It is the case of the pot calling the kettle black. Surayud accused politicians of being corrupt but he conveniently forgets his encroachment of the Khao Yai Tieng’s forest reserves for his own house.
On the occasion of the second anniv. of the coup yesterday (19 Sept), Gen. Sonthi B was strangely quiet and offered no comments. The reason is quite obvious — his Four-Step Campaign to get rid of Thaksin and his influence has utterly failed. Lessons for any ambitious and greedy military officers: if you hate politicians and accuse them of being corrupt, you yourself should not grab the cookies in the jar while you are in power, ok ? I wonder where Saprang, Bannawit, and others are these days ?
I’ll try my luck, and see if this comment makes it through.
I agree with Surayud – just take a look at many of the politicians in power locally & nationally – Local mafia connections dont appear to be a hinderance to a political career!
I’ve kept it short & sweet – it’s up to you whether I’ve met the other criteria!
I think its an excellent idea. Does more than “help fight poverty” in my opinion. Hopefully, the quality of broadcasts will be good enough so that Lao viewers will not be watching Thai tv. It would help strengthen the use of the Lao language definitely.
Yes, access to state-controlled television should indeed be included in the MDGs. But jokes aside, this sort of logic is frequently put forth by donor organisations as well as main justifications for setting up of various forms of rural connectivity (e.g. internet).
Or alternatively, the logic can be twisted into pre-existing frames, which is again also common practice in ngo-circles. Then it would go like this: ‘we have decided we are going to do this anyway (for whatever reason), we only have to justify it in relation to MDGs.’
The good thing is 2015 (or 2020) is not too far away anymore. So, soon all this MDG-business will be history. Whether this will also be the case with poverty is of course another matter.
Sangos
Thanks a lot for the information.I could not get through your photographs as I do not have a log in address.I am into preliminary research on Secong World War and North East India.Will be organising a Seminar on the topic in February 2009 at Rajiv Gandhi University,Itanagar,Arunachal Pradesh,where I am a faculty.These leads will help me construct the history of this period which rarely goes beyond recording the achievements of soldiers.
Of course one could always point out there are many versions of democracy or different interpretations of the word, and one could also point that that the researchers inform their informants as to which version of democracy they entertain, and so forth. But I think the main point of the paper is that Thai people in general prefer democracy than any other forms of government. I think this is highly significant.
In a way it seems to me hardly surprising at all to find out that Thai people prefer democracy. But it’s very surprising to see other people such as Koreans or what not do not seem to prefer it as much as Thais do. I think this latter finding stands more in need of explanation than that Thais prefer democracy. It should be rather obvious that a people anywhere would prefer that they are able to govern themselves rather than submit themselves to some higher authority?
The Albritton and Thawilwadee paper is done out of the context within Thai society where there has been widespread discrediting of democracy. This has gone on for as long as there is democracy in Siam or longer. And the argument is the same tired, old one. What Albritton and Thawilwadee have significantly contributed is to point out that, empirically speaking, the argument of the élites does not hold water. The élites would have it that Thai people prefer stability and the well intentioned guiding hands of the bureaucratic and urban élites rather than the chaos of democracy. But they are wrong. This should be a message to the PAD.
Seems to me, the SPDC government already gets billions from natural resource exploitation, with more to be added as the Shwe Gas goes online and pipelines are built from Ramree to Yunnan. How much of this is spent on health or education? What is to keep the SPDC from managing its economy better right now or treating its people with dignity?
If one reads Sean Turnell and his Burma Economic Watch, it does seem those billions are completely lacking in transparency. To what extent is extending the pool of potential investors in resources and infrastructure (or sweatshops), considering they will still have to play footsie with the likes of MOGE and UMEH, going to do much except to make bribes more competitive and add to the military’s tea money? How exactly does economic mismanagement get diminished, rather than enhanced, by ending what limited sanctions regimes remain?
Also, there are many many, many people, countries (regional powerhouses India and China, as well as ASEAN) and institutions who already deal with the regime as it is and are happy to. Though not the World Bank, which wants its money paid back from previous loans, or so it seems.
And since some of same caricatured “fly-in-fly out journos, and 5-day junket types” do favor ending sanctions and more engagement, would it not be better to focus on the strength of arguments rather than on those who, it was claimed, are making them. To the China analogy of economic improvement leading to a dribble down of more basic rights and living standards one could posit the Indian one going in the opposite direction. But to use either involves cherry-picking certain facts (it’s bit of a stretch to see Than Shwe as an emerging Deng Xiaoping) to make a argument that might not work in Burma.
aiontay: “Ne Win and his successors are the ones that broke the country, not Che Guevara wannabes.”
