the King.<
Still haven’t seen this report, although it was reported that HM the Queen donated Baht 900,000 to three hospitals, one of which was the Police General Hospital. It was also reported that HRH Princess Chulabhorn extended condolences to Miss Angkhana’s family on behalf of HM the King.
Ed Norton, I disagree that perhaps mistakenly identifying Khunying Jaruvan as chairman as the AEC, rather than chairman of one of its committees, has resulted in an utter misunderstanding by myself of the work of the AEC. I see this logic as akin to Thaksin’s argument that, if it can be proved that the AEC was unconstitutional during a minor part of its tenure, then the evidence it produced during the whole of its tenure of plundering the nation on a grand scale by Thaksin, his wife and his cronies is no longer true.
It is difficult to believe that we Occidentals could add any more to the horrors of that poor benighted country. Better we add two more four letter words than to so contribute – ‘Stay’ and ‘Away’!
Not sure what to say about jonfernquest’s comment at #4, which confuses states and people and continues the rant about foreigners not understanding Thailand. Of course, there are many who don’t, just as having Thai genes does not predispose every Thai to understanding the current political situation in Thailand. This “foreigners don’t understand” suggestion is a red herring for it tells us nothing except to give us a perspective on jonfernquest.
Speaking of red, that Ji Ungpakorn is a Trostskyist is hardly an earth shattering revelation given that Ji tells everyone, including the FT. Maybe Ji’s transparency on his politics will rub off on some others involved in Thailand’s politics. Maybe the Bangkok Post and Nation can take a leaf from the FT and begin identifying their mysterious “a source” who is cited repeatedly?
It is worth noting that the recent attacks on the Ungapakorn brothers have been malicious and smell fishy as well: a decided PAD odor to them.
BkkOptimist has decided to go back over all this ground and rewrite history for us: “Go back to the real fundamentals – Thaksin was trying and succeeding in establishing an absolute dictatorship. That is what brought the PAD onto the streets – the coup happened when it did because that was the last opportunity to oust him before absolute power would have been obtained.” There is plenty of contrary opinion and much of it has been expressed here at NM.
BkkOpt might also like to read Connors blog, where he has some contrary evidence, especilly in the special issue of Journal of Contemporary Asia on the coup. Some 200 pages devoted to it there, fully referenced.
Cup of Tea must be reading very shallowly to be able to assert that Thaksin’s authoritarian proclivity “seems to have been rather bizarrely neglected in all the of the debate about the current Thai situation that I have seen.” This point has been made many times, but to repeat for COT: read Pasuk and Baker, McCargo and Ukrist, Connors, Hewison and so on in the academic literature. Read Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for human rights NGO material. Read Chang Noi and any issues of the Nation and Bangkok Post for 2003-2006. It seems bizarre that these have to be mentioned repeatedly.
The words “the police” in the above propaganda poster should be substituted by these words “Sondhi Limtongkun, Chumlong Srimueang, Somsak Kosaiyasuk, and co.”
While I agree with this article’s conclusion, the introduction about Taiwan is extremely flawed. I am confused as to what constitutes a “new democratic movement” in Taiwan. Anti-democratic movement might be a better way to describe it as elements of the KMT never accepted the election losses in 2000 and 2004.
It was not until allegations of corruption associated with President Chen became public in 2006 that anything that could be said to resemble a people’s movement came into being. Even then the red shirt protests were extremely partisan in nature, with the use of a former dissident who had fallen out with the DPP and come into the KMT fold being used to give the protests credibility.
To call Chen Shui-bian a dictator and liken him to Thaksin is also completely unwarranted. Whatever flaws Chen might have had he did a lot to promote democracy and the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings and disappearances that happened in Taiwan during the KMT martial law era are now a thing of the past. Whereas in Thailand these things continued to happen during Thaksin’s time.
To say that corruption became worse during Chen’s presidency is also a false assumption. Instead strengthening of the rule of law meant that senior politicians from both sides of politics were subject to corruption investigations. It is disappointing that the DPP came to power promising to eliminate corruption, but many of its members instead became a part of the corrupt system.
Excellent work, Christian. I think it would be greatly strengthened, beyond mere comparison, if you went further in showing how the Red Ants in Taipei were more than mere carnival, but out and out fraud. For example, Shih’s connection to a well-known anti-Chen embezzler who lives in China, the fact that his followers later sued him, his close and concealed connections to the KMT — and of course, the regular appearance of corrupt KMT politicians at the protests. The whole thing was a fraud run by pro-KMT forces and Shih a willing tool. The two protests even have a connection — Shih met the embezzler in Thailand, and afterwards he went to Thailand to speak on activism.
