Thank you, Ed Norton, for your kind words. Speaking of Anand, (sorry moderator if this is not directly about constitutional madness) I just learned not too long ago that Anand is now the Siam Commercial Bank’s Chairman of the board. I can just imagine how intimidating the Revenue Department officials would be in their dealing with the Bank about the transfer of some of Thaksin’s frozen assets to the department.
I read from a Thai newspaper that one of the reasons the SCB did not want to release the money was that it was afraid that the transfer (Bt12 billion) would affect the bank’s liquidity. But I didn’t hear this reason repeated again. Can anyone help shed some light on this matter? Is it okay for a non-state bank to keep and manage frozen assets and make financial gains from them?
Sidh S. commented that Samak has an opportunity to step down gracefully…
That is an interesting re-reading of the events. Go back and look. Chai-Anan Samudavanija and 98 other public intellectuals (I recall the no. was 99, but I may be wrong) signed a petition to force him out in amongst a lot of campaigning for an elected PM. There were threats to reveal deep and dark secrets about Prem’s private life. Hardly graceful (and that is ignoring two failed coup attempts against the old man).
On another matter SS says that, “Contrary to what foriegners think, the judiciary are now doing their job commendably…” – why are foreigners singled out? Are you being racist-nationalist or just ignoring all those Thais who think there are problems with the judiciary?
And, the idea that a 7000 baht fine and a suspended sentence makes the courts look good seems a bit weak. Given that the courts have been especially zealous in protecting themselves, this is a wrist-slap. I’m sure Prasong puts tobacco in his pipe that costs more than this a week. What about all the other cases against PAD and pro-PAD persons brought by their opponents? What’s the progress on them? (That’s a real question as I seem to have lost track of them).
Well done Amata. Excellent points to make. I agree with you entirely. Too often Anand, who is little more than a propagandist for the palace these days, is painted as some kind of white knight. He wasn’t.
Jopha – I wasn’t suggesting for a moment that Thaksin and his allies have been the only ones to buy votes (or indeed, that everything Thaksin did was bad. I’m not convinced that he genuinely cared for the poor, but even if his measures to help them were purely cynical vote-grabbers, at least they offered some real assistance).
My point, rather, was that the Thai democractic process is deeply flawed, and that as a result, there is a vacuum into which organizations like the PAD are able to stampede, claiming they represent ‘true democracy’ when in fact they do nothing of the kind.
Thaksin would certainly have won the 2001 and 2005 elections, and probably with a huge majority, even if some of his candidates (like those of every other party) had not resorted to vote-buying. In that sense, I guess, you could call his governments, and that of Samak, democratically elected. But where democracy is so tarnished, can it really be called democracy? I’m still not convinced.
All sides buy votes, I have been around Thailand long enough to remember when the smaller town banks would run out of 20 baat notes in the days before an election.
While Thaksin and his followers may have bought some votes outright, they also bought the hearts and minds of some of the rural populace by throwing them some bones ranging from the national subsidized health plan to, in one village I am close to, buying bicycles for the children to ride the distance to school. What Thaksin showed was that if you show, however superficially, that you care, pretend to care, or at least take notice of the poor, that you can win votes. So yes, I agree that, despite the many flaws of Thaksin and his followers, both political and personal flaws, they were by any measure democratically elected.
In my opinion Achaan Ji remains the only public commentator who sees correctly through all the smoke and mirrors of Thai politics, or who at least shares my opinions, that both sides are mirror images of each other and it is all just one big circus with lots of side shows.
This is my third postings. Thank you for the lively debates and freedom of expression. My response to posting #29 is that it is too soon to commend the hasty passages of these laws. During Anand, many laws were passed to facilitate the process of financial liberalization. And see what that got us. I’m not saying that the laws passed by the end of December 2007 are bad. But it is doubtful that the NLA was free from biases (it might not be about money or material interest but about who would be the winners and losers of the law) or that it was entirely competent.
The new Bank of Thailand Act, even though granting a lot more independence to the Bank, begins to reveal some of the problematics. It is good that now politicians have to find a really damanging cause to fire Bank Governor but MOF still has the power to appoint the selection committees, which would go on to choose key decision-makers, including Bank Governor. The interesting thing is that the latest version of the draft was not the one proposed by Pridiyathorn when the coup-installed government came to office. That draft was revised again by the MOF (under Chalongphob) to retain some of the authority with the ministry and was quickly pushed through the NLA at the end of 2007.
