Families complain that their relatives- all from poor families- are not receiving proper medical attention.
Sad state of affairs that they can be used in this way – I hope you have brought this to the attention of their leaders (with appropriate condemnation).
I wonder if the PAD treat their cannon fodder in the same manner?
There are six Anti-dictator Pro-Government Rally goers who were seriously injured last week. One fatality. The Thai media reported the exact opposite to generate support for PAD. There are two pro-gov rally goers who are still unconscious at Hua Chiew Hospital; the other seriously injured were removed because the Director of the hospital is Pro-PAD. Families complain that their relatives- all from poor families- are not receiving proper medical attention. They have no money. This is the reality: no one cares because the media does not show this as they are all in together under Sondhi Lim, academic and NGO driven insanity to establish a dictatorship in Thailand. The Senator’s that Nick showed in the pics- 73 persons from memory – especially the dreaded Rosana- were all hand picked by the Khor Mor Chor before they disbanded in the hope of getting their own people in control (in bed of course with the Democrats). This includes emplacing high level judges, bribed with promotion and extended tenure and with a clear ideological agenda. This should by now be clear to all if people read wider and learn to listen.
The above post by Karma Blues summarises brilliantly why the PAD have so much support, and also why the current conflict is at a stalemate.
The Thaksin/TRT/PPP agenda has forced reasonable people to behave unreasonably.
Samak would be doing a great service to himself and the country if he could ignore that agenda, and instead set up a new consultative process to formulate a new peoples constitution.
PS – I hope he is not kicked out on a cooking show ambiguity/technicality – that would be a travesty after walking the tightrope for so long now!
Another matter is how could the PAD be forced home?
Assuming PPP did as above, and PAD did not see the light & did not go home, then the forced dispersal should be put in the hands of the experts.
(presumably police & military).
I’m no expert, but I imagine tear gas & water canons, together with large numbers of shielded forces would be needed – but really all Samak would have to do is instuct them to co-ordinate their efforts and to use their best planning to minimise force & casualties, and he will have been seen to have done the right thing (even if it goes wrong!).
Re: Neither Thaksin nor Samak, nor anybody in his or her right mind wants to abolish the Thai monarchy. They want to reform it so it is no longer a focus for anti-democratic interests.
Is this the “reform” you are talking about? :
1. Prof McCargo: “Thaksin set about systematically to dismantle the political networks loyal to Prem in a wide range of sectors, aiming to replace them with his own supporters, associates and relatives. Thaksin was seeking to subvert network monarchy, and to replace it with a political economy network of the kind described by Cartier Bresson (1997): a network based on insider dealing and structural corruption. …. demonstrating his determination to create a new super-network, centered entirely on himself, and characterized by a more hierarchical structure.”
2. Prof McCargo: “The core struggle of the 1990s was one between conservatives associated with the military and bureaucracy, and liberal reformers [notably Prawase and Anand] seeking to strengthen civil society and political institutions [which the liberal reformists eventually won resulting in the 1997 people’s constitution]. But Thaksin, the policeman turned tycoon turned prime minister, was playing according to completely different rules and ideas , favouring a toxic mode of leadership which left little space for rival players (Lipman-Blumen 2005).”
3. Let me add from wikipedia, what is said about Prof. Lipman-Blumen’s concept of a toxic leader: “For Lipman-Blumen “toxic leadership” designates an extremely bad sort of leader. Toxic leadership is not about incompetence, lack of foresight, or run-of-the-mill mismanagement, rather leaders as predatory sociopaths ….these are the people for whom no malevolent act is out of bounds in the name of gaining and holding power ; who sell access to the highest bidders; who pursue policies that abjectly favor the investment class while maintaining a populist rhetoric…” Toxic leaders first charm and play on the people’s insecurities and self-esteem, but then manipulate, mistreat, undermine, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than when they found them.
So, are we talking about reform of the monarchy by “toxic leader” Thaksin through the creation of his “super-network” which was “based on insider trading and structural corruption”, “centered entirely” on the toxic leader himself and “characterized by a more hierarchical structure”? And this toxic reform project’s effect on Thailand’s democracy? Baker and Pasuk concluded in no uncertain terms that: “Thaksin Shinawatra has rolled back a quarter century of democratic development.”
In conclusion: Reforming the monarchy is a highly important task for Thailand and its democratic development but Thaksin is simply not the right man for the job.
