I was doing some search for federalism in Thailand to find out more about this topic and came across some of the comments. I don’t know much about Thailand. I follow what is going going on in Thailand sometimes. I lived in Indonesia during 1998 when Suharto was overthrown. I worked on decentralization projects in Indonesia during the Suharto period. I have read Thailand’s Decentralization Law of 1999. The law is very similar to what the Indonesia’s decentralization law of 1974 during Suharto regieme. The 1999 laws all have enough to push Thailand toward federalism (ie directly elected regional officials with substantial powers and funds). There is no political will or necessity to push it through. Once Suharto was overthrown within eight years nearly all of Indonesia governor, mayors, district chiefs are elected. Indonesia is now a unitary republic in name only. It is more or less moving to a federal system even though they call it decentralization.
To those like Srithanonchai, I don’t know why one should be worried about cities becoming independent. In the past, federalism in Indonesia was an F word, because it could lead to national disintegration. This is even more so for Indonesia, because the Dutch actually proposed a federal system when Indonesia become independent. The Indonesian nationalist were very suspicious of the intentions of the Dutch so they adopted a unitary system. The 2-3 years after 1998 Indonesia faced ethnic and religious conflicts galore in many of its provinces. Indonesia moved to a decentralized system and eventually allowed the direct election of governors and local councils to better satisfy local grievances and to prevent the centralization of too power in Jakarta. Unlike Thailand, Indonesia is a multicultural society. 85% of the population is Muslim, the rest is Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Unlike Thailand no ethnic group forms a majority. The most dominant group the Javanese make up 40% of the population, they have 1000 ethnic groups in total. Javanese is not the national language, but Malay. If Indonesia can attempt a federal system why can’t Thailand, a country that is 80% Thai and 95% Buddhist and has been existence for over 700 years compared to Indonesia’s 63 years.
The problem in Thailand even though it is supposedly democratic it is similar to the discussion in Indonesia during the Suharto period. The political discussion is inbred because there is no real emergency. What is happening in Thailand even with the latest deaths is not even close to what Indonesia went through from 1998-2002. I don’t think there will be solution until the politicians are forced by the safety value being taken away from them — the passing away of the current king. I guarantee all of your discussions about the PAD , Thaksin will be quaint compared to the changes that will occur after his death whether good or bad.
Excellent contribution! Given the dismal performance of the Thai newspapers, we rely on such articles for more accurate information, even if Nick does not have the backup to place all this into an overall picture.
“What some people seem to forget is the basic situation: the law was with the police, and not with the PAD.” >> This was even completely forgotten by the deans of many law faculties, including Thammasat (Somkhit Lertpaitoon), Chulalongkorn, and Sukothai Thamathirat (Khomsan Pokkhong, another drafter of the 2007 Constitution, besides Somkhit). These people had the guts to issue a long statement, printed in Sondhi L.’s Manager newspaper, insisting that the PAD actions at Parliament were a legitimate use of their constitutional right of freedom of assembly. One really has to pity Thailand for having such a nonsensical academic elite…
Most obviously, the PAD was fully prepared to physically fight against the police to achieve its aim of blocking Parliament (many countries have laws declaring the areas around parliament a neutral zone), and many of them were armed with a variety of weapons. They resisted the police order to disperse, and later even actively attacked the police on many occasions, as mentioned in Nick’s report.
These are bleak views so far. Allow me to suggest something more optimistic.
Anupong is holding out against another coup, and has rebuked Chavalit for suggesting one. Is Anupong out of line with army politics or is he just trying to keep his seat on the lurching bull? If he does represent some kind of consensus of army opinion, that opinion may be slowly swinging towards the elected government and away from the glowering queen, and her thugs and screaming hags in the streets. In the end, the army may draw the line at Thaksin, but be prepared to support a low-key, conciliatory elected government that allows it a substantial budget. Democracy depends completely on the army supporting the elected government as a matter of principle. Once that happens, the judges and all the other cowardly authoritarians will fall meekly into line.