In my opinion, laws are the reflection of the power distribution at the time. The NLA got to lay down some new rules of the game, some of which are groundbreaking. But there will be unexpected consequences as players adapt themselves to the new rules. At the end of the day, I still think the end (the passages of these laws, the implications of which remain to be seen) does not justify the means.
SCOOP!!! Abhisit is ready to be PM at the head of a national unity government. Yawn. This is where we have been going for some time…. The Dems are oh so boring and predictable. Never get elected, just wait for others to give you govt.
And look over at Bangkok Pundit on the Dems and PAD. Excellent.
I want to go back to the comments made regarding legality and rule of law. Suchit Bunbongkarn was just on ABC radio, saying that the rule of law is the issue in Samak’s case. He says that even a small amount of money is inappropriate for a public official. That’s fine and the enforcing of such would be a massive incentive for a clean up of the bureaucracy and representative politics. One would presume that those interested in a new politics would welcome such a move. But do they? Why does PAD use the law where it suits them but ignore it and break it when it doesn’t? Why do PAD and government opponents want a selective use of the law? I raised the constitution amendment above. It is legal for the parliament to change the law. But this is opposed. The rule of law is meant to imply equality before the law.
“Those who staged and were behind the coup in 2006 should be severely punished.”
Most of the ground breaking legislation that has been coming into effect during the course of the year seems to have been passed by the coup-appointed NLA at the end of their tenure. Like the new broadcasting laws and banking laws that get tough with conflicts of interest.
Much seems to have come from old but good legislation that perhaps could never have passed under a democratically elected parliament where big money holds sway.
So one argument runs that the coup-makers in some deeper sense enabled this necessary ground breaking legislation.
(A bannana pie in the face for me for suggesting this, perhaps, but I have not seen any adequate discussion of where all that legislation at the end of the NLA’s tenure came from, seems like there are some resemblances to legislation during Anand’s tenure also).
Ji – while entirely agreeing with many of your points, especially the crying need for democracy, it might be worth pointing out that while Samak’s government may be elected, it is no more democratic than past Thai governments, due to the continued prevalance of vote-buying. This lack of democracy in the electoral process, of course, plays straight into the PAD’s hands; championing themselves as anti-corruption warriors, they can can claim to be restoring democracy – via the convenient mechanism of another military coup and then an appointed government.
As you say, the present government has nothing to commend it (although I think some recognition should be given to Thaksin for introducing the Bt30 healthcare scheme – whatever else he did wrong, and he did a lot wrong, he should be acknowledged for his contribution towards cheap healthcare), and at least it was elected. But democratically elected? Hardly.
What is equally disturbing is the emergence of rule by the judiciary. Once that happens, what hope is there for democracy? I wish you and others in the ‘sorng mai ao’ camp the best of luck.
Taking money from a business in a transparent way as in this case for being the host of a TV program should be legal. It is the corrupt form of taking it in kickbacks and bribes that should be targeted.
That said, Thailand is becoming the laughingstock of the “Democratic” world in removing its PM from power while Government house is occupied by an anarchist mob whatever its stated intentions or claims of legitimacy may be. It wasn’t elected nor does it have a mandate to push its agenda.
Today they (the PAD mob) moved their agenda further when they called for the removal of all politicians tainted by Thaksin. The rest of us stand by shaking our collective heads wondering, “What’s next?”
Mr.Giles Ji Ungpakorn positions are well known and his book, A Coup for the Rich, is as topical today as when first appeared during the junta installed government.
I don’t think this is quite correct: Upholding the letter of the law, but ignoring the spirit of the law, the judges ruled that Samak must resign.
In fact, it seems more that the judges emphasized the spirit of the law to interpret the letter (meaning) of the law. (this based on reports of bits and pieces of what the judges said, haven’t had chance to read whole verdict yet though)
from CSM: Moreover, with its broad interpretation of the constitutional ban on moonlighting, the court has sent a clear message to Thai politicians who thrive on legal loopholes, says James Klein, country representative of the Asia Foundation. “Al Capone – they got him for tax evasion. They got this guy for doing a cooking show. It’s the principle,” he says.
