HC Lau, no one is a saint here – I think that we all agree on. For me, the judiciary in complicitly ‘releasing’ PMThaksin, the Dark Lord, to attend the Beijing Olympics opening is telling in itself. If you corner PMThaksin in Thailand by convicting and jailing him (with clear, technical evidences), there’s a big chance that he’ll bite back with a vengeance and take a large chunk of the Thai elite that he has had shady business/political dealings with down with him and his family.
By allowing PMThaksin to escape and protest his innocence in England or the Bahamas, many others in business, politics, military, bureaucracy can breathe easy in Thailand and also maintain their ‘innocence’.
At this point and atmosphere, it is almost impossible that PMThaksin will ever come back. For PMThaksin, it is now the matter of ‘negotiating’, directly and through nominees in parliament and on the streets, his assets back (whether rightly or wrongly gained, this may or may not be proven in courts). This is where the current elite must thread with great care. If they cave in for the sake of ‘peace’, they’ll be empowering PMThaksin and there are many precedents when PMThaksin says he’ll quit politics for good, he means the exact opposite…
And I agree with Chang Noi’s analysis, PAD’s diverse membership is only united as long as they sniff Thaksin’s hands in any political dealings. Since the military coup in 2006, his has not been about forwarding Thai democracy, but about merely containing Thaksin and his cronies/nominees. PAD are willing to ‘pause’ democracy until PMThaksin really retires.
I defend Walker’s right to speak freely. He’s one worth listening to. You don’t have to believe everything he says, but what he says gives food for thought. So thank you, Walker.
Vorapoap writes: “I don’t think we can find a person like Mohandas Gandhi (India) with strong political feeling anymore.”
Aung San Suu Kyi fits that description. She abhors violence and has resisted calls for a more militant stance against an unpopular regime. That’s why the Burmese democracy movement has gained such global respect and visibility. And in many other countries – Ukraine, Serbia – nonviolent protest has been successful in ousting dictators.
An interesting question is why Thailand’s current street democrats don’t take the moral high ground. A political realist would point out that Burma is still under a cruel dictatorship, so PAD is right to get tough. But a cynic might say that violence is a necessary prelude in Thailand to a coup or another form of extra-constitutional intervention (national unity government).
I’m not sure I know the answer, but it’s not correct to argue that PAD’s ‘self-defense’ (which often turns to offense) is the only option. If there were hundreds of thousands of unarmed protesters outside parliament, sitting peacefully on the ground and refusing to leave, prepared to be arrested on mass for their beliefs, that would be a powerful message to the PPP – and to the world.
Anan should be there or else one of the privy council needed to be, as you see it is the royal cremation (sorry if I used the wrong term). He also stated “Thaksin is the key” to end all Thailand conflicts.
His death will be closely investigated and you will be shocked how cruel people can be. If you know him in personal, you will know how a nice person can be… and why he quit from the Thai police force before joining PAD some years ago…
Honestly speaking, I understand that there were many times, things getting too much with hatred and emotions on PAD stage. Many speeches given by PAD leaders and speakers come from their personal speculation. But I also tried to understand them, there were many times it was a matter of life and death. And there were many time PAD fellows want to be stimulated and the leader can do it very well.
This is why there are so many PAD disagree with PAD leaders, however they still believe that these leaders (with some gray background of course) can certainly lead them to the common goal they have altogether.. I don’t think we can find a person like Mohandas Gandhi (India) with strong political feeling anymore.
Also the way they use the word “Ahingsa” are too much for me, many PAD think it is legitimate to protect themselves with golf club, slingshots and etc. But I think, if they really follow the Ahingsa way, they should sit still and let the Red Shirt came and hit them alone. Thai society would quickly realize which side they should condemn. However, that will look so stupid not to protect themselves, so they use the word Ahingsa when protesting around on the street. But they use urban defensive tactics when they were being attacked either from a police or from the red shirts.
And please notice that, I never use the word “our leader” anywhere.. including on my blog.. Actually, I barely talked about them, because I am still in doubt about some of them… However, the one who now I favored the most might be Somkiat Pongpaibool. His style of speech is really cool. He can easily become a stage performance. He is funny and his tone of voice flow up and down smoothly.
I also have personal comments on the rest of the leaders, but I think this is not the place to express my personal feeling about them.
Is the definition of an anthropologist someone who has nothing to say about Bangkok (or national-level dynamics)? That we can say things about northern Thai matrifocality and the like, and are clueless about anything beyond a village? I find it a good sign that the anthropologist is interviewed by a major radio station about current events in Thailand.
Some historical background may help. Up until the 1970s, the work of westerners in Thailand was largely a scholarship of admiration. Subsequently, after a very tense and militarized period, much was a scholarship of critique (where “the state” had a very concrete reality). It seems that we may be going somewhere different now, in part because the anthropologists (Thai and Japanese and Western) write on various aspects of the national reality. Up to a point, the perspective matches where we have allies — it used to be among the elite (Phya Anuman etc), then among the intellectuals sympathetic to suppressed causes (land reform, leftists, and so on), and now it is a lot more complex and varied. The disciplinary mechanisms are not what they used to be.
I am also very disappointed to see former PM Anand rubbing shoulders and getting close to PAD by attending the funeral of the PAD “chief guard” (whose cause of death has not been closely investigated by the khunying unlike the death of the young lady). This 7 Oct incident however clearly shows which people are taking which side.