I like your report. It is exceptional in that it presents both sides fairly. Too much reporting here is led by a cheerleader press corp that reports only one side and seems to suppress the the other. http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/13987
had photos of a policeman being ran over by a truck. And http://www.oknation.net/blog/tyty1789/2008/10/08/entry-1 had a picture of a police officer with a handgun. He was ready to fire it and a supervisor came over and had him put it away. One of the newspapers had the picture of the officer with the gun but did not show the supervisor step in. That same newspaper editorialized about the tragedy of the guy loosing his leg but suggested that no one was warned about the impending tear gas attack, and condemned the police for not announcing it in advance which from your account is not correct.
The police are the agency that society gives the authority to use violence to deal with violence, it looks like the police did as good a job as can be expected under extremely difficult circumstances. It is really sad to see the cold blooded nature of the attack on the police officer who was ran over by the Pickup Truck.
I hope that Thailand steps back from the brink and allows the elected to govern and if they don’t like it, seek a solution in the ballot box rather than in the street–otherwise we will have continued anarchy in parts of Bangkok led by a succession of people with different colored shirts.
– Police had one of their loudspeaker lorries and first issued a warning that protesters should disperse as they would be attacked, and teargas would be fired.
– The protesters did not disperse and soon after the attack started with a barrage of teargas grenades.
– Also the few remaining PAD protesters threw some explosives, maybe firecrackers or their own ping pong bombs.
These line are what was left out from the thai “main stream” media.
Dr Connors has long argued that Connors keeps arguing that there is a strong liberal trend in Thailand, notably a royalist liberalism – represented by the venerable Prawase and ever unelected Anand. I have always sort of hoped that he was right, but tended to think that the stronger political trend was a conservatism that is highly authoritarian was stronger. I am wondering what Dr Connors thinks now.
I know Prawase came out a couple of weeks ago and was pretty much ignored when he suggested a path away from the current situation. Given that many of those who previously “heard” Prawase and other royal liberals are now with PAD, what happens next to Thai liberalism if democracy is immolated?
I wonder what the odds are for fascism? Economic downturn worldwide followed by a rise in authoritarian models as “liberalism has failed?”
One of the most disturbing elements of the processes surrounding the PAD is that so many members of the Bangkok academic and journalistic elite seem to have been intellectually overpowered, and lost their political-moral compass. It seems that, beneath a superficially stated support for democracy there is, first, nothing much else, and, second, as strictly elitist worldview. In practical terms, this has virtually closed the public space to views not in favor of the PAD, as far as print media are concerned (very similar, or even worse, than what happaned in 2006). It has also strongly impacted on what can safely be discussed in interpersonal communications at the workplace and amongst friends. As a result, the dominant opinion has become even stronger, while minority views (that might in fact well represent the majority) have become weaker.
This situation helps to underline that Thailand has all along been an oligarchy rather than a polyarchic democracy. However, this is news only to those who had thought that, over the past two decades, Thailand had been “rapidly democratizing.”
From 2-3 December, the faculty of political science of Chulalongkorn University will host a congress on “Political Science and Thai Democratization.” Scheduled speakers will be, amongst others, Larry Diamond (democracy promoter) and Chai-anand Samudavanija (PAD promoter). It should be interesting to see what they will have to tell each other on democracy in general, and Thai democracy in particular. 20 years ago, Diamond had published a book chapter by Chai-anand about Thailand as a “stable Semi-Democracy.” Now, Chai-anand demands that Thailand must return to the state of semi-democracy.
I am from Iceland but don’t consider myself an expert on the place, least of all on the spectacular wave of speculative investment in other countries over the last ten-plus years. But to say that there is a “Thai-style cronyism” is nonsense on both counts. I don’t think Thailand is a global exemplar of cronyism (a lot of stuff in the US is quite similar, and to allege corruption and such as unique to places like Thailand simply smacks of old orientalism), nor do I think the crash in Iceland is much like that in Thailand 11 years ago (except that ordinary people suffer and their money evaporates, but that is the story with capitalism’s crises anywhere). Judging from what I have read in the newspapers, the cronyism in Iceland (with financial institutions, dubious loans, and the authorities complicit or looking the other way) is more like what’s going on in the US. The main difference is one of scale, the economy is not big, the population is 300,000 (including a few hundred Thai people); the fiction of an endless increase in value was apparent sooner than elsewhere.