Dr. James Klein has been the country rep/director of Asia Foundation in Thailand since 1996. He oversees all programs and focuses on human rights, constitutional law and rule of law. He was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Khon Khaen during 1973 – 1976 and subsequently the director of the American University Alumni Bi-Cultural Center in Khon Kaen.
I’m a good cook, I make a mean lamb stew… I won’t charge you money, but you’ll have to reimburse me 80,000 baht for my travel expenses. You see, good travel is hard to come by these days…..
While I tend to agree with some of the comments you have made it is easy to see what side you represent mainly due to the blatant misinformation given such as: ” Prime Minister Samak must resign because he appears on a TV cooking programme” the truth is he was not removed from office for appearing on TV but rather for accepting money for these appearences which is against the law as well as lying to the court. Your comment re “The anti-government fascist mob, who call themselves the “Peoples Alliance for Democracy”, are out to build an authoritarian New Order by provoking violent clashes and a coup.” is also pushing the boundary too far especially when their stated aim is directly related in trying to remove a corrupt nominee PM and government from power.
However I am in full agrement with your statement;
“The law was originally drafted in a futile attempt to reduce the influence of big business on Thai governments. It was not drafted to deal with cooking programmes.”
Correct, it wasn’t drafted to deal with cooking programmes and isn’t this what has just been demonstrated by the courts – it was shown that PM has been found taking money from a business not for appearing on TV.
Please report the truth – not a twisted version to suit your own agenda.
Jim Taylor: “I happen to believe Thaksin is innocent of all trumped up charges levied at him by the current judiciary”
“So far there has been no evidence presented that show he has broken the law…”
Given that Thaksin has fled to Great Britain, we obviously are not going to find this evidence presented in a court of law.
The well-documented evidence on the broader issues of using political power for personal gain (yet another court case) as presented in the paper “Hello and goodbye to the mobile phone” in Thai Capital after the 1997 crisis does not seem “trumped up” at all.
McCargo’s “Network Monarchy” paper clearly points out the likelihood of earlier decisions were biased in favour of Thaksin. Ideally, there would always be strict and precise legal decisions in accordance rules and laws as there was today, irrespective of how people feel about them. The king’s empowerment of the judiciary last year was a good development in Thai politics and this is just one manifestation of it.
Frankly, I don’t understand why people looking at all sides of an issue makes you “sick.”
Thaksin, proxy Samak and their TRT/PPP cohorts were certain ‘ethical lapses’ could NOT be possibly comprehended by gullible villagers. After all millions of these villagers think there is nothing wrong with accepting money from politicians in exchange for their votes. And when Thaksin or Samak tell them that ‘corruption is normal’ in Thailand to explain those many corruption allegations and legal cases against Thaksin and Samak and a whole bunch of TRT executives, those villagers were only very quick to nod agreement.
Is that rural constitution or rural constipation?
Democracy and the spirit of democracy fail in Thailand BECAUSE OF unethical, morally bankrupt and criminally inclined political leaders in the mold of Thaksin Shinawatra or his proxy Samak Sundaravej.
Seems Thailand’s political soap drama can go on forever unless those killjoys in fatigues will suddenly feel inclined to unplug the show. Samak Sundaravej, Thailand’s most famous proxy and cook, appear intent on coming back ala Arno. And those aging PAD vigilantes won’t give up because The Mastermind had escaped justice (to exile at UK) and behind the crime wave by the Reds.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Constitutional madness
Thank you, Ed Norton, for your kind words. Speaking of Anand, (sorry moderator if this is not directly about constitutional madness) I just learned not too long ago that Anand is now the Siam Commercial Bank’s Chairman of the board. I can just imagine how intimidating the Revenue Department officials would be in their dealing with the Bank about the transfer of some of Thaksin’s frozen assets to the department.
I read from a Thai newspaper that one of the reasons the SCB did not want to release the money was that it was afraid that the transfer (Bt12 billion) would affect the bank’s liquidity. But I didn’t hear this reason repeated again. Can anyone help shed some light on this matter? Is it okay for a non-state bank to keep and manage frozen assets and make financial gains from them?