Right now it is 20 year and counting stalemate created by economic sanctions that is breaking the country. Economic engagement and growth is the only way out of the quagmire, and this is happening via China and Asia which takes massive unjustified flak for doing just that.
aiontay: “Finally, I don’t know about the Burmans, but the Kachins had that whole gumlao thing going before there was an American democracy. Democracy isn’t the exclusive preserve of white people.”
Exactly. The Licchavis and other republics around the time of the Buddha had a political organisation very different from kingship that was only then emerging reaching its classical ideal in Asoka. These “republics” resembled democracy, and that was invoked by 19th century Burmese political theorists looking for a solution to gradually encroaching British. http://burmalibrary.org/docs/THE_RAJADHAMMASANGAHA.pdf
However, you should use a different word than “democracy” because this is a western word loaded with and biased by long western experience and usage and only bares a, sometimes deceptive, similarity to what you are talking about. (This is a valid point made by Aung-Thwin in his critic of Luce’s late Kyansittha paper in Mysts of Ramanna).
aiontay: “…why are you seemingly conflating the arguments of Sharp, who isn’t representing the US government, with the policies of the US government? ”
I am not conflating anything. From my perspective living in Southeast Asia, missionaries, Sharp, cold war ideologues, fly-in-fly-out journalists, foreign aid funded 5 day junket experts, Princeton graduates looking to pump up their resumes with a little two month atruism stint, advocates of an Iraq invasion, Paul Bremer’s green zone dream team, foreign anthropologists identifying with their village “people” who are only part of a complex picture, all belong in a class of outsiders, not fully engaged with their livelihoods in the place they pontificate about from their outside well-funded positions of power, and produce irreparable harm such as what economic sanctions have reaped in Burma.
The only people who can solve the political problem are people in the country. The only thing outsiders can do is provide economic opportunity with business opportunities and education / technology transfer being the ones that provide maximum long-term benefit.
Red good, Yellow bad! I mean, Yellow good, Red bad! My fascist elites whipping the people into a law-defying frenzy are better than yours–more righteous, intelligent, thoughtful, and–wait for it–democratic. My pure-hearted, empty-handed, machete-wielding off-duty motorcycle taxi drivers are more peaceful than yours. Your illegal acts are a despicable affront to democracy; mine are the unavoidable duties of the concerned citizen. My rich, vociferous, well-protected leaders speak to the common man; yours are mere manipulators. My contempt for law, constitutionalism, justice and integrity are mere red herrings cooked up by ungenerous detractors; yours reveal a fundamental hypocrisy. Fortunately, we are united in our love for Nation, King, Religion. What intelligent person can choose sides in this circus?
“I would trade every patriot in the county for one tolerant man”– EB White.
I wonder if Thai people perceive democracy to have worked better in their country partly because democracy in Thailand was not preceded, as elsewhere in Asia, by either a strong dictatorial state or complete chaos. While Thailand has of course had several coups, it has never had a prolonged authoritarian state in which the public have been encouraged (or coerced) into taking part by becoming members of a sole political party or joining a secret police.
In the 1960s, a highschool teacher in California conducted an intriguing experiment to discover how facism worked in practice – his students, for example, were taught slogans and a salute, and were encouraged to inform on each other and beat up any dissenters. What surprised the teacher was how much not only he, but his students, seemed to enjoy it.
Where authoritarian states of this nature have collapsed (as in Mongolia, or – to look outside the region – Russia), the citizens are left with little sense of purpose, and, apart from a minority who get rich on the back of regime change, often reduced economic circumstances. Moreover, the decades of authoritarianism have left the people with little idea of how to put democracy into practice. In such situations, democracy often flounders at best, and fails completely at worst.
In Thailand, where the dictatorships have not been marked by a strong central state or the dominance of a single party, underground democracy has been able to flourish to a much greater extent. Equally, the dictatorships have not done anything for the people – they have not, for instance, provided free healthcare or guaranteed a job. I would argue that just as West Germans tend to be more satisfied with democracy than their counterparts in the former East Germany, so too are Thais likely to be more satisfied with the democratic process than people in other Asian countries, in part because Thailand has, apart from brief periods of dictatorship, been generally more democratic.