Michael Turton The View from Taiwan
PS: Thanks for that time you and the other Christian saved my life in Taichung after the traffic accident. If you hadn’t appeared, I might have received a severe beating.
“The authors commentary is well researched, however he appears to have missed some of the highlights of Dr. Thaksin’s reign as PM.”
Thank you BkkOptimist this aspect seems to have been rather bizarrely neglected in all the of the debate about the current Thai situation that I have seen.
I am far from pleased at how Thailand has been governed since the 2006 coup and I am rather taken aback by the antics of the PAD and their negative non-message. But I am equally taken aback at how fashionable it has become (particularly in the west) to airbrush over the negative aspects of Thaksin’s administration.
I think we all want democracy to triumph but lets have some perspective here. Thaksin a hero for democracy? I don’t think so. The Economist magazine once described him as a cross between Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez.
The politicians who preceded Thaksin were corrupt, autocratic and cynical, and Thaksin was no different. I would even say that he took the game to another level. I think he did some good things, but for all the wrong motives. He knew who his power base were and he knew how to play to them while the (equally dishonourable) opposition were bewildered, disorganised and still trying to grasp the new level of play. The laudable (and long overdue) universal heatlthcare policy was one example. But there were also things that he did that were downright wrong, like the crackdown on drugs with over 2000 extra-judicial killings. I remember an anti-drug taskforce set up by Surayudh (at the time supreme commander of the army) on orders from the government, in order to deal with the anphetamine problem caused by Burmese Junta-sanctioned drug lords who had their own private armies smuggling the stuff across the border. The unit ( task force 362 I believe it was called) was extremely effective but was mysteriously disbanded without explanation after a visit to Burma by someone from the Thai government.
I regret becoming too jaded to bother remembering many of the details of such things during Thaksin’s tenure.Maybe someone with a better memory me can furnish us with with some perspective here?
My point isn’t to rant about and say booyah! to Thaksin. I just want to remind people that like all the politicians before him he rode roughshod over democracy in Thailand and it really is ironic that he has suddenly become (to some) the poster boy for democracy in Thailand…
About the first article by Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly ┬╖
These 2 writers seemed to have missed the point about the reason for PAD protests. If Andrew Walker & Nicholas Farrelly truly believe what they are saying, then they also would defend the leadership of Cuba, the leadership of Sadam Hussien in Iraq, as well as Mugabe in Zimbabwe…..all of these regimes were put in place by “democratic elections”.
These dictators were all elected. However the claims by PAD about proxies and nominees has even been admitted to by the ruling governments leadership. Does anyone honestly believe that a guy with less than 1year experience as an MP and who happens to be the brother in law of Thaksin is really in charge of the country and not the escaped fugitive?
Finally, the stupidity of the article written by Andrew Walker & Nicholas Farrelly is that they are attacking the PAD becuase of their clumsy solution for change to the system in Thailand. What they are not hearing is the reasons why this government should not be there. And there are many.
a recent poll shows that the Democrats have gained support since the 2007
election… from about 37% to 43.8%
and the PPP have also (slightly) gained support … from about 37% to 39.5%
at the expense of the smaller parties that are now in coalition with the
PPP, which still seems to give the PPP-led government a reasonably comfortable 56.2% support overall
but what these numbers also show is that it would not require a huge change in peoples votes to change the government
if the PAD would only develop some positive view of the future, instead of the negative “we hate everything and want to get rid of everybody” approach
then its quite possible they could support the Democrats increasing their vote across the country and, with the usual help from the minor parties that swing in the wind, they could win the next election
perhaps the influential figures behind the PAD are getting tired of the delays in actually achieving anything other than promises that “tomorrow will be the last battle”
sooner or later they will recognise it will be more effective and of more long term benefit if their allies just secure their power by working with the people rather than against them.
of course for this to happen, the PAD, and Democrats, will have to reinvent themselves with positive policies that convince the people that they will develop Thailand and everyone will benefit
its unlikely that the people of Thailand would accept that the PAD has really changed from the hate machine to something that is positive and attractive with its current leadership
the hidden and open supporters of the PAD will need to consider whether to dump all or some of the leaders and give them radically new orders and tasks to achieve their real end objectives
in the end this approach is likely to be more productive for them than changing leadership of the current government which has proven very unproductive and wasteful of PAD and democrat resources
we will still have two, or more, groups that are opposed, sometimes bitterly, but at least they will work within the system trying to destroy each other instead of the current quite destructive situation
So far only one Thai-language magazine, namely Prachathat, in its latest issue (with photo of Gen. Salang on the cover) carries the Princess’ remarks about PAD on pages 16, 17.