Justin’s opening salvo on Pali in New Mandala’s new 4 Letter Words series is a fantastic beginning, and there are few who are as qualified or clear in their statements about the meaning and use of Pali. Congratulations to New Mandala and to Dr. McDaniel on a fantastic opening.
The idea of ‘languaging,’ which some of the other commenters picked up on, is a fantastic one, which in my own internal dialogue I think of slightly differently, but which is very clearly expressed and useful here.
I think Justin’s point about the power of Pali (in spite of its style and its use in languaging) to unite merge very nicely with Jon Fernquest’s point that part of the power of unification is the obliteration of localities. I am working on something in my own work that follows a similar line of analysis, and see no contradiction here, unless one insists on a moral evaluation in favor of either the universal or the local.
“Fascism” is too strong a term to describe PAD. At most they are a violent political cult.
Vorapoab, you may not have noticed, but articles on the Manager and speeches on stage by your leaders often talk about 1) vote buying, 2) receiving money from Thaksin, 3) being bought by Thaksin, and so forth. Do you honestly think that because UDD says it too means PAD should say it?
At this moment in time I’m actually disappointed (but not surprised) that the UDD has stooped down low to PAD’s level by practicing with weapons.
David, The court in question convicted Rakkiat, the former public health minister, in 2004, two years before the coup. I don’t think that the CNS made any changes to these laws involving the obligations of political office holders or got notably involved in the appointment of judges. However, the input of the CNS that was highly significant in this context was the setting up by revolutionary decree of the Assets Examination Committee, chaired by Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka, before the 2007 had been promulgated. The AEC investigated several cases involving Thaksin and associates, including the Radjadapisek land case that will be judged next Tuesday and Potjaman’s tax fraud case in which she has already been convicted by the lower court. The AEC’s term has now expired and its unfinished cases have been handed over to the National Counter Corruption Committee. The AEC’s role was to investigate the cases and turn the evidence over to the Office of the Attorney General to prosecute in the approprate courts, if the OAG agreed there was a case to be heard.
Of course nobody was able to investigate corruption cases against Thaksin or his associates while they were in office. Rakkiat, who did get convicted, was a Democrat Party member. The CNS did indeed change all of that via the AEC but without changing the laws or the legal process after the investigation process. Even the laws about dissolution of political parties and banning their executives come straight from the 1997 constitution. Thaksin’s big gripe and the reason he is pushing at all costs to have the constitution changed relates to a fine legal argument about the extension of the AEC’s term after the promulgation of the 2007 constitution, not about its original establishment which is clearly legal under a revolutionary decree after the 1997 constitution had been abrogated. His argument is the that AEC didn’t have the authority to continue investigating him and turn its evidence over to the OAG after its initial term had expired. Clearly this is very much a form over substance argument that holds little merit. He cannot challenge the laws under which he is charged or legal process of the OAG or the courts. He can only argue that the investigators’ authority to continue investigating had expired, although he cannot disptute that it was in place for most of the time they investigated him. In his wife’s case the lower court has already convicted on the evidence provided by the AEC which makes his argument even weaker. He cannot argue she didn’t commit tax fraud, as that would be contempt of court. He can only argue that the incriminating evidence should have been collected by some one else for some of the time it was being collected.
Remember that the reason that no one was able to investigate corruption cases involving Thaksin et al, while he was in power, was that he systematically dismantled all the checks and balances in the 1997 constitution to make it impossible for action to be taken against politicians in power. The NCCC was disbanded on technical grounds and the Auditor General, Khunying Jaruvan, was also suspended on obscure technical legal grounds. The judiciary was also interfered with, vis the 2001 assets concealment case against Thaksin, as was the Electoral Commission.
The CNS, despite what one may think of them and the flabby Saruyudh government they installed, deserves some credit for pushing forward the rule of law by making it possible for corrupt politicians to be investigated and prosecuted according to the laws and institutions put in place by the 1997 constitution. But don’t forget that the person who first reminded the Thai judiciary it was supposed to have a backbone was HM the King who advised Constitutional Court judges in 2006 that their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests. Soon afterwards the Constitutional Court turned the tide of the political stalemate by annulling the results of the 2006 election due to widespread electoral fraud and convicted three electoral commissioners of malfeasance.
Even without the AEC in future it is to be hoped that the judiaciary and rule of law have both taken a permanent step forward and that politicians will indeed be fearful that criminal acts may land them in jail but I am not holding my breath.
This is not good for any of the sides! While highlighting the continuing economic and political leaving in the background, looking at things continue like this. We need to redesign a new order with a new vision of the society.
Why is Andrew talking about the political turmoil in Bkk? I thought he is an anthropologist. Furthermore, his statements about democracy in Thailand are not very academic and elaborated.
mmm… thanks Portman, I appreciate your correction…
firstly I agree that the 1997 constitution deserves respect because of the consultative process and what seemed like good intentions to support rule by democratically elected governments
without sufficient diligence on my part I thought it was the Supreme Administrative Court’s Division for Political Office Holders that now is administering the laws that were created or amended/”strengthened” by the CNS to dismantle political parties and reduce the legal scope of action of democratically elected MPs
and retrospectively apply these laws to convict ex-PM Thaksin and others in his governments
and I assumed the court itself was created by the CNS. were its judges, its scope or just its supporting agencies and the relevant laws that were created/modified by the CNS?