You seem to be highlighting the local tendency to ‘want to believe’ at any any cost. That desire is usually satisfied quite easily if enough politicians give the necessary inducements. Democracy would probably work better if the electorate were stuffed full of people who didn’t have a good word to say about their political reps. Things usually work better when folks are in a position to realize that any money that a politician pushes under the table has probably been previously stolen from themselves.
Look at the local education system for further example. Folks have been fooled into allowing the tutor system to teach most of the stuff that is supposed to be taught in schools. Having shelled out big bucks for this dubious privilege, students & their parents then expect tutor schools to be a magic bullet to their future. They thus think that they will absorb all of the useful info they will need for a future successful career without making any real effort to personally connect with the subject matter.
Your ‘feelgood’ results probably indicate nothing much more than a local desire to find the political magic bullet without actually having to personally lift a finger to make the political system really work.
I disagree with the conflation of liberal democracy and popular democracy in the conclusion of the paper. The paper only mentions ‘liberal’ twice, and I don’t think a democratic system for a nation can be wholly functional without an attachment to liberalism. The democracy the paper is talking of is simply electoral democracy which can be illiberal.
If Thailand were without international pressure, how would Bhumibol, and therefore the majority of people, value democracy? I think answering this question would prove more the current state of democratic health in Thailand. Although my question may be loaded, I do believe that with sustained popularity of an electoral democratic system, liberal empiricism can be acquired with all the mistakes that are about to be made.
Having watched the original online Thai discussion group on usenet, (crikey this really dates me) soc.culture.thai devolve into a childish playground, and currently observing the same trend, although at a slower pace occur over at ThaiVisa, I hate to admit it, but I am all for moderation of these forums.l And let me add that I would not be personally offended in the least if one of my comments were not published.
Jon, why are you seemingly conflating the arguments of Sharp, who isn’t representing the US government, with the policies of the US government?
I never supported the invasion of Iraq, and you’re not going to get any argument from me about the sins of the US, but that doesn’t keep me from thinking that the military regime in Rangoon is a bunch of thugs who also bear the responsibilty for the economic disaster that is the Burmese economy. Ever heard of the Burmese Way to Socialism? That was way before the current US sanctions. Ne Win and his successors are the ones that broke the country, not Che Guevara wannabes.
Finally, I don’t know about the Burmans, but the Kachins had that whole gumlao thing going before there was an American democracy. Democracy isn’t the exclusive preserve of white people; in my opinion they do a pretty bad job with it. The Mvskoke did it much better.
China has achieved record growth despite continual criticism for its “dictatorial” tendencies from the US and after the current financial crisis seems to be in a position of economic dominance.
Park Chung Hee and his successors in South Korea were thoroughly supported by the US, but the cold war was a time when US foreign policy defined “dictatorship” differently.
Thaksin’s one leader one state rule in Thailand certainly seemed to veering towards a democratically “dictatorship” a la Mussolini thoroughly supported by the US but now we conveniently forget this and make him the saviour of the poor people when it was in fact generations of central government projects that brought electricity, water, and irrigation to the rural hinterlands.
In short, the US should make an effort to stay out of the politics of other far-flung regions of the world and instead engage these parts of the world with business, the one thing that could actually make a big difference in Burma and bring about change there, denied by economic sanctions that impoverish the people.
Ed Norton, the point being made re; ” who cares, certainly not the people of Thailand who are the ones directly involved in this current situation. ” was implying that the people of Thailand are not interested in advise from outsiders – NOT, they are not interested in their own internal problems.
Further, I too have spoken with and been involved with many Thai people over 6/7 years from family, subsistance farmers, academics, and business people from all levels of society – many of these people will listen to and acknowledge your views should they ask you but I don’t kid myself that what I say will make any difference to the direction of events in Thailand.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Too long on the privy
It is the case of the pot calling the kettle black. Surayud accused politicians of being corrupt but he conveniently forgets his encroachment of the Khao Yai Tieng’s forest reserves for his own house.
On the occasion of the second anniv. of the coup yesterday (19 Sept), Gen. Sonthi B was strangely quiet and offered no comments. The reason is quite obvious — his Four-Step Campaign to get rid of Thaksin and his influence has utterly failed. Lessons for any ambitious and greedy military officers: if you hate politicians and accuse them of being corrupt, you yourself should not grab the cookies in the jar while you are in power, ok ? I wonder where Saprang, Bannawit, and others are these days ?