>Some of these people have mentioned their former close acquaintance with a Thai academic abroad (who is anti-PAD but toned down his protective stance for Thaksin).
It’s pretty clear whom you are talking about. What “protective stance for Thaksin” are you referring to? Please provide some examples. Not hearsay.
One hopes they will be more convincing than your evidence of anti-PAD media.
I’m tired of this rubbish that anyone who opposes the PAD is pro-Thaksin.
I am concerned after reading about doctors refuse to treat injured police, and pilot refused to fly passenger who said to be a member of an opposite political party. How on earth are these going to be explained to western countries, even with good command of English? What next?
khun stillwater: I disagree with you on Nation and Bangkok Post. Choosing one article tells us nothing. An unbiased reading of the Nation since 2005 shows it as remarkably pro-PAD.
On the former communists, I did not require names. I know them. My question was this: The irony is that these people now stand with PAD alongside those who were trying to kill them in the 1970s and after (e.g. Panlop, who publicly states that he killed commies for a living). How has that happened? Who has been converted to which cause?
Perhaps it is now time to give an honorary degree to leading Singaporean opposition figure JB Jeyaratnam who just passed away. He gets my admiration rather than Mr Lee Kuan Yew or nast Singapore guy
What are you rambling about? You seem to be a fanatic PAD follower (don’t know though whether you subscribe to what Giles had called PAD’s “ultranationalist fanaticism,” maybe, you are only in favor of the “New Politics” part). So, what’s the use arguing with you?
By the way, I also have a whole pile of Thai-language newspaper articles–mostly from Phuchatkan–on my desk. Partly stupid, partly scary stuff (especially that about a “Thai-style people’s democracy” and the PAD’s vanguard role in this, and articles by chief demagogue Pramote Nakornthap), I would say…
I guess that comparison could be made in the sense that two elites from Iceland and Thailand have owned football clubs recently and have, or are about to, sell them. Thaksin’s assets were indeed ‘frozen’.
However, Iceland has a population smaller than Canberra and an average income of over $60,000 US. I think this sort of situation lends itself easily to more overt cronyism as everyone would – sort of- know each other and would be of the same ilk. Whereas Thailand has a population of over 60 million and an average personal income of nearly $4000 US, with a great deal of class and cultural divides. Therefore, I assume elitist croney behaviour in Thailand is much more centralized and secretive, whereas for Iceland and it’s smaller population, cronyism would have had more of a direct impact on average peoples lives.
Also, the Icelandic collapse was in part, fostered by it’s citizens borrowing foreign money for loans. I remember reading that Icelandic bank interest rates for loans had been something like 15% (not sure for how long that was). This forced the regular middle-upper class demographic into putting their money off shore, making repayments internationally. Surely most Thai subjects don’t have the financial capability to borrow money from overseas for their home loans…. Doesnt this lead the majority of people in Thailand to play into the cronyism of the elites indirectly because the gap between status is much wider.
Perhaps the gap in status was much finer in Iceland and the middle-upper class Icelandics could refuse to ingratiate themselves at 15%. How often do Thai subjects refuse Thai elites? I dont think Icelandic elites were nearly as powerful towards their citizens as Thai elites as their situation has now fallen apart. Therefore, perhaps Professor Gylfason comments were simply to make an analogy to talk of cronyism.
Ed Norton Exaggerating what?
Exaggerating that they “study” PAD.
Then we are told that if we were true students of PAD and objective viewers of ASTV we’d know that Sondhi Lim has “stopped attending the brain storming sessions for new politics…”.
You don’t have to be a “student” of PAD. That’s not the point of my comment—it is a simple observation of mine that people who “observe” or study PAD know much less than they claim.
Sondhi has said he stopped attending brain storming sessions for new politics. This was stated on the PAD stage. Khun Piphop is heading that part of PAD. I am stating this because NM can’t keep up with this movement (understandably since we have other responsibilities) and keep discussing Sondhi’s New Politics when anyone who watches PAD knows he is no longer involved with it. I’m trying to inform you [NM] community members.
And, in Khun Stillwater’s first post we are told that the “mainstream media” is covering things up? Which mainstream media?