Well done Nik. Some good photos and interesting comment. Gutsy of you to remain in areas near the turmoil after copping a steel pellet to the tummy.
Just re some of the criticism of The Nation and local papers: I think people make too much of their “bias”. I’m sure Nation group bosses want to put out a decent newspaper, but the company has had serious financial problems of late. They had debt of over 3 billion baht, which forced the sale of their tower (head office in BangNa Trad), and a hotel in Hua Hin, and debt is still about 1.7 billion baht, I believe. That forced it to reduce its staff numbers substantially, both Thai and foreign, reporters, photographers and subeditors. Many people were laid off from July 31 (from the English paper; their Thai papers Kom Chad Leuk and Krungthep Turakij are healthy and profitable). Thing is you can’t have such major manpower changes with an impact on content, particularly when you are dealing with copy that is translated – when time is limited there are more weak links in the chain, if you like. Subeditors can rectify a lot of bad or weak reporting, but when they have a lot of stories to do (as they do now compared to a few years ago when it was surely a better paper than the Post), you don’t have the time correct everything. And with reporters – even senior reporters – writing in poor English, that time is much needed to fix stories.
On a day like October 7, the paper’s main error, if you like, was not reporting the police warning to protesters to disperse. Nik heard that, but obviously many PAD did not. I think The Nation reported there was no warning given. Given the comments by people on this blog, it sounds like the warning was not loud and there was only a relatively short period of time before the teargas shells were launched. On the other hand, Nik guessed what was coming. But many protesters claim they didn’t.
Another factor in regard to the group’s “bias” is the stance Nation bosses such as Suthichai Yoon took during the last Thaksin administration. His argument was there comes a point when damage to the country is such that one has to do more than just report objectively. His company and the Nation newspaper has paid the price of that decision but it strikes me as hardly surprising given the sort of tactic Thaksin’s government was using to intimidate, muzzle and distract the press. The massive lawsuit launched against the Post over its runway cracks story (which appeared to have some merit) and the rally staged outside the Nation building are just two examples that come to mind.
On the other hand, the paper could have done more to boost its credibility by reducing the amount of commentary it carries. The Chang Noi column by Chris Baker and his wife Pasuk is perhaps the best in any paper. Magnificent at times. Yet their are others who are rabid anti-Thaksin bores; some people like that, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I believe the Nation Group is looking for a foreign news group to partner them, and I hope they get a firm with a lot of experience, and a little cash to help them boost staff numbers again. The paper has a proud history and it is obviously struggling more at present, but it can be reinvigorated with some fresh blood and editorial experience. I think Thailand and the region really needs two English papers. Even people on the Post admit that they need the competition to stop them becoming slack and lazy in their reporting. It’s not just Thailand – look at the countries all around – Laos, Cambodia and Burma. There is probably a wealth of untold scandals that need to be revealed. Only Cambodia has a vibrant press. Indeed, the Phnom Penh Post looks quite impressive now that Dunkley and Clough (Perth men linked via investments in Burma such as the Myanmar Times) have taken over. Maybe they should get on board at The Nation and give it a similar infusion of quality staff. They need to have the cash to pay people such as Nik for reports such as he has done here. But they also need some farang in senior positions, as at the Post, cos the current format isn’t working for foreign readers. And one of the problems with The Nation was the myth that the paper was read mainly by educated Thais. At the end of the day it’s an English language paper and very few Thais have the finesse to be good writers in English, especially to standards that foreign readers want.
I am afraid that Connors is confusing for me because he is just not clear in his responses. Something more fundamental is going on. Okay, but what? I don’t see it in Dr. Connors’ interview. I agree with Connors that Chamlong cannot be considered a puppet master, so is Connors suggesting a deeper social conflict? Others have made this point, at least since the coup, but what about spelling it out?
Why does this response appear to deny that PAD are attempting to promote a coup or something else that changes the political balance? Note I say “appear”, for I am sure that Connors sees PAD violence, along with state violence. He is just not being clear about what he is saying.
What of the royalist liberal Chai-Anan’s call for political murders?