If there were no particular changes introduced by the CNS it rather indicates that the court was not successful in “making politicians fear that they might have to serve time in jail” during the period of the Thaksin governments, or nobody saw fit to exercise its powers then or the new cases are just artificially created by his enemies.
I have copies of the 1997 and 2007 constitutions to hand but will appreciate if you can point me at any documentation on the courts and laws that were created/amended during the CNS period
David, I guess that in citing the new courts created by the CNS that administer unusual laws and not constrained by higher courts that could overturn their rulings you are referring to the Supreme Administrative Court’s Division for Political Office Holders. In fact this court was not created by the CNS. It and the laws it administers were created by the 1997 constitution which is widely regarded as Thailand’s best so far. The 2007 constitution which was certainly sponsored by the CNS but voted in by national referendum (the first ever in Thailand) made little or no change to these structures, as far as I am aware.
The main thinking behind the lack of appeals against the judgements of this court seems to be that: 1) it would be very difficult for lower courts to try powerful political figures without being influenced by bribery and intimidation; 2) if cases were heard first in lower courts, this is the court that would hear their final appeals anyway.
Maybe this system is not perfect and will be improved in future, if conditions in the country are conducive to strengthening the rule of law. However, bear in mind that the case of Wattana Asavahame who was recently sentenced to prison by this court in his absence took more than 10 years to come to fruition. I wonder how much longer the process would have taken to go through three courts instead of one. Also remember that this is the only court that has ever sentenced Thai politicians to prison for corruption. In addition to Wattana, the former Democrat Party Minister of Public Health, Rakkiat Sukthana, was sentenced to 15 years in prison by this court and is actually serving his sentence.
For me this court, despite imperfections, is the first faltering step in the right direction of making politicians fear that they might have to serve time in jail if they engage in corruption. Without this fear there is no hope that Thailand’s dysfunctional democratic system will ever grow up and be any better than it was in the 1930s or that its economy will ever fulfill its potential to the benefit of ordinary Thais.
In Sondhi’s Phuchatkan of October 14, former professor of political science, Chai-anand Samudavanija, had an article headlined “Go Underground.” His point was that “the people” (PAD) had protested “peacefully,” and that this had not been successful so far in “removing the corrupt politicians from the political system.” Therefore, people might have to go underground and “deal with these politicians themselves violently.” Chai-anand also mentioned “blacklists.” Thus, what he suggested to the PAD audience of this paper was that going underground and systematically assassinating politicians “to remove them from the political system” would be the right think to do.
“Shameless” is not strong enough a word here. On the frontpage of Phuchatkan of October 15, we see a big picture of Anand Panjarachun, flanked by Sondhi and Phiphop, presiding over the cremation of the PAD guard, who was blown up by a car bomb. How is this for people who want to throw up? In the text next to the picture, Sondhi L. accused Thaksin Shinawatra of having bought up high-ranking soldiers and policemen in order to destroy the Monarchy!
Thai Rath had this to say on the present situation (as translated in the Bangkok Post of October 14): “The PAD is resorting to a propaganda campaign that is worse than communism. Three decades ago we fought against communist insurgents in the jungle. Now we are fighting in the capital. The country’s survival is now at stake.”
Here is an article from Bangkok Post, 15 October 2008 (pasted, because it will soon be gone from BP’s web site):
News THINK
The PAD is equally to blame for Oct 7
SOONRUTH BUNYAMANEE
I agree the government and police must be held responsible for the Oct 7 violence on the streets of Bangkok which cost two lives and left hundreds of people injured.
But I don’t think those two parties are the only ones answerable for the incident.
On Oct 7 the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leaders led thousands of supporters to seal all entrances of Parliament House in an attempt to block MPs and senators from announcing the government policy and formally launching the Somchai Wongsawat administration.
Based on the PAD’s earlier move to occupy Government House, it was not pessimistic to expect a repeat at the Parliament, so the police operation to disperse the protesters to pave the way for the assembly was acceptable and not a crime against humanity.
Where the police went wrong was not in their decision to disperse the demonstrators but the way they went about it.
It’s not hard to imagine what the police were thinking when the PAD’s seizure of several state agencies and Government House on Aug 26 was still fresh in their minds.
On that occasion, order was maintained as police and the government exercised patience in order to avoid violence, for they knew that if it happened, the brunt of the blame would fall on them.
PAD leaders always say their protest is based on “ahimsa”, a Hindu doctrine which advocates non-violence and peaceful resolution.
The PAD could be worthy of respect if they truly were really following the path of ahimsa.
If we step back from the recent violence and look back at the overall situation over recent months, we can see whether or not the PAD movement is serving the ahimsa principle well.
Before seizing Government House, PAD supporters occupied and blocked main streets in Bangkok-Ratchadamnoen Nok avenue and Phitsanulok road – to use as a base for their protest, causing a lot of problems for commuters and schoolchildren.
Then, as this proved unpopular, they turned their attention to Government House, taking complete control of the compound, which they maintain to this day, and denying the head of the administration access to his offices. Then followed the siege of Parliament.
PAD leaders insist its protests are peaceful and constitutional.
Let’s talk about constitutionality. PAD leaders claim their right to stage peaceful rallies based on the first paragraph of Article 63 of the 2007 charter, stipulating that “a person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms”.