Channels 3,5,7,9 NBT. They didn’t bother to cover even the events of Oct. 7. When they did they went so far as to accuse the man of losing his leg as being a begger who dressed up his wound (his leg was recovered by the way). As stated in my post regular programming continued as police moved to the protest area. I’m sorry I can’t record anything for all you. If you are BKK please just turn on the TV next time (if there is a next time).
I read the Bangkok Post and the Nation pretty regularly and their coverage seems remarkably pro-PAD. What is being hidden?
“HOstages”? Ed, is this an example of “Pro-PAD” coverage on the Post?
That some of those who fought against the military are still with PAD and finishing that fight is an interesting observation.
One example: Therdpoom Chaidee
Former Communist. He’s one of the 9 with a warrant out for his arrest.
He is one of MANY amongst PAD. People who have taken to the PAD stage include a woman by the name of “Savitri” (forgot last name) who is famous for singing for the student refugees in the jungle. She was a hardcore student protester. Numerous people who have come on stage have stated their backgrounds very succinctly.
Another is a female senator(?) Malika Kaewgaw (who was in front of Parliament on Oct 7) and has been with PAD for all these months.
If I knew you were interested…I’d note their names and try to transliterate them for you. These people are just “representatives”…most of them are union leaders who come on stage briefly to announce they’ve arrived (at the gov. house).
Some of these people have mentioned their former close acquaintance with a Thai academic abroad (who is anti-PAD but toned down his protective stance for Thaksin).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Outstanding photo’s and good descriptive, well balanced text. I intend to link back to this report from my own blog.
Excellent work.
John
A way forward for Thai politics?
I was doing some search for federalism in Thailand to find out more about this topic and came across some of the comments. I don’t know much about Thailand. I follow what is going going on in Thailand sometimes. I lived in Indonesia during 1998 when Suharto was overthrown. I worked on decentralization projects in Indonesia during the Suharto period. I have read Thailand’s Decentralization Law of 1999. The law is very similar to what the Indonesia’s decentralization law of 1974 during Suharto regieme. The 1999 laws all have enough to push Thailand toward federalism (ie directly elected regional officials with substantial powers and funds). There is no political will or necessity to push it through. Once Suharto was overthrown within eight years nearly all of Indonesia governor, mayors, district chiefs are elected. Indonesia is now a unitary republic in name only. It is more or less moving to a federal system even though they call it decentralization.
To those like Srithanonchai, I don’t know why one should be worried about cities becoming independent. In the past, federalism in Indonesia was an F word, because it could lead to national disintegration. This is even more so for Indonesia, because the Dutch actually proposed a federal system when Indonesia become independent. The Indonesian nationalist were very suspicious of the intentions of the Dutch so they adopted a unitary system. The 2-3 years after 1998 Indonesia faced ethnic and religious conflicts galore in many of its provinces. Indonesia moved to a decentralized system and eventually allowed the direct election of governors and local councils to better satisfy local grievances and to prevent the centralization of too power in Jakarta. Unlike Thailand, Indonesia is a multicultural society. 85% of the population is Muslim, the rest is Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Unlike Thailand no ethnic group forms a majority. The most dominant group the Javanese make up 40% of the population, they have 1000 ethnic groups in total. Javanese is not the national language, but Malay. If Indonesia can attempt a federal system why can’t Thailand, a country that is 80% Thai and 95% Buddhist and has been existence for over 700 years compared to Indonesia’s 63 years.
The problem in Thailand even though it is supposedly democratic it is similar to the discussion in Indonesia during the Suharto period. The political discussion is inbred because there is no real emergency. What is happening in Thailand even with the latest deaths is not even close to what Indonesia went through from 1998-2002. I don’t think there will be solution until the politicians are forced by the safety value being taken away from them — the passing away of the current king. I guarantee all of your discussions about the PAD , Thaksin will be quaint compared to the changes that will occur after his death whether good or bad.
On royal silence
I don’t know if this fits in your new comment policy, anyway:
Please put more emphasis on this article! Would be even great if you could quote the princess directly!
Maybe it will help to spread the word in Thailand!
PAD leaders are mostly acting for themselves indeed, even the Princess acknowledges that!
What happened on 7/10/2008?
Excellent contribution! Given the dismal performance of the Thai newspapers, we rely on such articles for more accurate information, even if Nick does not have the backup to place all this into an overall picture.