Where is the “liberalism” that Dr. Connors usually trumpets for Thailand? Was this liberalism a thin veneer underlain by reactionary conservatism? Is this why we see violence from both sides? In such circumstances, what are the prospects for any kind of Thai liberalism emerging?
jonfernquest has said, again, that misunderstandings are due somehow to NM and something the presumably means the Western press: “New Mandala and the western systematically avoids publishing almost anything about Jaruvan’s work.” I am not point-scoring here, but this is an odd view to say the least.
First point: why should NM act as a newspaper or a site of record for Thai politics? This is unreasonable.
Second, which western [media] are “systematically” avoiding reporting Jaruvan’s work? If this refers to the international media, one wonders how such a charge is made when almost everything Thailand is very limited and editors would need to ask who would be interested in the machinations of deep Thai politics. But I suspect that jonfernquest means the Bangkok Post and the Nation. I have been saving articles from these papers that mention Jaruvan, and there are quite a few over the past few years.
Of course, jonfernquest might want more, but there has been plenty of reporting of her (even the short Wikipedia article on her lists more than two dozen reports from the Nation and Post, and there were 40 mentions of Jaruvan my press clippings for Oct 2006 alone). Not all of the articles provide full information on her work, but there does not appear to be any systematic attempt to not report her work.
And, the reporting in the Post and Nation are generally highly positive of her and her work, which have been highly controversial and caused considerable debate (again, look at the reports for Oct 2006 as a sampler). Nor are the reports short on personal detail about her, including her belief that god (the Roman Catholic one) is on her side.
If anything, most recent reports have been rather too sanguine on Jaruvan. For example, one thing that does seem to have been let go for a while is the charge that her house under construction is valued at far more than she claims. The recent apparent arson attempt at the house showed a house that is obviously way in excess of the paltry amount she claims it to be worth. Before someone says this is minor, think of Samak and his 80,000 baht on the cooking show. Jaruvan’s misquoting of the value of the construction far exceeds that.
In my view, the problem with Portman’s statements above are that they are sometimes inaccurate and based on a memory of events that may not always be accurate and that is sometimes coloured by political hopes rather than reality. For example, on the rather important matter of her role on the AEC, Portman states: “Assets Examination Committee, chaired by Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka” – as far as I can tell, at the time, this is incorrect. I could be wrong, but my search for this information produced one statement of her having led the AEC in 2006, and this seems an inaccuracy in Wikipedia. It is this inaccuracy that causes misunderstanding, along with a biased reading of the cases involved.
Certainly, there has been plenty of reporting of this feisty if flawed campaigner.
Lee Kuan Yew should not be bestowed with ANY honor. Doing so brings dishonor to the institute that gives it to him. Why do I say so? Am I not a Singaporean?
Yes I am. Sometimes I feel ashamed to be one. I live in a climate of fear. I long for true democracy, but do not dare to fight for it. I have a mouth but I cannot speak. I have hands and legs but I dare not fight.
Unlike people all over the world who fights hard for their freedom, for democracy and to be free, Singaporeans like myself hide behind the comfort of their home, type away on the computer, to complain about something they have the right to, but dare not change.
Yes, I am a Singaporean, but I wish I am elsewhere, for as long as there is Lee Kuan Yew, our country will not be free.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Whither Thai democracy?
“In my many years as a resident here, the most frustrating aspect has been that the Thaksin coin is so shiny on one side and so dark on the other…”
in:
http://www.bangkokpost.net/011008_News/01Oct2008_news21.php
A quote from Dale Bailey written to Bangkok Post’s Postbag on the 1st October that perfectly sums up the root cause of Thailand’s deep societal conflict. Jim Taylor is merely polishing the “so shiny” side of that Thaksin coin for us here while PADites dwell on the “so dark” side.
This is why Thai democracy is “withering”. However, it will never be a Burma. The simple fact is that 1) PMThaksin is not Aung San Su Kyi (even if he did not flee and took a stint in Thai jail) 2) He will not live forever – and out of his shadow, Thai democracy will re-adjust to another reality – it will most likely bloom 3) The Thai military has clearly evolved through its involvement in politics marked by critical events in 1932, 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 (etc.) – being more aware of its limitations each round…
Connors takes aim at conventional wisdom
Goodby:
““Monarchy-Democracy” System > Can you provide the Thai expression?
DB:
“what, what, what do the PAD want? after getting rid of all the current politicians and everyone else, what do you want?” > Indeed, the PAD’s proposals for “New Politics” are rather lame given the PAD’s extreme analysis. Some of the discourse in Phuchatkan, however, depicts the PAD as an avangarde movement–under the leadership not of Lenin, but the five “kaennam.” The rest of Thailand’s population is supposed to follow the decisions of this avangarde. In order not to confuse this with Leninist Communism, they have called it “Thai-style People’s Democracy.”