>I will try again, and offer this reasonable solution where PPP are seen to be doing the right thing for the people, not giving in to mob rule, and the country will be better off for it:
>(1). Samak/PPP acknowledge that the constitutional amendment will be put to a new round of consultation to create a new ‘peoples’ constitution.
(2). PAD then can either go home (hopefully), or if they choose to stubbornly stay, they can be forced home.
——————————————
Yes, put succinctly like that it is a very good solution. It’s a pity that Samak has neither the wit nor the will nor the inclination to implement it.
Another matter is how could the PAD be forced home? You are really counting on them leaving voluntarily — Samak should take that bet — but what if… ? Tear gas? State of emergency to mobilize a massive amount of troops to arrest people one by one?
Though the ball should be in Samak’s court, these are not idle questions.
>That’s what happens when the police themselves not sure if it worth breaking a few heads belonging to decent Bangkok folks to keep a proxy for a PM, and keep Thaksinism alive.
Oh, puh-leeze. Police follow orders to use restraint and you suggest they are having a politico-existential crisis?
>Nobody loves Samak Sundaravej in Bangkiok Nick N., nobody.
Apparently you never have hailed any of the same taxi drivers I have. And your world stops at the Bangkok city limits.
Am I missing some joke, here? Maybe you could add some kind of smiley-face when you are trying to be funny.
I was at the Makkhawan bridge that Friday and your account is spot on. Very interesting indeed.
I remember seeing that tattooed PAD demonstrator having to be pulled away from the police by his fellow protesters right before he ran back and really pissed off the policemen. When they made that push I knew it was either put up or shut up.
At one point I even saw the PAD outnumber some cops. It seems as if they were returning the hospitality.
“Harry finally got what he wanted, after trying so hard. (I worked with him for year.) Wonder what he’s gong to do with his 15 minutes of Andy Warhol fame. Write another novel that no one would otherwise buy, I suppose.”
Jonfernquest… how can you say that this is what he wanted? Did he want to end up in a disgusting jail filled with cockroaches, lice and no running water? Did he want to put his family through anguish and pain not knowing what the fate of their son/brother would be?… My uncle is now 82 years old, do you think Harry would want to spend the next 15 years of his life locked up and rotting behind bars and never see his father or mother again?
“Exactly, this is academic value added, to provide the background information necessary for informed debate
and to understand events in context. Not to provide a
united front and stifle debate with labeling and name-calling which loses immediately readers who wish to think and not be led at the end of a leash by their ajaan.”
Stifle debate? I thought name-calling and labelling would stimulate MORE rigorous debate. At least people can start by arguing whether the labels are right or wrong.
Just because there is rent-seeking in a state does not make a state a “predatory state.”
Read “Rents and rent-seeking in the Thaksin era” in Pasuk and Baker’s recent Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis for a description of the realignment of rent-seeking that went on. Mentions the populist programmes in passing also, but not much detail.
Rent seeking relations are non-transparent and networked, business networks that Anek Laothomatas wrote about without having to create a personal academic brand and put-down phrase such as “Network Monarchy” that I have only seen people use in a purely negative sense.
Lose one battle Nick N. and the police gave up! That’s what happens when the police themselves not sure if it worth breaking a few heads belonging to decent Bangkok folks to keep a proxy for a PM, and keep Thaksinism alive.
Nobody loves Samak Sundaravej in Bangkiok Nick N., nobody. The man is a failed leader.
“Thailand is essentially an absolute monarchy with a democratic facade, put up to smooth its relations with the outside world. The absolutists kick away the facade whenever it becomes a serious encumbrance to them. An absolute monarchy is a variety of Predatory State…”
What a load of drivel.
Thailand is (or was) until self-styled Genghis Khan aka Thaksin got ahold of it, a well-functioning state.
If you want to learn about real “predatory states” such as Zaire read Peter Evans “Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation.”
Yes, this is good Nick. As an after comment: police using video surveilance evidence have developed a clear picture of the PAD rally goer that used a handgun to kill a NorPorKor (pro-Gov) rally goer by shooting into his head. The police are trying to match it with picture of PAD guards (or goons) and a group of hard core PAD supporters. The family of the killed man had placed charges on the leaders of PAD for murder. Ironically, when the sister of the dead man came to collect his body at a monastery she said her elder brother was killed in Oct 1976. The family are at a loss and like all decent folk who elected a governemnt to to run the country are sick of the thugery and those academic idiots who still support them. If anyone wants to help the family contact me.