“What some people seem to forget is the basic situation: the law was with the police, and not with the PAD.” >> This was even completely forgotten by the deans of many law faculties, including Thammasat (Somkhit Lertpaitoon), Chulalongkorn, and Sukothai Thamathirat (Khomsan Pokkhong, another drafter of the 2007 Constitution, besides Somkhit). These people had the guts to issue a long statement, printed in Sondhi L.’s Manager newspaper, insisting that the PAD actions at Parliament were a legitimate use of their constitutional right of freedom of assembly. One really has to pity Thailand for having such a nonsensical academic elite…
Most obviously, the PAD was fully prepared to physically fight against the police to achieve its aim of blocking Parliament (many countries have laws declaring the areas around parliament a neutral zone), and many of them were armed with a variety of weapons. They resisted the police order to disperse, and later even actively attacked the police on many occasions, as mentioned in Nick’s report.
“Thai democracy is in a state of immolation”
These are bleak views so far. Allow me to suggest something more optimistic.
Anupong is holding out against another coup, and has rebuked Chavalit for suggesting one. Is Anupong out of line with army politics or is he just trying to keep his seat on the lurching bull? If he does represent some kind of consensus of army opinion, that opinion may be slowly swinging towards the elected government and away from the glowering queen, and her thugs and screaming hags in the streets. In the end, the army may draw the line at Thaksin, but be prepared to support a low-key, conciliatory elected government that allows it a substantial budget. Democracy depends completely on the army supporting the elected government as a matter of principle. Once that happens, the judges and all the other cowardly authoritarians will fall meekly into line.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
I like your report. It is exceptional in that it presents both sides fairly. Too much reporting here is led by a cheerleader press corp that reports only one side and seems to suppress the the other. http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/13987
had photos of a policeman being ran over by a truck. And
http://www.oknation.net/blog/tyty1789/2008/10/08/entry-1 had a picture of a police officer with a handgun. He was ready to fire it and a supervisor came over and had him put it away. One of the newspapers had the picture of the officer with the gun but did not show the supervisor step in. That same newspaper editorialized about the tragedy of the guy loosing his leg but suggested that no one was warned about the impending tear gas attack, and condemned the police for not announcing it in advance which from your account is not correct.
The police are the agency that society gives the authority to use violence to deal with violence, it looks like the police did as good a job as can be expected under extremely difficult circumstances. It is really sad to see the cold blooded nature of the attack on the police officer who was ran over by the Pickup Truck.
I hope that Thailand steps back from the brink and allows the elected to govern and if they don’t like it, seek a solution in the ballot box rather than in the street–otherwise we will have continued anarchy in parts of Bangkok led by a succession of people with different colored shirts.
What happened on 7/10/2008?
– Police had one of their loudspeaker lorries and first issued a warning that protesters should disperse as they would be attacked, and teargas would be fired.
– The protesters did not disperse and soon after the attack started with a barrage of teargas grenades.
– Also the few remaining PAD protesters threw some explosives, maybe firecrackers or their own ping pong bombs.
These line are what was left out from the thai “main stream” media.
“Thai democracy is in a state of immolation”
Dr Connors has long argued that Connors keeps arguing that there is a strong liberal trend in Thailand, notably a royalist liberalism – represented by the venerable Prawase and ever unelected Anand. I have always sort of hoped that he was right, but tended to think that the stronger political trend was a conservatism that is highly authoritarian was stronger. I am wondering what Dr Connors thinks now.
I know Prawase came out a couple of weeks ago and was pretty much ignored when he suggested a path away from the current situation. Given that many of those who previously “heard” Prawase and other royal liberals are now with PAD, what happens next to Thai liberalism if democracy is immolated?
I wonder what the odds are for fascism? Economic downturn worldwide followed by a rise in authoritarian models as “liberalism has failed?”