Too long on the privy
I’ll try my luck, and see if this comment makes it through.
I agree with Surayud – just take a look at many of the politicians in power locally & nationally – Local mafia connections dont appear to be a hinderance to a political career!
I’ve kept it short & sweet – it’s up to you whether I’ve met the other criteria!
A new front in the fight against poverty
I think its an excellent idea. Does more than “help fight poverty” in my opinion. Hopefully, the quality of broadcasts will be good enough so that Lao viewers will not be watching Thai tv. It would help strengthen the use of the Lao language definitely.
A new front in the fight against poverty
Yes, access to state-controlled television should indeed be included in the MDGs. But jokes aside, this sort of logic is frequently put forth by donor organisations as well as main justifications for setting up of various forms of rural connectivity (e.g. internet).
Or alternatively, the logic can be twisted into pre-existing frames, which is again also common practice in ngo-circles. Then it would go like this: ‘we have decided we are going to do this anyway (for whatever reason), we only have to justify it in relation to MDGs.’
The good thing is 2015 (or 2020) is not too far away anymore. So, soon all this MDG-business will be history. Whether this will also be the case with poverty is of course another matter.
The Stilwell Road
Sangos
Thanks a lot for the information.I could not get through your photographs as I do not have a log in address.I am into preliminary research on Secong World War and North East India.Will be organising a Seminar on the topic in February 2009 at Rajiv Gandhi University,Itanagar,Arunachal Pradesh,where I am a faculty.These leads will help me construct the history of this period which rarely goes beyond recording the achievements of soldiers.
Is Thai democracy really so bad?
Of course one could always point out there are many versions of democracy or different interpretations of the word, and one could also point that that the researchers inform their informants as to which version of democracy they entertain, and so forth. But I think the main point of the paper is that Thai people in general prefer democracy than any other forms of government. I think this is highly significant.
In a way it seems to me hardly surprising at all to find out that Thai people prefer democracy. But it’s very surprising to see other people such as Koreans or what not do not seem to prefer it as much as Thais do. I think this latter finding stands more in need of explanation than that Thais prefer democracy. It should be rather obvious that a people anywhere would prefer that they are able to govern themselves rather than submit themselves to some higher authority?
The Albritton and Thawilwadee paper is done out of the context within Thai society where there has been widespread discrediting of democracy. This has gone on for as long as there is democracy in Siam or longer. And the argument is the same tired, old one. What Albritton and Thawilwadee have significantly contributed is to point out that, empirically speaking, the argument of the élites does not hold water. The élites would have it that Thai people prefer stability and the well intentioned guiding hands of the bureaucratic and urban élites rather than the chaos of democracy. But they are wrong. This should be a message to the PAD.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
Seems to me, the SPDC government already gets billions from natural resource exploitation, with more to be added as the Shwe Gas goes online and pipelines are built from Ramree to Yunnan. How much of this is spent on health or education? What is to keep the SPDC from managing its economy better right now or treating its people with dignity?
If one reads Sean Turnell and his Burma Economic Watch, it does seem those billions are completely lacking in transparency. To what extent is extending the pool of potential investors in resources and infrastructure (or sweatshops), considering they will still have to play footsie with the likes of MOGE and UMEH, going to do much except to make bribes more competitive and add to the military’s tea money? How exactly does economic mismanagement get diminished, rather than enhanced, by ending what limited sanctions regimes remain?
Also, there are many many, many people, countries (regional powerhouses India and China, as well as ASEAN) and institutions who already deal with the regime as it is and are happy to. Though not the World Bank, which wants its money paid back from previous loans, or so it seems.
And since some of same caricatured “fly-in-fly out journos, and 5-day junket types” do favor ending sanctions and more engagement, would it not be better to focus on the strength of arguments rather than on those who, it was claimed, are making them. To the China analogy of economic improvement leading to a dribble down of more basic rights and living standards one could posit the Indian one going in the opposite direction. But to use either involves cherry-picking certain facts (it’s bit of a stretch to see Than Shwe as an emerging Deng Xiaoping) to make a argument that might not work in Burma.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
aiontay: “Ne Win and his successors are the ones that broke the country, not Che Guevara wannabes.”