However, this is all rather vague (although one cam construct a nice, though scary, model by analyzing all the articles on the protests on New Politics), and it is difficult to see how much of a model the “kaennam” really have, and whether they are united behind it.
In the 1970s, the then-famous German communist revolutionary, Rudi Dutschke, was asked on mainstream TV by an equally famous host, Guenther Gaus, what Dutschke’s movement wanted to put in place after they had achieved their aim to destroy German democracy. Dutschke said something to the effect of, “I can’t say that. Let’s burn our house first. What we will do afterwards, we will have to decide upon when the house has burnt down.”
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Somkid, >Fact: The Princess donated 800,000 Baht to police stating that the money was from the King.<
Still haven’t seen this report, although it was reported that HM the Queen donated Baht 900,000 to three hospitals, one of which was the Police General Hospital. It was also reported that HRH Princess Chulabhorn extended condolences to Miss Angkhana’s family on behalf of HM the King.
Ed Norton, I disagree that perhaps mistakenly identifying Khunying Jaruvan as chairman as the AEC, rather than chairman of one of its committees, has resulted in an utter misunderstanding by myself of the work of the AEC. I see this logic as akin to Thaksin’s argument that, if it can be proved that the AEC was unconstitutional during a minor part of its tenure, then the evidence it produced during the whole of its tenure of plundering the nation on a grand scale by Thaksin, his wife and his cronies is no longer true.
Tour
It is difficult to believe that we Occidentals could add any more to the horrors of that poor benighted country. Better we add two more four letter words than to so contribute – ‘Stay’ and ‘Away’!
Walker on Radio Australia
Not sure what to say about jonfernquest’s comment at #4, which confuses states and people and continues the rant about foreigners not understanding Thailand. Of course, there are many who don’t, just as having Thai genes does not predispose every Thai to understanding the current political situation in Thailand. This “foreigners don’t understand” suggestion is a red herring for it tells us nothing except to give us a perspective on jonfernquest.
Speaking of red, that Ji Ungpakorn is a Trostskyist is hardly an earth shattering revelation given that Ji tells everyone, including the FT. Maybe Ji’s transparency on his politics will rub off on some others involved in Thailand’s politics. Maybe the Bangkok Post and Nation can take a leaf from the FT and begin identifying their mysterious “a source” who is cited repeatedly?
It is worth noting that the recent attacks on the Ungapakorn brothers have been malicious and smell fishy as well: a decided PAD odor to them.
Connors takes aim at conventional wisdom
BkkOptimist has decided to go back over all this ground and rewrite history for us: “Go back to the real fundamentals – Thaksin was trying and succeeding in establishing an absolute dictatorship. That is what brought the PAD onto the streets – the coup happened when it did because that was the last opportunity to oust him before absolute power would have been obtained.” There is plenty of contrary opinion and much of it has been expressed here at NM.
BkkOpt might also like to read Connors blog, where he has some contrary evidence, especilly in the special issue of Journal of Contemporary Asia on the coup. Some 200 pages devoted to it there, fully referenced.
Whither Thai democracy?
Cup of Tea must be reading very shallowly to be able to assert that Thaksin’s authoritarian proclivity “seems to have been rather bizarrely neglected in all the of the debate about the current Thai situation that I have seen.” This point has been made many times, but to repeat for COT: read Pasuk and Baker, McCargo and Ukrist, Connors, Hewison and so on in the academic literature. Read Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for human rights NGO material. Read Chang Noi and any issues of the Nation and Bangkok Post for 2003-2006. It seems bizarre that these have to be mentioned repeatedly.
“The police murder the people”
The words “the police” in the above propaganda poster should be substituted by these words “Sondhi Limtongkun, Chumlong Srimueang, Somsak Kosaiyasuk, and co.”
PAD, consumed democracy and self-dramatization: A comparative view from Taiwan
While I agree with this article’s conclusion, the introduction about Taiwan is extremely flawed. I am confused as to what constitutes a “new democratic movement” in Taiwan. Anti-democratic movement might be a better way to describe it as elements of the KMT never accepted the election losses in 2000 and 2004.
It was not until allegations of corruption associated with President Chen became public in 2006 that anything that could be said to resemble a people’s movement came into being. Even then the red shirt protests were extremely partisan in nature, with the use of a former dissident who had fallen out with the DPP and come into the KMT fold being used to give the protests credibility.