“Thai democracy is in a state of immolation”
One of the most disturbing elements of the processes surrounding the PAD is that so many members of the Bangkok academic and journalistic elite seem to have been intellectually overpowered, and lost their political-moral compass. It seems that, beneath a superficially stated support for democracy there is, first, nothing much else, and, second, as strictly elitist worldview. In practical terms, this has virtually closed the public space to views not in favor of the PAD, as far as print media are concerned (very similar, or even worse, than what happaned in 2006). It has also strongly impacted on what can safely be discussed in interpersonal communications at the workplace and amongst friends. As a result, the dominant opinion has become even stronger, while minority views (that might in fact well represent the majority) have become weaker.
This situation helps to underline that Thailand has all along been an oligarchy rather than a polyarchic democracy. However, this is news only to those who had thought that, over the past two decades, Thailand had been “rapidly democratizing.”
From 2-3 December, the faculty of political science of Chulalongkorn University will host a congress on “Political Science and Thai Democratization.” Scheduled speakers will be, amongst others, Larry Diamond (democracy promoter) and Chai-anand Samudavanija (PAD promoter). It should be interesting to see what they will have to tell each other on democracy in general, and Thai democracy in particular. 20 years ago, Diamond had published a book chapter by Chai-anand about Thailand as a “stable Semi-Democracy.” Now, Chai-anand demands that Thailand must return to the state of semi-democracy.
The land of the Thai and the land of Ice
I am from Iceland but don’t consider myself an expert on the place, least of all on the spectacular wave of speculative investment in other countries over the last ten-plus years. But to say that there is a “Thai-style cronyism” is nonsense on both counts. I don’t think Thailand is a global exemplar of cronyism (a lot of stuff in the US is quite similar, and to allege corruption and such as unique to places like Thailand simply smacks of old orientalism), nor do I think the crash in Iceland is much like that in Thailand 11 years ago (except that ordinary people suffer and their money evaporates, but that is the story with capitalism’s crises anywhere). Judging from what I have read in the newspapers, the cronyism in Iceland (with financial institutions, dubious loans, and the authorities complicit or looking the other way) is more like what’s going on in the US. The main difference is one of scale, the economy is not big, the population is 300,000 (including a few hundred Thai people); the fiction of an endless increase in value was apparent sooner than elsewhere.
We are spirits in the material world…
Western armies at war treat wounded enemy soldiers.
Compare this to the attitiude of these high-status Thais to fellow Thais they regard as inferior.
PAD tries a yellow “people’s coup”
Great, honest account of what happened. Thailand is such a beautiful countries I hope nothing spoils that – especially as my partner is Thai.
If somebody…
Stillwater
>Some of these people have mentioned their former close acquaintance with a Thai academic abroad (who is anti-PAD but toned down his protective stance for Thaksin).
It’s pretty clear whom you are talking about. What “protective stance for Thaksin” are you referring to? Please provide some examples. Not hearsay.
One hopes they will be more convincing than your evidence of anti-PAD media.
I’m tired of this rubbish that anyone who opposes the PAD is pro-Thaksin.
Put up or shut up.
Did any NM readers take up the call?
I am concerned after reading about doctors refuse to treat injured police, and pilot refused to fly passenger who said to be a member of an opposite political party. How on earth are these going to be explained to western countries, even with good command of English? What next?
If somebody…
khun stillwater: I disagree with you on Nation and Bangkok Post. Choosing one article tells us nothing. An unbiased reading of the Nation since 2005 shows it as remarkably pro-PAD.
On the former communists, I did not require names. I know them. My question was this: The irony is that these people now stand with PAD alongside those who were trying to kill them in the 1970s and after (e.g. Panlop, who publicly states that he killed commies for a living). How has that happened? Who has been converted to which cause?
ANU honours Lee Kuan Yew. Why?
Perhaps it is now time to give an honorary degree to leading Singaporean opposition figure JB Jeyaratnam who just passed away. He gets my admiration rather than Mr Lee Kuan Yew or nast Singapore guy
If somebody…
Khun Stillwater:
What are you rambling about? You seem to be a fanatic PAD follower (don’t know though whether you subscribe to what Giles had called PAD’s “ultranationalist fanaticism,” maybe, you are only in favor of the “New Politics” part). So, what’s the use arguing with you?