Constitutional madness
Sidh S. commented that Samak has an opportunity to step down gracefully…
That is an interesting re-reading of the events. Go back and look. Chai-Anan Samudavanija and 98 other public intellectuals (I recall the no. was 99, but I may be wrong) signed a petition to force him out in amongst a lot of campaigning for an elected PM. There were threats to reveal deep and dark secrets about Prem’s private life. Hardly graceful (and that is ignoring two failed coup attempts against the old man).
On another matter SS says that, “Contrary to what foriegners think, the judiciary are now doing their job commendably…” – why are foreigners singled out? Are you being racist-nationalist or just ignoring all those Thais who think there are problems with the judiciary?
And, the idea that a 7000 baht fine and a suspended sentence makes the courts look good seems a bit weak. Given that the courts have been especially zealous in protecting themselves, this is a wrist-slap. I’m sure Prasong puts tobacco in his pipe that costs more than this a week. What about all the other cases against PAD and pro-PAD persons brought by their opponents? What’s the progress on them? (That’s a real question as I seem to have lost track of them).
Constitutional madness
Well done Amata. Excellent points to make. I agree with you entirely. Too often Anand, who is little more than a propagandist for the palace these days, is painted as some kind of white knight. He wasn’t.
Former Lao President Nouhak Phoumsavanh reported to have died
I posted a topic on a forum that is regularly posted on by Lao nhai and nork.
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=98894&p=3&topicID=20645615
Seems to be true, but word of mouth always becomes crazy.
ODDLY enough, Lao news sites seem to be down today.
The Thai circus continues
Jopha – I wasn’t suggesting for a moment that Thaksin and his allies have been the only ones to buy votes (or indeed, that everything Thaksin did was bad. I’m not convinced that he genuinely cared for the poor, but even if his measures to help them were purely cynical vote-grabbers, at least they offered some real assistance).
My point, rather, was that the Thai democractic process is deeply flawed, and that as a result, there is a vacuum into which organizations like the PAD are able to stampede, claiming they represent ‘true democracy’ when in fact they do nothing of the kind.
Thaksin would certainly have won the 2001 and 2005 elections, and probably with a huge majority, even if some of his candidates (like those of every other party) had not resorted to vote-buying. In that sense, I guess, you could call his governments, and that of Samak, democratically elected. But where democracy is so tarnished, can it really be called democracy? I’m still not convinced.
The Thai circus continues
All sides buy votes, I have been around Thailand long enough to remember when the smaller town banks would run out of 20 baat notes in the days before an election.
While Thaksin and his followers may have bought some votes outright, they also bought the hearts and minds of some of the rural populace by throwing them some bones ranging from the national subsidized health plan to, in one village I am close to, buying bicycles for the children to ride the distance to school. What Thaksin showed was that if you show, however superficially, that you care, pretend to care, or at least take notice of the poor, that you can win votes. So yes, I agree that, despite the many flaws of Thaksin and his followers, both political and personal flaws, they were by any measure democratically elected.
In my opinion Achaan Ji remains the only public commentator who sees correctly through all the smoke and mirrors of Thai politics, or who at least shares my opinions, that both sides are mirror images of each other and it is all just one big circus with lots of side shows.
Constitutional madness
This is my third postings. Thank you for the lively debates and freedom of expression. My response to posting #29 is that it is too soon to commend the hasty passages of these laws. During Anand, many laws were passed to facilitate the process of financial liberalization. And see what that got us. I’m not saying that the laws passed by the end of December 2007 are bad. But it is doubtful that the NLA was free from biases (it might not be about money or material interest but about who would be the winners and losers of the law) or that it was entirely competent.
The new Bank of Thailand Act, even though granting a lot more independence to the Bank, begins to reveal some of the problematics. It is good that now politicians have to find a really damanging cause to fire Bank Governor but MOF still has the power to appoint the selection committees, which would go on to choose key decision-makers, including Bank Governor. The interesting thing is that the latest version of the draft was not the one proposed by Pridiyathorn when the coup-installed government came to office. That draft was revised again by the MOF (under Chalongphob) to retain some of the authority with the ministry and was quickly pushed through the NLA at the end of 2007.