To call Chen Shui-bian a dictator and liken him to Thaksin is also completely unwarranted. Whatever flaws Chen might have had he did a lot to promote democracy and the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings and disappearances that happened in Taiwan during the KMT martial law era are now a thing of the past. Whereas in Thailand these things continued to happen during Thaksin’s time.
To say that corruption became worse during Chen’s presidency is also a false assumption. Instead strengthening of the rule of law meant that senior politicians from both sides of politics were subject to corruption investigations. It is disappointing that the DPP came to power promising to eliminate corruption, but many of its members instead became a part of the corrupt system.
PAD, consumed democracy and self-dramatization: A comparative view from Taiwan
Excellent work, Christian. I think it would be greatly strengthened, beyond mere comparison, if you went further in showing how the Red Ants in Taipei were more than mere carnival, but out and out fraud. For example, Shih’s connection to a well-known anti-Chen embezzler who lives in China, the fact that his followers later sued him, his close and concealed connections to the KMT — and of course, the regular appearance of corrupt KMT politicians at the protests. The whole thing was a fraud run by pro-KMT forces and Shih a willing tool. The two protests even have a connection — Shih met the embezzler in Thailand, and afterwards he went to Thailand to speak on activism.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan
PS: Thanks for that time you and the other Christian saved my life in Taichung after the traffic accident. If you hadn’t appeared, I might have received a severe beating.
“…strong resistance from pro-government factions”
A necessity, I think, in view of the fact that some other groups of thugs, notably PAD, have flagrantly committed illegal and unethical acts.
Whither Thai democracy?
“The authors commentary is well researched, however he appears to have missed some of the highlights of Dr. Thaksin’s reign as PM.”
Thank you BkkOptimist this aspect seems to have been rather bizarrely neglected in all the of the debate about the current Thai situation that I have seen.
I am far from pleased at how Thailand has been governed since the 2006 coup and I am rather taken aback by the antics of the PAD and their negative non-message. But I am equally taken aback at how fashionable it has become (particularly in the west) to airbrush over the negative aspects of Thaksin’s administration.
I think we all want democracy to triumph but lets have some perspective here. Thaksin a hero for democracy? I don’t think so. The Economist magazine once described him as a cross between Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez.
The politicians who preceded Thaksin were corrupt, autocratic and cynical, and Thaksin was no different. I would even say that he took the game to another level. I think he did some good things, but for all the wrong motives. He knew who his power base were and he knew how to play to them while the (equally dishonourable) opposition were bewildered, disorganised and still trying to grasp the new level of play. The laudable (and long overdue) universal heatlthcare policy was one example. But there were also things that he did that were downright wrong, like the crackdown on drugs with over 2000 extra-judicial killings. I remember an anti-drug taskforce set up by Surayudh (at the time supreme commander of the army) on orders from the government, in order to deal with the anphetamine problem caused by Burmese Junta-sanctioned drug lords who had their own private armies smuggling the stuff across the border. The unit ( task force 362 I believe it was called) was extremely effective but was mysteriously disbanded without explanation after a visit to Burma by someone from the Thai government.
I regret becoming too jaded to bother remembering many of the details of such things during Thaksin’s tenure.Maybe someone with a better memory me can furnish us with with some perspective here?
My point isn’t to rant about and say booyah! to Thaksin. I just want to remind people that like all the politicians before him he rode roughshod over democracy in Thailand and it really is ironic that he has suddenly become (to some) the poster boy for democracy in Thailand…
Blood rather than ballots
About the first article by Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly ┬╖
These 2 writers seemed to have missed the point about the reason for PAD protests. If Andrew Walker & Nicholas Farrelly truly believe what they are saying, then they also would defend the leadership of Cuba, the leadership of Sadam Hussien in Iraq, as well as Mugabe in Zimbabwe…..all of these regimes were put in place by “democratic elections”.
These dictators were all elected. However the claims by PAD about proxies and nominees has even been admitted to by the ruling governments leadership. Does anyone honestly believe that a guy with less than 1year experience as an MP and who happens to be the brother in law of Thaksin is really in charge of the country and not the escaped fugitive?
Finally, the stupidity of the article written by Andrew Walker & Nicholas Farrelly is that they are attacking the PAD becuase of their clumsy solution for change to the system in Thailand. What they are not hearing is the reasons why this government should not be there. And there are many.