By the way, I also have a whole pile of Thai-language newspaper articles–mostly from Phuchatkan–on my desk. Partly stupid, partly scary stuff (especially that about a “Thai-style people’s democracy” and the PAD’s vanguard role in this, and articles by chief demagogue Pramote Nakornthap), I would say…
The land of the Thai and the land of Ice
I guess that comparison could be made in the sense that two elites from Iceland and Thailand have owned football clubs recently and have, or are about to, sell them. Thaksin’s assets were indeed ‘frozen’.
However, Iceland has a population smaller than Canberra and an average income of over $60,000 US. I think this sort of situation lends itself easily to more overt cronyism as everyone would – sort of- know each other and would be of the same ilk. Whereas Thailand has a population of over 60 million and an average personal income of nearly $4000 US, with a great deal of class and cultural divides. Therefore, I assume elitist croney behaviour in Thailand is much more centralized and secretive, whereas for Iceland and it’s smaller population, cronyism would have had more of a direct impact on average peoples lives.
Also, the Icelandic collapse was in part, fostered by it’s citizens borrowing foreign money for loans. I remember reading that Icelandic bank interest rates for loans had been something like 15% (not sure for how long that was). This forced the regular middle-upper class demographic into putting their money off shore, making repayments internationally. Surely most Thai subjects don’t have the financial capability to borrow money from overseas for their home loans…. Doesnt this lead the majority of people in Thailand to play into the cronyism of the elites indirectly because the gap between status is much wider.
Perhaps the gap in status was much finer in Iceland and the middle-upper class Icelandics could refuse to ingratiate themselves at 15%. How often do Thai subjects refuse Thai elites? I dont think Icelandic elites were nearly as powerful towards their citizens as Thai elites as their situation has now fallen apart. Therefore, perhaps Professor Gylfason comments were simply to make an analogy to talk of cronyism.
I’m pretty tired, sorry if this is muddled.
If somebody…
Ed Norton Exaggerating what?
Exaggerating that they “study” PAD.
Then we are told that if we were true students of PAD and objective viewers of ASTV we’d know that Sondhi Lim has “stopped attending the brain storming sessions for new politics…”.
You don’t have to be a “student” of PAD. That’s not the point of my comment—it is a simple observation of mine that people who “observe” or study PAD know much less than they claim.
Sondhi has said he stopped attending brain storming sessions for new politics. This was stated on the PAD stage. Khun Piphop is heading that part of PAD. I am stating this because NM can’t keep up with this movement (understandably since we have other responsibilities) and keep discussing Sondhi’s New Politics when anyone who watches PAD knows he is no longer involved with it. I’m trying to inform you [NM] community members.
And, in Khun Stillwater’s first post we are told that the “mainstream media” is covering things up? Which mainstream media?
Channels 3,5,7,9 NBT. They didn’t bother to cover even the events of Oct. 7. When they did they went so far as to accuse the man of losing his leg as being a begger who dressed up his wound (his leg was recovered by the way). As stated in my post regular programming continued as police moved to the protest area. I’m sorry I can’t record anything for all you. If you are BKK please just turn on the TV next time (if there is a next time).
I read the Bangkok Post and the Nation pretty regularly and their coverage seems remarkably pro-PAD. What is being hidden?
This must be their unbiased coverage: http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.php?id=131190
“HOstages”? Ed, is this an example of “Pro-PAD” coverage on the Post?
That some of those who fought against the military are still with PAD and finishing that fight is an interesting observation.
One example: Therdpoom Chaidee
Former Communist. He’s one of the 9 with a warrant out for his arrest.
He is one of MANY amongst PAD. People who have taken to the PAD stage include a woman by the name of “Savitri” (forgot last name) who is famous for singing for the student refugees in the jungle. She was a hardcore student protester. Numerous people who have come on stage have stated their backgrounds very succinctly.
Another is a female senator(?) Malika Kaewgaw (who was in front of Parliament on Oct 7) and has been with PAD for all these months.
If I knew you were interested…I’d note their names and try to transliterate them for you. These people are just “representatives”…most of them are union leaders who come on stage briefly to announce they’ve arrived (at the gov. house).
Some of these people have mentioned their former close acquaintance with a Thai academic abroad (who is anti-PAD but toned down his protective stance for Thaksin).
Did any NM readers take up the call?
jonfernquest: Reality would be completely unbearable here without being allowed to be at least slightly sarcastic.