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the oppressed. Sometimes we must interfere. . . there is so much injustice and suffering crying out for our attention . . . .,”
Elie Wiesel, 1986 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
Which side is Ma Theingi on?
Maybe on the fence like so many faceless Burmese has fearfully done for many, many, long years now!
As usual Dr. Michael Connors seems to be the most balanced commentator with the most potential for generating honest debate.
“Thaksin was building a hegemonic party system and moving towards competitive authoritarianism on the basis of a strong electoral support. A victory for pro-Thaksin forces may well see a resumption of that project.”
Is a “party system” with one party really a “party system” ?
If you read the news closely the aim of pro-Thaksin forces
over the last year has been to: 1. rewrite the constitution and laws,
and 2. stack state government agencies with Thaksin sympathizers
to enable his return of Thaksin without facing legal penalty.
How anyone thinks this would be acceptable to important segments of the population is beyond me, even if these segments do not constitute an electoral majority. It will not happen, PAD will not let it happen. They are forcing a compromise where none was forthcoming before.
“Elements of the Democrat Party were trying to build a very circumscribed liberal democracy, or polyarchy, that preserved the power of the capitalist elite and the monarchy, and which was willing to compromise with the corporate interests of the military.”
Which I suppose is deemed ipso facto bad by western academics but which seems to be standard operating practice in developing Asian states such as South Korea, for China substitute Communist Party for monarchy.
“These contenders are historic forces, and when they clash they do not lie down in the face of moral censure.”
So why do western academics bleat over and over gain the same
not very enlightening message? Labeling only one side as fascists, reactionaries, and rightist thugs?
“At the moment I think the task is to explain how it all came to this.”
Exactly, this is academic value added, to provide the background information necessary for informed debate
and to understand events in context. Not to provide a
united front and stifle debate with labeling and name-calling which loses immediately readers who wish to think and not be led at the end of a leash by their ajaan.
Some more candid observations on the Thai monarchy.
Thailand is essentially an absolute monarchy with a democratic facade, put up to smooth its relations with the outside world. The absolutists kick away the facade whenever it becomes a serious encumbrance to them. An absolute monarchy is a variety of Predatory State which has a monarch as its front man. In rare cases he exerts real personal power.
The personal probity of the present King of Thailand is beyond doubt. It is like perfume that wafts through the institutions of the Predatory State, disguising the stink of the carnivores that lurk in them. It creates the illusion that these shadowy figures are more upright than the politicians with a democratic power base.
The Thaksin phenomenon has two main aspects: (i) the rise of democracy, and (ii) the emergence of a new, alternative, Predatory State. Both of these challenge the incumbent powers, and their desperate response is an attempt to crush both, which could lead to civil war.
Nobody takes the laws of Thailand very seriously. Whether they are enforced or not depends on circumstances of power. An important job of judges in the Predatory State is to prosecute its enemies but give free reign to its supporters (such as the PAD). Judges enthusiastically enforce laws made by the Predatory State to frustrate democracy and persecute the people’s representatives. They have even upset the good relations with one of Thailand’s neighbours, acting in contempt of the International Court of Justice, and helping to bring the country to the brink of pointless war.
The Thai education system exists mainly to serve the interests of the Predatory State, and unfortunately it has done this quite successfully. Students learn much less than they need in order to earn a decent living later. Teachers are mostly wooden-headed propagandists, and Thai academia is the most reactionary in the world. This explains the regular assassinations of schoolteachers in the South better than alternatives such as the conflict between Islam and the Enlightenment. Last year a school was burnt down in NE Thailand.
Monarchy is not all bad. Since the days of Hume, observers have noted that the subjects of monarchies are usually more charming, polite, and generous than the citizens of republics. They have noted that the Arts tend to thrive in monarchies and languish in republics. All this rings true of Thailand, and there is reason to hope that the best of Thailand’s national character would be preserved in a genuinely democratic constitutional monarchy. It is my hope that in a reformed monarchy, the main function of the monarch would be as the principal patron of the national arts of Thailand with a very large budget for that purpose. He or she would, as a matter of duty, cultivate a strong relationship with all elected politicians without taking sides. The monarch would exercise a civilising influence on them, helping them to love their country by teaching them about the best of its culture. The special relationship of the military with the Crown would be ended, and the command structure firmly anchored in the Ministry of Defence. The Privy Council would be abolished, and a Constitution enacted that for ever protected the monarch from becoming a focus for anti-democratic interests.