Whither Thai democracy?
a recent poll shows that the Democrats have gained support since the 2007
election… from about 37% to 43.8%
and the PPP have also (slightly) gained support … from about 37% to 39.5%
at the expense of the smaller parties that are now in coalition with the
PPP, which still seems to give the PPP-led government a reasonably comfortable 56.2% support overall
but what these numbers also show is that it would not require a huge change in peoples votes to change the government
if the PAD would only develop some positive view of the future, instead of the negative “we hate everything and want to get rid of everybody” approach
then its quite possible they could support the Democrats increasing their vote across the country and, with the usual help from the minor parties that swing in the wind, they could win the next election
perhaps the influential figures behind the PAD are getting tired of the delays in actually achieving anything other than promises that “tomorrow will be the last battle”
sooner or later they will recognise it will be more effective and of more long term benefit if their allies just secure their power by working with the people rather than against them.
of course for this to happen, the PAD, and Democrats, will have to reinvent themselves with positive policies that convince the people that they will develop Thailand and everyone will benefit
its unlikely that the people of Thailand would accept that the PAD has really changed from the hate machine to something that is positive and attractive with its current leadership
the hidden and open supporters of the PAD will need to consider whether to dump all or some of the leaders and give them radically new orders and tasks to achieve their real end objectives
in the end this approach is likely to be more productive for them than changing leadership of the current government which has proven very unproductive and wasteful of PAD and democrat resources
we will still have two, or more, groups that are opposed, sometimes bitterly, but at least they will work within the system trying to destroy each other instead of the current quite destructive situation
On royal silence
So far only one Thai-language magazine, namely Prachathat, in its latest issue (with photo of Gen. Salang on the cover) carries the Princess’ remarks about PAD on pages 16, 17.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Well done Nik. Some good photos and interesting comment. Gutsy of you to remain in areas near the turmoil after copping a steel pellet to the tummy.
Just re some of the criticism of The Nation and local papers: I think people make too much of their “bias”. I’m sure Nation group bosses want to put out a decent newspaper, but the company has had serious financial problems of late. They had debt of over 3 billion baht, which forced the sale of their tower (head office in BangNa Trad), and a hotel in Hua Hin, and debt is still about 1.7 billion baht, I believe. That forced it to reduce its staff numbers substantially, both Thai and foreign, reporters, photographers and subeditors. Many people were laid off from July 31 (from the English paper; their Thai papers Kom Chad Leuk and Krungthep Turakij are healthy and profitable). Thing is you can’t have such major manpower changes with an impact on content, particularly when you are dealing with copy that is translated – when time is limited there are more weak links in the chain, if you like. Subeditors can rectify a lot of bad or weak reporting, but when they have a lot of stories to do (as they do now compared to a few years ago when it was surely a better paper than the Post), you don’t have the time correct everything. And with reporters – even senior reporters – writing in poor English, that time is much needed to fix stories.
On a day like October 7, the paper’s main error, if you like, was not reporting the police warning to protesters to disperse. Nik heard that, but obviously many PAD did not. I think The Nation reported there was no warning given. Given the comments by people on this blog, it sounds like the warning was not loud and there was only a relatively short period of time before the teargas shells were launched. On the other hand, Nik guessed what was coming. But many protesters claim they didn’t.
Another factor in regard to the group’s “bias” is the stance Nation bosses such as Suthichai Yoon took during the last Thaksin administration. His argument was there comes a point when damage to the country is such that one has to do more than just report objectively. His company and the Nation newspaper has paid the price of that decision but it strikes me as hardly surprising given the sort of tactic Thaksin’s government was using to intimidate, muzzle and distract the press. The massive lawsuit launched against the Post over its runway cracks story (which appeared to have some merit) and the rally staged outside the Nation building are just two examples that come to mind.
On the other hand, the paper could have done more to boost its credibility by reducing the amount of commentary it carries. The Chang Noi column by Chris Baker and his wife Pasuk is perhaps the best in any paper. Magnificent at times. Yet their are others who are rabid anti-Thaksin bores; some people like that, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I believe the Nation Group is looking for a foreign news group to partner them, and I hope they get a firm with a lot of experience, and a little cash to help them boost staff numbers again. The paper has a proud history and it is obviously struggling more at present, but it can be reinvigorated with some fresh blood and editorial experience. I think Thailand and the region really needs two English papers. Even people on the Post admit that they need the competition to stop them becoming slack and lazy in their reporting. It’s not just Thailand – look at the countries all around – Laos, Cambodia and Burma. There is probably a wealth of untold scandals that need to be revealed. Only Cambodia has a vibrant press. Indeed, the Phnom Penh Post looks quite impressive now that Dunkley and Clough (Perth men linked via investments in Burma such as the Myanmar Times) have taken over. Maybe they should get on board at The Nation and give it a similar infusion of quality staff. They need to have the cash to pay people such as Nik for reports such as he has done here. But they also need some farang in senior positions, as at the Post, cos the current format isn’t working for foreign readers. And one of the problems with The Nation was the myth that the paper was read mainly by educated Thais. At the end of the day it’s an English language paper and very few Thais have the finesse to be good writers in English, especially to standards that foreign readers want.