Still, the PAD has never mentioned the following paragraph, stipulating that “restriction on such liberty shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the case of public assembly and for securing public convenience in the use of public places”.
In addition, Article 28 of the charter concerning the rights and liberties of the Thai people clearly states that “a person can invoke human dignity or exercise his or her rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of the rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to the Constitution or good morals’.’
I’m sure the PAD’s moves to block streets, seize Government House, and seal off Parliament have violated other people’s rights and liberties and caused public inconvenience.
Should the PAD leaders take responsibility for such unconstitutional actions, which they claim to be peaceful?
The PAD leaders should be held accountable for the Oct 7 bloodshed.
The way I look at it, the government and police can be blamed for the outcome, while the PAD leaders could be blamed for its cause.
Mr Somchai and the police chief have expressed “regret” for the incidents but I have yet to hear a single word of remorse from the PAD leaders.
They may claim their protests are aimed at helping the nation and reforming the political system.
That can be respected, but it’s not necessary for everyone else in the country to agree with them.
Moreover, those who disagree should not be labelled as non-patriots or be lumped in with those who have no virtue.
In our long experience, abrupt constitutional changes have not given us actual democracy. Patient learning can achieve this.
Why do the PAD leaders not put their trust in the justice system which is performing its duty?
It is funny, while many foreigners are accusing PAD of being fascism. There are many articles in Thailand that describe Thaksinocracy or Thaksinomic or Thaksin Regime is very much alike to fascism. I am not a political science student, so I will leave this until I know enough to speak.
Readers and writers who keep harping on the issues of the PAD and its leadership trying to get corrruption out of Thai politics are severely blinkered and has chosen to ignor history and background of the PAD and democratic party leadership. They should do themselves some intellectual justice and research the background of these people before heaping corruption charges on Thaksin and company and talking about the PAD and democratic party bosses as if they are saints.
It doesn;t take a genius to figure out the fact that the Thai military and police are corrupt to the hilt as they are very blatant about it. Given that, please take a look at the names of the leadership of PAD – mostly starting with some military designation (Gen / maj / Col etc). Have these people been ‘born again” buddhist and now become guardian of purity – I think not.
have you also notice the photos published by the pro-Pad press. ome shows military men in full battle fatique sitting amonst the PAD “guards” take a close look – from their carrying, these are “officer class” military. (if you have seen what the regulars look like in thailand you will have no problems spotting an officer)
Given all that, it becomes obvious that the whole PAD charade is being ochestrated by the current and former military elite to wrestle back ‘administrative control” from the elected govt. The democratic party and its predessors have been appointed govt by the military time and again, but cannot win elections. The reason is not ‘vote buying” by the other side, but the arrogance and distained that the party (PAD etc) view and treat the electorate.
Yes, there is corruption on both sides but TRT did what the democratic party elite refused to do for decades – bring development to ALL of Thailand, not just to the urban elite.
(I am a regular visitor to Thailand, speaks Thai and have relatives in both bangkok and the southern provinces)
thanks Portman for your comments and particularly on the Thai judges and court operations
I guess with juries there would be much strong requirement to progress and finish cases rather than the rather casual and extended approach you describe… its seems the constitution claims to guarantee citizens the right to timely justice…
the hierarchy of courts which puts lower courts decisions under threat from courts of appeal is also normally expected to increase the consistency and integrity of judges decisions… I note that the new courts created by the CNS seem to free of this constraint which even apart from the unusual laws they administer reduces any faith we might have that decisions will be strongly based on evidence rather than judges emotional or other baggage they may carry into court
and Michael… just to expand a little on my thoughts on the US… with the president comes a whole raft of unelected cabinet and heads of departments that are all appointed by the president (granted, with the approval of the parliament/congress)… perhaps this is where Thailand gets this idea of appointing technocrats to run the government… all anti-democratic, not accountable to the people
as it happens I agree the government has not been strong enough to support the police at the right times… instead of standing up and saying that the police did the best they could in difficult circumstances they always seem to be apologising or trying to shift the blame to someone else…
this seems to be following a grand tradition in Thailand where it suited the elite to have a weak and demoralised legal system that they could manipulate, all the way from escaping from traffic fines to diverting investigations of murder, treason and insurrection
the prime minister should immediately state that the government decided to clear the protesters quoting the relevant constitution and legal authority
he should respond to claims by saying he believed the police behaved
entirely reasonably in the circumstances when confronted with heavily armed and equipped protesters, they erected barricades with (illegal?) razor wire and were armed and supported by loud speakers and support logistics
he should state that the events on both sides will be investigated and
charges laid against any officers or protesters that committed offences
I think if the PM and the government give the police real public support then they will be empowered to clear the crowds, arresting the ring leaders as they go
and, the media might be more willing to be involved and at least report both sides if the government issues press releases along to support the governments public statements in direct competition with the PAD and opposition
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chang Noi holds both sides responsible
HC Lau, no one is a saint here – I think that we all agree on. For me, the judiciary in complicitly ‘releasing’ PMThaksin, the Dark Lord, to attend the Beijing Olympics opening is telling in itself. If you corner PMThaksin in Thailand by convicting and jailing him (with clear, technical evidences), there’s a big chance that he’ll bite back with a vengeance and take a large chunk of the Thai elite that he has had shady business/political dealings with down with him and his family.