Right now it is 20 year and counting stalemate created by economic sanctions that is breaking the country. Economic engagement and growth is the only way out of the quagmire, and this is happening via China and Asia which takes massive unjustified flak for doing just that.
aiontay: “Finally, I don’t know about the Burmans, but the Kachins had that whole gumlao thing going before there was an American democracy. Democracy isn’t the exclusive preserve of white people.”
Exactly. The Licchavis and other republics around the time of the Buddha had a political organisation very different from kingship that was only then emerging reaching its classical ideal in Asoka. These “republics” resembled democracy, and that was invoked by 19th century Burmese political theorists looking for a solution to gradually encroaching British.
http://burmalibrary.org/docs/THE_RAJADHAMMASANGAHA.pdf
However, you should use a different word than “democracy” because this is a western word loaded with and biased by long western experience and usage and only bares a, sometimes deceptive, similarity to what you are talking about. (This is a valid point made by Aung-Thwin in his critic of Luce’s late Kyansittha paper in Mysts of Ramanna).
aiontay: “…why are you seemingly conflating the arguments of Sharp, who isn’t representing the US government, with the policies of the US government? ”
I am not conflating anything. From my perspective living in Southeast Asia, missionaries, Sharp, cold war ideologues, fly-in-fly-out journalists, foreign aid funded 5 day junket experts, Princeton graduates looking to pump up their resumes with a little two month atruism stint, advocates of an Iraq invasion, Paul Bremer’s green zone dream team, foreign anthropologists identifying with their village “people” who are only part of a complex picture, all belong in a class of outsiders, not fully engaged with their livelihoods in the place they pontificate about from their outside well-funded positions of power, and produce irreparable harm such as what economic sanctions have reaped in Burma.
The only people who can solve the political problem are people in the country. The only thing outsiders can do is provide economic opportunity with business opportunities and education / technology transfer being the ones that provide maximum long-term benefit.
Beyond the stereotypes of Thailand’s “Reds”
Red good, Yellow bad! I mean, Yellow good, Red bad! My fascist elites whipping the people into a law-defying frenzy are better than yours–more righteous, intelligent, thoughtful, and–wait for it–democratic. My pure-hearted, empty-handed, machete-wielding off-duty motorcycle taxi drivers are more peaceful than yours. Your illegal acts are a despicable affront to democracy; mine are the unavoidable duties of the concerned citizen. My rich, vociferous, well-protected leaders speak to the common man; yours are mere manipulators. My contempt for law, constitutionalism, justice and integrity are mere red herrings cooked up by ungenerous detractors; yours reveal a fundamental hypocrisy. Fortunately, we are united in our love for Nation, King, Religion. What intelligent person can choose sides in this circus?
“I would trade every patriot in the county for one tolerant man”– EB White.
Is Thai democracy really so bad?
I wonder if Thai people perceive democracy to have worked better in their country partly because democracy in Thailand was not preceded, as elsewhere in Asia, by either a strong dictatorial state or complete chaos. While Thailand has of course had several coups, it has never had a prolonged authoritarian state in which the public have been encouraged (or coerced) into taking part by becoming members of a sole political party or joining a secret police.
In the 1960s, a highschool teacher in California conducted an intriguing experiment to discover how facism worked in practice – his students, for example, were taught slogans and a salute, and were encouraged to inform on each other and beat up any dissenters. What surprised the teacher was how much not only he, but his students, seemed to enjoy it.
Where authoritarian states of this nature have collapsed (as in Mongolia, or – to look outside the region – Russia), the citizens are left with little sense of purpose, and, apart from a minority who get rich on the back of regime change, often reduced economic circumstances. Moreover, the decades of authoritarianism have left the people with little idea of how to put democracy into practice. In such situations, democracy often flounders at best, and fails completely at worst.
In Thailand, where the dictatorships have not been marked by a strong central state or the dominance of a single party, underground democracy has been able to flourish to a much greater extent. Equally, the dictatorships have not done anything for the people – they have not, for instance, provided free healthcare or guaranteed a job. I would argue that just as West Germans tend to be more satisfied with democracy than their counterparts in the former East Germany, so too are Thais likely to be more satisfied with the democratic process than people in other Asian countries, in part because Thailand has, apart from brief periods of dictatorship, been generally more democratic.
Is Thai democracy really so bad?
You seem to be highlighting the local tendency to ‘want to believe’ at any any cost. That desire is usually satisfied quite easily if enough politicians give the necessary inducements. Democracy would probably work better if the electorate were stuffed full of people who didn’t have a good word to say about their political reps. Things usually work better when folks are in a position to realize that any money that a politician pushes under the table has probably been previously stolen from themselves.