[…] Ltd consultant Ian Campbell, whose work on the Mekong River was recently blogged on New Mandala, told the ABC on Friday that if the sediments dry out and are exposed to oxygen, the sulphur will […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
Families complain that their relatives- all from poor families- are not receiving proper medical attention.
Sad state of affairs that they can be used in this way – I hope you have brought this to the attention of their leaders (with appropriate condemnation).
I wonder if the PAD treat their cannon fodder in the same manner?
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
There are six Anti-dictator Pro-Government Rally goers who were seriously injured last week. One fatality. The Thai media reported the exact opposite to generate support for PAD. There are two pro-gov rally goers who are still unconscious at Hua Chiew Hospital; the other seriously injured were removed because the Director of the hospital is Pro-PAD. Families complain that their relatives- all from poor families- are not receiving proper medical attention. They have no money. This is the reality: no one cares because the media does not show this as they are all in together under Sondhi Lim, academic and NGO driven insanity to establish a dictatorship in Thailand. The Senator’s that Nick showed in the pics- 73 persons from memory – especially the dreaded Rosana- were all hand picked by the Khor Mor Chor before they disbanded in the hope of getting their own people in control (in bed of course with the Democrats). This includes emplacing high level judges, bribed with promotion and extended tenure and with a clear ideological agenda. This should by now be clear to all if people read wider and learn to listen.
Thai crisis. Royal silence.
The above post by Karma Blues summarises brilliantly why the PAD have so much support, and also why the current conflict is at a stalemate.
The Thaksin/TRT/PPP agenda has forced reasonable people to behave unreasonably.
Samak would be doing a great service to himself and the country if he could ignore that agenda, and instead set up a new consultative process to formulate a new peoples constitution.
PS – I hope he is not kicked out on a cooking show ambiguity/technicality – that would be a travesty after walking the tightrope for so long now!
Report on last night’s clash
Another matter is how could the PAD be forced home?
Assuming PPP did as above, and PAD did not see the light & did not go home, then the forced dispersal should be put in the hands of the experts.
(presumably police & military).
I’m no expert, but I imagine tear gas & water canons, together with large numbers of shielded forces would be needed – but really all Samak would have to do is instuct them to co-ordinate their efforts and to use their best planning to minimise force & casualties, and he will have been seen to have done the right thing (even if it goes wrong!).
Thai crisis. Royal silence.
Re: Neither Thaksin nor Samak, nor anybody in his or her right mind wants to abolish the Thai monarchy. They want to reform it so it is no longer a focus for anti-democratic interests.
Is this the “reform” you are talking about? :
1. Prof McCargo: “Thaksin set about systematically to dismantle the political networks loyal to Prem in a wide range of sectors, aiming to replace them with his own supporters, associates and relatives. Thaksin was seeking to subvert network monarchy, and to replace it with a political economy network of the kind described by Cartier Bresson (1997): a network based on insider dealing and structural corruption. …. demonstrating his determination to create a new super-network, centered entirely on himself, and characterized by a more hierarchical structure.”
2. Prof McCargo: “The core struggle of the 1990s was one between conservatives associated with the military and bureaucracy, and liberal reformers [notably Prawase and Anand] seeking to strengthen civil society and political institutions [which the liberal reformists eventually won resulting in the 1997 people’s constitution]. But Thaksin, the policeman turned tycoon turned prime minister, was playing according to completely different rules and ideas , favouring a toxic mode of leadership which left little space for rival players (Lipman-Blumen 2005).”
3. Let me add from wikipedia, what is said about Prof. Lipman-Blumen’s concept of a toxic leader: “For Lipman-Blumen “toxic leadership” designates an extremely bad sort of leader. Toxic leadership is not about incompetence, lack of foresight, or run-of-the-mill mismanagement, rather leaders as predatory sociopaths ….these are the people for whom no malevolent act is out of bounds in the name of gaining and holding power ; who sell access to the highest bidders; who pursue policies that abjectly favor the investment class while maintaining a populist rhetoric…” Toxic leaders first charm and play on the people’s insecurities and self-esteem, but then manipulate, mistreat, undermine, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than when they found them.