By allowing PMThaksin to escape and protest his innocence in England or the Bahamas, many others in business, politics, military, bureaucracy can breathe easy in Thailand and also maintain their ‘innocence’.
At this point and atmosphere, it is almost impossible that PMThaksin will ever come back. For PMThaksin, it is now the matter of ‘negotiating’, directly and through nominees in parliament and on the streets, his assets back (whether rightly or wrongly gained, this may or may not be proven in courts). This is where the current elite must thread with great care. If they cave in for the sake of ‘peace’, they’ll be empowering PMThaksin and there are many precedents when PMThaksin says he’ll quit politics for good, he means the exact opposite…
And I agree with Chang Noi’s analysis, PAD’s diverse membership is only united as long as they sniff Thaksin’s hands in any political dealings. Since the military coup in 2006, his has not been about forwarding Thai democracy, but about merely containing Thaksin and his cronies/nominees. PAD are willing to ‘pause’ democracy until PMThaksin really retires.
Blood rather than ballots
I think Anand tries to appear as Mr. Nice, but don’t forget that at heart he ‘s a shrewd businessman.
Walker on Radio Australia
I defend Walker’s right to speak freely. He’s one worth listening to. You don’t have to believe everything he says, but what he says gives food for thought. So thank you, Walker.
Blood rather than ballots
Vorapoap writes: “I don’t think we can find a person like Mohandas Gandhi (India) with strong political feeling anymore.”
Aung San Suu Kyi fits that description. She abhors violence and has resisted calls for a more militant stance against an unpopular regime. That’s why the Burmese democracy movement has gained such global respect and visibility. And in many other countries – Ukraine, Serbia – nonviolent protest has been successful in ousting dictators.
An interesting question is why Thailand’s current street democrats don’t take the moral high ground. A political realist would point out that Burma is still under a cruel dictatorship, so PAD is right to get tough. But a cynic might say that violence is a necessary prelude in Thailand to a coup or another form of extra-constitutional intervention (national unity government).
I’m not sure I know the answer, but it’s not correct to argue that PAD’s ‘self-defense’ (which often turns to offense) is the only option. If there were hundreds of thousands of unarmed protesters outside parliament, sitting peacefully on the ground and refusing to leave, prepared to be arrested on mass for their beliefs, that would be a powerful message to the PPP – and to the world.
What do you think?
Blood rather than ballots
Dear Rookie,
Anan should be there or else one of the privy council needed to be, as you see it is the royal cremation (sorry if I used the wrong term). He also stated “Thaksin is the key” to end all Thailand conflicts.
His death will be closely investigated and you will be shocked how cruel people can be. If you know him in personal, you will know how a nice person can be… and why he quit from the Thai police force before joining PAD some years ago…
And again, only the time will reveal the truth.
Blood rather than ballots
Dear AA,
Honestly speaking, I understand that there were many times, things getting too much with hatred and emotions on PAD stage. Many speeches given by PAD leaders and speakers come from their personal speculation. But I also tried to understand them, there were many times it was a matter of life and death. And there were many time PAD fellows want to be stimulated and the leader can do it very well.
This is why there are so many PAD disagree with PAD leaders, however they still believe that these leaders (with some gray background of course) can certainly lead them to the common goal they have altogether.. I don’t think we can find a person like Mohandas Gandhi (India) with strong political feeling anymore.
Also the way they use the word “Ahingsa” are too much for me, many PAD think it is legitimate to protect themselves with golf club, slingshots and etc. But I think, if they really follow the Ahingsa way, they should sit still and let the Red Shirt came and hit them alone. Thai society would quickly realize which side they should condemn. However, that will look so stupid not to protect themselves, so they use the word Ahingsa when protesting around on the street. But they use urban defensive tactics when they were being attacked either from a police or from the red shirts.
And please notice that, I never use the word “our leader” anywhere.. including on my blog.. Actually, I barely talked about them, because I am still in doubt about some of them… However, the one who now I favored the most might be Somkiat Pongpaibool. His style of speech is really cool. He can easily become a stage performance. He is funny and his tone of voice flow up and down smoothly.
I also have personal comments on the rest of the leaders, but I think this is not the place to express my personal feeling about them.
Walker on Radio Australia
Is the definition of an anthropologist someone who has nothing to say about Bangkok (or national-level dynamics)? That we can say things about northern Thai matrifocality and the like, and are clueless about anything beyond a village? I find it a good sign that the anthropologist is interviewed by a major radio station about current events in Thailand.
Some historical background may help. Up until the 1970s, the work of westerners in Thailand was largely a scholarship of admiration. Subsequently, after a very tense and militarized period, much was a scholarship of critique (where “the state” had a very concrete reality). It seems that we may be going somewhere different now, in part because the anthropologists (Thai and Japanese and Western) write on various aspects of the national reality. Up to a point, the perspective matches where we have allies — it used to be among the elite (Phya Anuman etc), then among the intellectuals sympathetic to suppressed causes (land reform, leftists, and so on), and now it is a lot more complex and varied. The disciplinary mechanisms are not what they used to be.
Interview with a “disaster worker recently returned from Burma”
“I would say that trust and negotiation were the key elements in achieving anything.”
How do you get trust from a government within which the people don’t trust one another?