In my opinion, laws are the reflection of the power distribution at the time. The NLA got to lay down some new rules of the game, some of which are groundbreaking. But there will be unexpected consequences as players adapt themselves to the new rules. At the end of the day, I still think the end (the passages of these laws, the implications of which remain to be seen) does not justify the means.
The Thai circus continues
SCOOP!!! Abhisit is ready to be PM at the head of a national unity government. Yawn. This is where we have been going for some time…. The Dems are oh so boring and predictable. Never get elected, just wait for others to give you govt.
And look over at Bangkok Pundit on the Dems and PAD. Excellent.
Constitutional madness
I want to go back to the comments made regarding legality and rule of law. Suchit Bunbongkarn was just on ABC radio, saying that the rule of law is the issue in Samak’s case. He says that even a small amount of money is inappropriate for a public official. That’s fine and the enforcing of such would be a massive incentive for a clean up of the bureaucracy and representative politics. One would presume that those interested in a new politics would welcome such a move. But do they? Why does PAD use the law where it suits them but ignore it and break it when it doesn’t? Why do PAD and government opponents want a selective use of the law? I raised the constitution amendment above. It is legal for the parliament to change the law. But this is opposed. The rule of law is meant to imply equality before the law.
Constitutional madness
“Those who staged and were behind the coup in 2006 should be severely punished.”
Most of the ground breaking legislation that has been coming into effect during the course of the year seems to have been passed by the coup-appointed NLA at the end of their tenure. Like the new broadcasting laws and banking laws that get tough with conflicts of interest.
Much seems to have come from old but good legislation that perhaps could never have passed under a democratically elected parliament where big money holds sway.
So one argument runs that the coup-makers in some deeper sense enabled this necessary ground breaking legislation.
(A bannana pie in the face for me for suggesting this, perhaps, but I have not seen any adequate discussion of where all that legislation at the end of the NLA’s tenure came from, seems like there are some resemblances to legislation during Anand’s tenure also).
The Thai circus continues
Ji – while entirely agreeing with many of your points, especially the crying need for democracy, it might be worth pointing out that while Samak’s government may be elected, it is no more democratic than past Thai governments, due to the continued prevalance of vote-buying. This lack of democracy in the electoral process, of course, plays straight into the PAD’s hands; championing themselves as anti-corruption warriors, they can can claim to be restoring democracy – via the convenient mechanism of another military coup and then an appointed government.
As you say, the present government has nothing to commend it (although I think some recognition should be given to Thaksin for introducing the Bt30 healthcare scheme – whatever else he did wrong, and he did a lot wrong, he should be acknowledged for his contribution towards cheap healthcare), and at least it was elected. But democratically elected? Hardly.
What is equally disturbing is the emergence of rule by the judiciary. Once that happens, what hope is there for democracy? I wish you and others in the ‘sorng mai ao’ camp the best of luck.
The Thai circus continues
Taking money from a business in a transparent way as in this case for being the host of a TV program should be legal. It is the corrupt form of taking it in kickbacks and bribes that should be targeted.
That said, Thailand is becoming the laughingstock of the “Democratic” world in removing its PM from power while Government house is occupied by an anarchist mob whatever its stated intentions or claims of legitimacy may be. It wasn’t elected nor does it have a mandate to push its agenda.
Today they (the PAD mob) moved their agenda further when they called for the removal of all politicians tainted by Thaksin. The rest of us stand by shaking our collective heads wondering, “What’s next?”
Mr.Giles Ji Ungpakorn positions are well known and his book, A Coup for the Rich, is as topical today as when first appeared during the junta installed government.
The Thai circus continues
I don’t think this is quite correct: Upholding the letter of the law, but ignoring the spirit of the law, the judges ruled that Samak must resign.
In fact, it seems more that the judges emphasized the spirit of the law to interpret the letter (meaning) of the law. (this based on reports of bits and pieces of what the judges said, haven’t had chance to read whole verdict yet though)
from CSM:
Moreover, with its broad interpretation of the constitutional ban on moonlighting, the court has sent a clear message to Thai politicians who thrive on legal loopholes, says James Klein, country representative of the Asia Foundation. “Al Capone – they got him for tax evasion. They got this guy for doing a cooking show. It’s the principle,” he says.