So, are we talking about reform of the monarchy by “toxic leader” Thaksin through the creation of his “super-network” which was “based on insider trading and structural corruption”, “centered entirely” on the toxic leader himself and “characterized by a more hierarchical structure”? And this toxic reform project’s effect on Thailand’s democracy? Baker and Pasuk concluded in no uncertain terms that: “Thaksin Shinawatra has rolled back a quarter century of democratic development.”
In conclusion: Reforming the monarchy is a highly important task for Thailand and its democratic development but Thaksin is simply not the right man for the job.
Report on last night’s clash
>I will try again, and offer this reasonable solution where PPP are seen to be doing the right thing for the people, not giving in to mob rule, and the country will be better off for it:
>(1). Samak/PPP acknowledge that the constitutional amendment will be put to a new round of consultation to create a new ‘peoples’ constitution.
(2). PAD then can either go home (hopefully), or if they choose to stubbornly stay, they can be forced home.
——————————————
Yes, put succinctly like that it is a very good solution. It’s a pity that Samak has neither the wit nor the will nor the inclination to implement it.
Another matter is how could the PAD be forced home? You are really counting on them leaving voluntarily — Samak should take that bet — but what if… ? Tear gas? State of emergency to mobilize a massive amount of troops to arrest people one by one?
Though the ball should be in Samak’s court, these are not idle questions.
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
>That’s what happens when the police themselves not sure if it worth breaking a few heads belonging to decent Bangkok folks to keep a proxy for a PM, and keep Thaksinism alive.
Oh, puh-leeze. Police follow orders to use restraint and you suggest they are having a politico-existential crisis?
>Nobody loves Samak Sundaravej in Bangkiok Nick N., nobody.
Apparently you never have hailed any of the same taxi drivers I have. And your world stops at the Bangkok city limits.
Am I missing some joke, here? Maybe you could add some kind of smiley-face when you are trying to be funny.
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
This is Thailand, where rule of law can be selectively apply and someone are more equal than other…
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
I was at the Makkhawan bridge that Friday and your account is spot on. Very interesting indeed.
I remember seeing that tattooed PAD demonstrator having to be pulled away from the police by his fellow protesters right before he ran back and really pissed off the policemen. When they made that push I knew it was either put up or shut up.
At one point I even saw the PAD outnumber some cops. It seems as if they were returning the hospitality.
Australia and the current Thai crisis
“Harry finally got what he wanted, after trying so hard. (I worked with him for year.) Wonder what he’s gong to do with his 15 minutes of Andy Warhol fame. Write another novel that no one would otherwise buy, I suppose.”
Jonfernquest… how can you say that this is what he wanted? Did he want to end up in a disgusting jail filled with cockroaches, lice and no running water? Did he want to put his family through anguish and pain not knowing what the fate of their son/brother would be?… My uncle is now 82 years old, do you think Harry would want to spend the next 15 years of his life locked up and rotting behind bars and never see his father or mother again?
Please think before you speak
Voula
Cyprus
More academic commentary on the Thai crisis
“Exactly, this is academic value added, to provide the background information necessary for informed debate
and to understand events in context. Not to provide a
united front and stifle debate with labeling and name-calling which loses immediately readers who wish to think and not be led at the end of a leash by their ajaan.”
Stifle debate? I thought name-calling and labelling would stimulate MORE rigorous debate. At least people can start by arguing whether the labels are right or wrong.
Thai crisis. Royal silence.
Just because there is rent-seeking in a state does not make a state a “predatory state.”
Read “Rents and rent-seeking in the Thaksin era” in Pasuk and Baker’s recent Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis for a description of the realignment of rent-seeking that went on. Mentions the populist programmes in passing also, but not much detail.
Rent seeking relations are non-transparent and networked, business networks that Anek Laothomatas wrote about without having to create a personal academic brand and put-down phrase such as “Network Monarchy” that I have only seen people use in a purely negative sense.
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
Lose one battle Nick N. and the police gave up! That’s what happens when the police themselves not sure if it worth breaking a few heads belonging to decent Bangkok folks to keep a proxy for a PM, and keep Thaksinism alive.
Nobody loves Samak Sundaravej in Bangkiok Nick N., nobody. The man is a failed leader.
Thai crisis. Royal silence.
“Thailand is essentially an absolute monarchy with a democratic facade, put up to smooth its relations with the outside world. The absolutists kick away the facade whenever it becomes a serious encumbrance to them. An absolute monarchy is a variety of Predatory State…”
What a load of drivel.
Thailand is (or was) until self-styled Genghis Khan aka Thaksin got ahold of it, a well-functioning state.