Blood rather than ballots
I am also very disappointed to see former PM Anand rubbing shoulders and getting close to PAD by attending the funeral of the PAD “chief guard” (whose cause of death has not been closely investigated by the khunying unlike the death of the young lady). This 7 Oct incident however clearly shows which people are taking which side.
Pali
Justin’s opening salvo on Pali in New Mandala’s new 4 Letter Words series is a fantastic beginning, and there are few who are as qualified or clear in their statements about the meaning and use of Pali. Congratulations to New Mandala and to Dr. McDaniel on a fantastic opening.
The idea of ‘languaging,’ which some of the other commenters picked up on, is a fantastic one, which in my own internal dialogue I think of slightly differently, but which is very clearly expressed and useful here.
I think Justin’s point about the power of Pali (in spite of its style and its use in languaging) to unite merge very nicely with Jon Fernquest’s point that part of the power of unification is the obliteration of localities. I am working on something in my own work that follows a similar line of analysis, and see no contradiction here, unless one insists on a moral evaluation in favor of either the universal or the local.
Great job.
Blood rather than ballots
“Fascism” is too strong a term to describe PAD. At most they are a violent political cult.
Vorapoab, you may not have noticed, but articles on the Manager and speeches on stage by your leaders often talk about 1) vote buying, 2) receiving money from Thaksin, 3) being bought by Thaksin, and so forth. Do you honestly think that because UDD says it too means PAD should say it?
At this moment in time I’m actually disappointed (but not surprised) that the UDD has stooped down low to PAD’s level by practicing with weapons.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
David, The court in question convicted Rakkiat, the former public health minister, in 2004, two years before the coup. I don’t think that the CNS made any changes to these laws involving the obligations of political office holders or got notably involved in the appointment of judges. However, the input of the CNS that was highly significant in this context was the setting up by revolutionary decree of the Assets Examination Committee, chaired by Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka, before the 2007 had been promulgated. The AEC investigated several cases involving Thaksin and associates, including the Radjadapisek land case that will be judged next Tuesday and Potjaman’s tax fraud case in which she has already been convicted by the lower court. The AEC’s term has now expired and its unfinished cases have been handed over to the National Counter Corruption Committee. The AEC’s role was to investigate the cases and turn the evidence over to the Office of the Attorney General to prosecute in the approprate courts, if the OAG agreed there was a case to be heard.
Of course nobody was able to investigate corruption cases against Thaksin or his associates while they were in office. Rakkiat, who did get convicted, was a Democrat Party member. The CNS did indeed change all of that via the AEC but without changing the laws or the legal process after the investigation process. Even the laws about dissolution of political parties and banning their executives come straight from the 1997 constitution. Thaksin’s big gripe and the reason he is pushing at all costs to have the constitution changed relates to a fine legal argument about the extension of the AEC’s term after the promulgation of the 2007 constitution, not about its original establishment which is clearly legal under a revolutionary decree after the 1997 constitution had been abrogated. His argument is the that AEC didn’t have the authority to continue investigating him and turn its evidence over to the OAG after its initial term had expired. Clearly this is very much a form over substance argument that holds little merit. He cannot challenge the laws under which he is charged or legal process of the OAG or the courts. He can only argue that the investigators’ authority to continue investigating had expired, although he cannot disptute that it was in place for most of the time they investigated him. In his wife’s case the lower court has already convicted on the evidence provided by the AEC which makes his argument even weaker. He cannot argue she didn’t commit tax fraud, as that would be contempt of court. He can only argue that the incriminating evidence should have been collected by some one else for some of the time it was being collected.
Remember that the reason that no one was able to investigate corruption cases involving Thaksin et al, while he was in power, was that he systematically dismantled all the checks and balances in the 1997 constitution to make it impossible for action to be taken against politicians in power. The NCCC was disbanded on technical grounds and the Auditor General, Khunying Jaruvan, was also suspended on obscure technical legal grounds. The judiciary was also interfered with, vis the 2001 assets concealment case against Thaksin, as was the Electoral Commission.
The CNS, despite what one may think of them and the flabby Saruyudh government they installed, deserves some credit for pushing forward the rule of law by making it possible for corrupt politicians to be investigated and prosecuted according to the laws and institutions put in place by the 1997 constitution. But don’t forget that the person who first reminded the Thai judiciary it was supposed to have a backbone was HM the King who advised Constitutional Court judges in 2006 that their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests. Soon afterwards the Constitutional Court turned the tide of the political stalemate by annulling the results of the 2006 election due to widespread electoral fraud and convicted three electoral commissioners of malfeasance.
Even without the AEC in future it is to be hoped that the judiaciary and rule of law have both taken a permanent step forward and that politicians will indeed be fearful that criminal acts may land them in jail but I am not holding my breath.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
This is not good for any of the sides! While highlighting the continuing economic and political leaving in the background, looking at things continue like this. We need to redesign a new order with a new vision of the society.
Walker on Radio Australia
Why is Andrew talking about the political turmoil in Bkk? I thought he is an anthropologist. Furthermore, his statements about democracy in Thailand are not very academic and elaborated.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
mmm… thanks Portman, I appreciate your correction…
firstly I agree that the 1997 constitution deserves respect because of the consultative process and what seemed like good intentions to support rule by democratically elected governments
without sufficient diligence on my part I thought it was the Supreme Administrative Court’s Division for Political Office Holders that now is administering the laws that were created or amended/”strengthened” by the CNS to dismantle political parties and reduce the legal scope of action of democratically elected MPs
and retrospectively apply these laws to convict ex-PM Thaksin and others in his governments
and I assumed the court itself was created by the CNS. were its judges, its scope or just its supporting agencies and the relevant laws that were created/modified by the CNS?