Connors takes aim at conventional wisdom
I am afraid that Connors is confusing for me because he is just not clear in his responses. Something more fundamental is going on. Okay, but what? I don’t see it in Dr. Connors’ interview. I agree with Connors that Chamlong cannot be considered a puppet master, so is Connors suggesting a deeper social conflict? Others have made this point, at least since the coup, but what about spelling it out?
Why does this response appear to deny that PAD are attempting to promote a coup or something else that changes the political balance? Note I say “appear”, for I am sure that Connors sees PAD violence, along with state violence. He is just not being clear about what he is saying.
What of the royalist liberal Chai-Anan’s call for political murders?
Where is the “liberalism” that Dr. Connors usually trumpets for Thailand? Was this liberalism a thin veneer underlain by reactionary conservatism? Is this why we see violence from both sides? In such circumstances, what are the prospects for any kind of Thai liberalism emerging?
What happened on 7/10/2008?
jonfernquest has said, again, that misunderstandings are due somehow to NM and something the presumably means the Western press: “New Mandala and the western systematically avoids publishing almost anything about Jaruvan’s work.” I am not point-scoring here, but this is an odd view to say the least.
First point: why should NM act as a newspaper or a site of record for Thai politics? This is unreasonable.
Second, which western [media] are “systematically” avoiding reporting Jaruvan’s work? If this refers to the international media, one wonders how such a charge is made when almost everything Thailand is very limited and editors would need to ask who would be interested in the machinations of deep Thai politics. But I suspect that jonfernquest means the Bangkok Post and the Nation. I have been saving articles from these papers that mention Jaruvan, and there are quite a few over the past few years.
Of course, jonfernquest might want more, but there has been plenty of reporting of her (even the short Wikipedia article on her lists more than two dozen reports from the Nation and Post, and there were 40 mentions of Jaruvan my press clippings for Oct 2006 alone). Not all of the articles provide full information on her work, but there does not appear to be any systematic attempt to not report her work.
And, the reporting in the Post and Nation are generally highly positive of her and her work, which have been highly controversial and caused considerable debate (again, look at the reports for Oct 2006 as a sampler). Nor are the reports short on personal detail about her, including her belief that god (the Roman Catholic one) is on her side.
If anything, most recent reports have been rather too sanguine on Jaruvan. For example, one thing that does seem to have been let go for a while is the charge that her house under construction is valued at far more than she claims. The recent apparent arson attempt at the house showed a house that is obviously way in excess of the paltry amount she claims it to be worth. Before someone says this is minor, think of Samak and his 80,000 baht on the cooking show. Jaruvan’s misquoting of the value of the construction far exceeds that.
In my view, the problem with Portman’s statements above are that they are sometimes inaccurate and based on a memory of events that may not always be accurate and that is sometimes coloured by political hopes rather than reality. For example, on the rather important matter of her role on the AEC, Portman states: “Assets Examination Committee, chaired by Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka” – as far as I can tell, at the time, this is incorrect. I could be wrong, but my search for this information produced one statement of her having led the AEC in 2006, and this seems an inaccuracy in Wikipedia. It is this inaccuracy that causes misunderstanding, along with a biased reading of the cases involved.
Certainly, there has been plenty of reporting of this feisty if flawed campaigner.
ANU honours Lee Kuan Yew. Why?
Lee Kuan Yew should not be bestowed with ANY honor. Doing so brings dishonor to the institute that gives it to him. Why do I say so? Am I not a Singaporean?
Yes I am. Sometimes I feel ashamed to be one. I live in a climate of fear. I long for true democracy, but do not dare to fight for it. I have a mouth but I cannot speak. I have hands and legs but I dare not fight.
Unlike people all over the world who fights hard for their freedom, for democracy and to be free, Singaporeans like myself hide behind the comfort of their home, type away on the computer, to complain about something they have the right to, but dare not change.
Yes, I am a Singaporean, but I wish I am elsewhere, for as long as there is Lee Kuan Yew, our country will not be free.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Somkid #46: Please give details (sources of information, dates), so that these 2 interesting ‘facts’ can be checked, for credibility.