Look at the local education system for further example. Folks have been fooled into allowing the tutor system to teach most of the stuff that is supposed to be taught in schools. Having shelled out big bucks for this dubious privilege, students & their parents then expect tutor schools to be a magic bullet to their future. They thus think that they will absorb all of the useful info they will need for a future successful career without making any real effort to personally connect with the subject matter.
Your ‘feelgood’ results probably indicate nothing much more than a local desire to find the political magic bullet without actually having to personally lift a finger to make the political system really work.
The Stilwell Road
Sarah
A large cemetery of about a 1000 graves of American/Chinese soldiers was discovered next tot he Ledo Road in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Check my blog here for links to more info/Photos:
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/23666-wwii-ghost-american-road-might-come-alive-again.html
Is Thai democracy really so bad?
I disagree with the conflation of liberal democracy and popular democracy in the conclusion of the paper. The paper only mentions ‘liberal’ twice, and I don’t think a democratic system for a nation can be wholly functional without an attachment to liberalism. The democracy the paper is talking of is simply electoral democracy which can be illiberal.
If Thailand were without international pressure, how would Bhumibol, and therefore the majority of people, value democracy? I think answering this question would prove more the current state of democratic health in Thailand. Although my question may be loaded, I do believe that with sustained popularity of an electoral democratic system, liberal empiricism can be acquired with all the mistakes that are about to be made.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
I have been busy teaching summer session the last ten weeks.
Will all those who requested DD copies please email me with your mailing address and I’ll see you get sent a disk.
CJ Hinke
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
[email protected]
New Mandala comments policy
Having watched the original online Thai discussion group on usenet, (crikey this really dates me) soc.culture.thai devolve into a childish playground, and currently observing the same trend, although at a slower pace occur over at ThaiVisa, I hate to admit it, but I am all for moderation of these forums.l And let me add that I would not be personally offended in the least if one of my comments were not published.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
Jon, why are you seemingly conflating the arguments of Sharp, who isn’t representing the US government, with the policies of the US government?
I never supported the invasion of Iraq, and you’re not going to get any argument from me about the sins of the US, but that doesn’t keep me from thinking that the military regime in Rangoon is a bunch of thugs who also bear the responsibilty for the economic disaster that is the Burmese economy. Ever heard of the Burmese Way to Socialism? That was way before the current US sanctions. Ne Win and his successors are the ones that broke the country, not Che Guevara wannabes.
Finally, I don’t know about the Burmans, but the Kachins had that whole gumlao thing going before there was an American democracy. Democracy isn’t the exclusive preserve of white people; in my opinion they do a pretty bad job with it. The Mvskoke did it much better.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
China has achieved record growth despite continual criticism for its “dictatorial” tendencies from the US and after the current financial crisis seems to be in a position of economic dominance.
Park Chung Hee and his successors in South Korea were thoroughly supported by the US, but the cold war was a time when US foreign policy defined “dictatorship” differently.
Thaksin’s one leader one state rule in Thailand certainly seemed to veering towards a democratically “dictatorship” a la Mussolini thoroughly supported by the US but now we conveniently forget this and make him the saviour of the poor people when it was in fact generations of central government projects that brought electricity, water, and irrigation to the rural hinterlands.
In short, the US should make an effort to stay out of the politics of other far-flung regions of the world and instead engage these parts of the world with business, the one thing that could actually make a big difference in Burma and bring about change there, denied by economic sanctions that impoverish the people.
Beyond the stereotypes of Thailand’s “Reds”
Ed Norton, the point being made re; ” who cares, certainly not the people of Thailand who are the ones directly involved in this current situation. ” was implying that the people of Thailand are not interested in advise from outsiders – NOT, they are not interested in their own internal problems.
Further, I too have spoken with and been involved with many Thai people over 6/7 years from family, subsistance farmers, academics, and business people from all levels of society – many of these people will listen to and acknowledge your views should they ask you but I don’t kid myself that what I say will make any difference to the direction of events in Thailand.
Thailand’s crown prince
I think this letter to the CP is cute in a way. A jibe at “the situation?”
New Mandala comments policy
Yeah . . . nganadeeleg. I see what you mean.
So adieu NM but it was fun (while it lasted) to rant repetitively and to submit unimaginative point-scoring low-quality comments.
Bye.