If there were no particular changes introduced by the CNS it rather indicates that the court was not successful in “making politicians fear that they might have to serve time in jail” during the period of the Thaksin governments, or nobody saw fit to exercise its powers then or the new cases are just artificially created by his enemies.
I have copies of the 1997 and 2007 constitutions to hand but will appreciate if you can point me at any documentation on the courts and laws that were created/amended during the CNS period
What happened on 7/10/2008?
David, I guess that in citing the new courts created by the CNS that administer unusual laws and not constrained by higher courts that could overturn their rulings you are referring to the Supreme Administrative Court’s Division for Political Office Holders. In fact this court was not created by the CNS. It and the laws it administers were created by the 1997 constitution which is widely regarded as Thailand’s best so far. The 2007 constitution which was certainly sponsored by the CNS but voted in by national referendum (the first ever in Thailand) made little or no change to these structures, as far as I am aware.
The main thinking behind the lack of appeals against the judgements of this court seems to be that: 1) it would be very difficult for lower courts to try powerful political figures without being influenced by bribery and intimidation; 2) if cases were heard first in lower courts, this is the court that would hear their final appeals anyway.
Maybe this system is not perfect and will be improved in future, if conditions in the country are conducive to strengthening the rule of law. However, bear in mind that the case of Wattana Asavahame who was recently sentenced to prison by this court in his absence took more than 10 years to come to fruition. I wonder how much longer the process would have taken to go through three courts instead of one. Also remember that this is the only court that has ever sentenced Thai politicians to prison for corruption. In addition to Wattana, the former Democrat Party Minister of Public Health, Rakkiat Sukthana, was sentenced to 15 years in prison by this court and is actually serving his sentence.
For me this court, despite imperfections, is the first faltering step in the right direction of making politicians fear that they might have to serve time in jail if they engage in corruption. Without this fear there is no hope that Thailand’s dysfunctional democratic system will ever grow up and be any better than it was in the 1930s or that its economy will ever fulfill its potential to the benefit of ordinary Thais.
Blood rather than ballots
In Sondhi’s Phuchatkan of October 14, former professor of political science, Chai-anand Samudavanija, had an article headlined “Go Underground.” His point was that “the people” (PAD) had protested “peacefully,” and that this had not been successful so far in “removing the corrupt politicians from the political system.” Therefore, people might have to go underground and “deal with these politicians themselves violently.” Chai-anand also mentioned “blacklists.” Thus, what he suggested to the PAD audience of this paper was that going underground and systematically assassinating politicians “to remove them from the political system” would be the right think to do.
“Shameless” is not strong enough a word here. On the frontpage of Phuchatkan of October 15, we see a big picture of Anand Panjarachun, flanked by Sondhi and Phiphop, presiding over the cremation of the PAD guard, who was blown up by a car bomb. How is this for people who want to throw up? In the text next to the picture, Sondhi L. accused Thaksin Shinawatra of having bought up high-ranking soldiers and policemen in order to destroy the Monarchy!
Thai Rath had this to say on the present situation (as translated in the Bangkok Post of October 14): “The PAD is resorting to a propaganda campaign that is worse than communism. Three decades ago we fought against communist insurgents in the jungle. Now we are fighting in the capital. The country’s survival is now at stake.”
Here is an article from Bangkok Post, 15 October 2008 (pasted, because it will soon be gone from BP’s web site):
News THINK
The PAD is equally to blame for Oct 7
SOONRUTH BUNYAMANEE
I agree the government and police must be held responsible for the Oct 7 violence on the streets of Bangkok which cost two lives and left hundreds of people injured.
But I don’t think those two parties are the only ones answerable for the incident.
On Oct 7 the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leaders led thousands of supporters to seal all entrances of Parliament House in an attempt to block MPs and senators from announcing the government policy and formally launching the Somchai Wongsawat administration.
Based on the PAD’s earlier move to occupy Government House, it was not pessimistic to expect a repeat at the Parliament, so the police operation to disperse the protesters to pave the way for the assembly was acceptable and not a crime against humanity.
Where the police went wrong was not in their decision to disperse the demonstrators but the way they went about it.
It’s not hard to imagine what the police were thinking when the PAD’s seizure of several state agencies and Government House on Aug 26 was still fresh in their minds.
On that occasion, order was maintained as police and the government exercised patience in order to avoid violence, for they knew that if it happened, the brunt of the blame would fall on them.
PAD leaders always say their protest is based on “ahimsa”, a Hindu doctrine which advocates non-violence and peaceful resolution.
The PAD could be worthy of respect if they truly were really following the path of ahimsa.
If we step back from the recent violence and look back at the overall situation over recent months, we can see whether or not the PAD movement is serving the ahimsa principle well.
Before seizing Government House, PAD supporters occupied and blocked main streets in Bangkok-Ratchadamnoen Nok avenue and Phitsanulok road – to use as a base for their protest, causing a lot of problems for commuters and schoolchildren.