Dr. James Klein has been the country rep/director of Asia Foundation in Thailand since 1996. He oversees all programs and focuses on human rights, constitutional law and rule of law. He was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Khon Khaen during 1973 – 1976 and subsequently the director of the American University Alumni Bi-Cultural Center in Khon Kaen.
Seeking a consultant astrologer
lol..!
my suggestion is that maybe the excessive implication of the number 9 is an attempt to thwart
“the murky two-centuries-old prediction, made perhaps by rama I himself, that the chakri dynasty will have only 9 kings”
(handley, TKNS, p. 443-444)
oh yeah, and let us not forget that the chakri dynasty was preceeded by a ‘usurper’ named taksin…
the plot thickens…
Constitutional madness
I’m a good cook, I make a mean lamb stew… I won’t charge you money, but you’ll have to reimburse me 80,000 baht for my travel expenses. You see, good travel is hard to come by these days…..
The Thai circus continues
While I tend to agree with some of the comments you have made it is easy to see what side you represent mainly due to the blatant misinformation given such as: ” Prime Minister Samak must resign because he appears on a TV cooking programme” the truth is he was not removed from office for appearing on TV but rather for accepting money for these appearences which is against the law as well as lying to the court. Your comment re “The anti-government fascist mob, who call themselves the “Peoples Alliance for Democracy”, are out to build an authoritarian New Order by provoking violent clashes and a coup.” is also pushing the boundary too far especially when their stated aim is directly related in trying to remove a corrupt nominee PM and government from power.
However I am in full agrement with your statement;
“The law was originally drafted in a futile attempt to reduce the influence of big business on Thai governments. It was not drafted to deal with cooking programmes.”
Correct, it wasn’t drafted to deal with cooking programmes and isn’t this what has just been demonstrated by the courts – it was shown that PM has been found taking money from a business not for appearing on TV.
Please report the truth – not a twisted version to suit your own agenda.
Constitutional madness
Those who staged and were behind the coup in 2006 should be severely punished.
I have not seen any academic who is asking for resignation of Samak or mainstream media to demand for that.
What went wrong with this country?
Constitutional madness
Jim Taylor: “I happen to believe Thaksin is innocent of all trumped up charges levied at him by the current judiciary”
“So far there has been no evidence presented that show he has broken the law…”
Given that Thaksin has fled to Great Britain, we obviously are not going to find this evidence presented in a court of law.
The well-documented evidence on the broader issues of using political power for personal gain (yet another court case) as presented in the paper “Hello and goodbye to the mobile phone” in Thai Capital after the 1997 crisis does not seem “trumped up” at all.
McCargo’s “Network Monarchy” paper clearly points out the likelihood of earlier decisions were biased in favour of Thaksin. Ideally, there would always be strict and precise legal decisions in accordance rules and laws as there was today, irrespective of how people feel about them. The king’s empowerment of the judiciary last year was a good development in Thai politics and this is just one manifestation of it.
Frankly, I don’t understand why people looking at all sides of an issue makes you “sick.”
Thai crisis. Royal silence.
Thaksin, proxy Samak and their TRT/PPP cohorts were certain ‘ethical lapses’ could NOT be possibly comprehended by gullible villagers. After all millions of these villagers think there is nothing wrong with accepting money from politicians in exchange for their votes. And when Thaksin or Samak tell them that ‘corruption is normal’ in Thailand to explain those many corruption allegations and legal cases against Thaksin and Samak and a whole bunch of TRT executives, those villagers were only very quick to nod agreement.
Is that rural constitution or rural constipation?
Democracy and the spirit of democracy fail in Thailand BECAUSE OF unethical, morally bankrupt and criminally inclined political leaders in the mold of Thaksin Shinawatra or his proxy Samak Sundaravej.
Constitutional madness
Seems Thailand’s political soap drama can go on forever unless those killjoys in fatigues will suddenly feel inclined to unplug the show. Samak Sundaravej, Thailand’s most famous proxy and cook, appear intent on coming back ala Arno. And those aging PAD vigilantes won’t give up because The Mastermind had escaped justice (to exile at UK) and behind the crime wave by the Reds.
Don’t touch that dial folks!