Then, as this proved unpopular, they turned their attention to Government House, taking complete control of the compound, which they maintain to this day, and denying the head of the administration access to his offices. Then followed the siege of Parliament.
PAD leaders insist its protests are peaceful and constitutional.
Let’s talk about constitutionality. PAD leaders claim their right to stage peaceful rallies based on the first paragraph of Article 63 of the 2007 charter, stipulating that “a person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms”.
Still, the PAD has never mentioned the following paragraph, stipulating that “restriction on such liberty shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the case of public assembly and for securing public convenience in the use of public places”.
In addition, Article 28 of the charter concerning the rights and liberties of the Thai people clearly states that “a person can invoke human dignity or exercise his or her rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of the rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to the Constitution or good morals’.’
I’m sure the PAD’s moves to block streets, seize Government House, and seal off Parliament have violated other people’s rights and liberties and caused public inconvenience.
Should the PAD leaders take responsibility for such unconstitutional actions, which they claim to be peaceful?
The PAD leaders should be held accountable for the Oct 7 bloodshed.
The way I look at it, the government and police can be blamed for the outcome, while the PAD leaders could be blamed for its cause.
Mr Somchai and the police chief have expressed “regret” for the incidents but I have yet to hear a single word of remorse from the PAD leaders.
They may claim their protests are aimed at helping the nation and reforming the political system.
That can be respected, but it’s not necessary for everyone else in the country to agree with them.
Moreover, those who disagree should not be labelled as non-patriots or be lumped in with those who have no virtue.
In our long experience, abrupt constitutional changes have not given us actual democracy. Patient learning can achieve this.
Why do the PAD leaders not put their trust in the justice system which is performing its duty?
Blood rather than ballots
It is funny, while many foreigners are accusing PAD of being fascism. There are many articles in Thailand that describe Thaksinocracy or Thaksinomic or Thaksin Regime is very much alike to fascism. I am not a political science student, so I will leave this until I know enough to speak.
Chang Noi holds both sides responsible
Readers and writers who keep harping on the issues of the PAD and its leadership trying to get corrruption out of Thai politics are severely blinkered and has chosen to ignor history and background of the PAD and democratic party leadership. They should do themselves some intellectual justice and research the background of these people before heaping corruption charges on Thaksin and company and talking about the PAD and democratic party bosses as if they are saints.
It doesn;t take a genius to figure out the fact that the Thai military and police are corrupt to the hilt as they are very blatant about it. Given that, please take a look at the names of the leadership of PAD – mostly starting with some military designation (Gen / maj / Col etc). Have these people been ‘born again” buddhist and now become guardian of purity – I think not.
have you also notice the photos published by the pro-Pad press. ome shows military men in full battle fatique sitting amonst the PAD “guards” take a close look – from their carrying, these are “officer class” military. (if you have seen what the regulars look like in thailand you will have no problems spotting an officer)
Given all that, it becomes obvious that the whole PAD charade is being ochestrated by the current and former military elite to wrestle back ‘administrative control” from the elected govt. The democratic party and its predessors have been appointed govt by the military time and again, but cannot win elections. The reason is not ‘vote buying” by the other side, but the arrogance and distained that the party (PAD etc) view and treat the electorate.
Yes, there is corruption on both sides but TRT did what the democratic party elite refused to do for decades – bring development to ALL of Thailand, not just to the urban elite.
(I am a regular visitor to Thailand, speaks Thai and have relatives in both bangkok and the southern provinces)
What happened on 7/10/2008?
thanks Portman for your comments and particularly on the Thai judges and court operations
I guess with juries there would be much strong requirement to progress and finish cases rather than the rather casual and extended approach you describe… its seems the constitution claims to guarantee citizens the right to timely justice…
the hierarchy of courts which puts lower courts decisions under threat from courts of appeal is also normally expected to increase the consistency and integrity of judges decisions… I note that the new courts created by the CNS seem to free of this constraint which even apart from the unusual laws they administer reduces any faith we might have that decisions will be strongly based on evidence rather than judges emotional or other baggage they may carry into court
and Michael… just to expand a little on my thoughts on the US… with the president comes a whole raft of unelected cabinet and heads of departments that are all appointed by the president (granted, with the approval of the parliament/congress)… perhaps this is where Thailand gets this idea of appointing technocrats to run the government… all anti-democratic, not accountable to the people
as it happens I agree the government has not been strong enough to support the police at the right times… instead of standing up and saying that the police did the best they could in difficult circumstances they always seem to be apologising or trying to shift the blame to someone else…
this seems to be following a grand tradition in Thailand where it suited the elite to have a weak and demoralised legal system that they could manipulate, all the way from escaping from traffic fines to diverting investigations of murder, treason and insurrection
the prime minister should immediately state that the government decided to clear the protesters quoting the relevant constitution and legal authority
he should respond to claims by saying he believed the police behaved
entirely reasonably in the circumstances when confronted with heavily armed and equipped protesters, they erected barricades with (illegal?) razor wire and were armed and supported by loud speakers and support logistics
he should state that the events on both sides will be investigated and
charges laid against any officers or protesters that committed offences
I think if the PM and the government give the police real public support then they will be empowered to clear the crowds, arresting the ring leaders as they go
and, the media might be more willing to be involved and at least report both sides if the government issues press releases along to support the governments public statements in direct competition with the PAD and opposition