If you want to learn about real “predatory states” such as Zaire read Peter Evans “Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation.”
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5690.html
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
Yes, this is good Nick. As an after comment: police using video surveilance evidence have developed a clear picture of the PAD rally goer that used a handgun to kill a NorPorKor (pro-Gov) rally goer by shooting into his head. The police are trying to match it with picture of PAD guards (or goons) and a group of hard core PAD supporters. The family of the killed man had placed charges on the leaders of PAD for murder. Ironically, when the sister of the dead man came to collect his body at a monastery she said her elder brother was killed in Oct 1976. The family are at a loss and like all decent folk who elected a governemnt to to run the country are sick of the thugery and those academic idiots who still support them. If anyone wants to help the family contact me.
Interview with Burma’s Ma Thanegi
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the oppressed. Sometimes we must interfere. . . there is so much injustice and suffering crying out for our attention . . . .,”
Elie Wiesel, 1986 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
Which side is Ma Theingi on?
Maybe on the fence like so many faceless Burmese has fearfully done for many, many, long years now!
29.8.2008: The destruction of lawful society
Fantastic post Nick. Thanks
More academic commentary on the Thai crisis
As usual Dr. Michael Connors seems to be the most balanced commentator with the most potential for generating honest debate.
“Thaksin was building a hegemonic party system and moving towards competitive authoritarianism on the basis of a strong electoral support. A victory for pro-Thaksin forces may well see a resumption of that project.”
Is a “party system” with one party really a “party system” ?
If you read the news closely the aim of pro-Thaksin forces
over the last year has been to: 1. rewrite the constitution and laws,
and 2. stack state government agencies with Thaksin sympathizers
to enable his return of Thaksin without facing legal penalty.
How anyone thinks this would be acceptable to important segments of the population is beyond me, even if these segments do not constitute an electoral majority. It will not happen, PAD will not let it happen. They are forcing a compromise where none was forthcoming before.
“Elements of the Democrat Party were trying to build a very circumscribed liberal democracy, or polyarchy, that preserved the power of the capitalist elite and the monarchy, and which was willing to compromise with the corporate interests of the military.”
Which I suppose is deemed ipso facto bad by western academics but which seems to be standard operating practice in developing Asian states such as South Korea, for China substitute Communist Party for monarchy.
“These contenders are historic forces, and when they clash they do not lie down in the face of moral censure.”
So why do western academics bleat over and over gain the same
not very enlightening message? Labeling only one side as fascists, reactionaries, and rightist thugs?
“At the moment I think the task is to explain how it all came to this.”
Exactly, this is academic value added, to provide the background information necessary for informed debate
and to understand events in context. Not to provide a
united front and stifle debate with labeling and name-calling which loses immediately readers who wish to think and not be led at the end of a leash by their ajaan.
Thai crisis. Royal silence.
Some more candid observations on the Thai monarchy.
Thailand is essentially an absolute monarchy with a democratic facade, put up to smooth its relations with the outside world. The absolutists kick away the facade whenever it becomes a serious encumbrance to them. An absolute monarchy is a variety of Predatory State which has a monarch as its front man. In rare cases he exerts real personal power.
The personal probity of the present King of Thailand is beyond doubt. It is like perfume that wafts through the institutions of the Predatory State, disguising the stink of the carnivores that lurk in them. It creates the illusion that these shadowy figures are more upright than the politicians with a democratic power base.
The Thaksin phenomenon has two main aspects: (i) the rise of democracy, and (ii) the emergence of a new, alternative, Predatory State. Both of these challenge the incumbent powers, and their desperate response is an attempt to crush both, which could lead to civil war.
Nobody takes the laws of Thailand very seriously. Whether they are enforced or not depends on circumstances of power. An important job of judges in the Predatory State is to prosecute its enemies but give free reign to its supporters (such as the PAD). Judges enthusiastically enforce laws made by the Predatory State to frustrate democracy and persecute the people’s representatives. They have even upset the good relations with one of Thailand’s neighbours, acting in contempt of the International Court of Justice, and helping to bring the country to the brink of pointless war.
The Thai education system exists mainly to serve the interests of the Predatory State, and unfortunately it has done this quite successfully. Students learn much less than they need in order to earn a decent living later. Teachers are mostly wooden-headed propagandists, and Thai academia is the most reactionary in the world. This explains the regular assassinations of schoolteachers in the South better than alternatives such as the conflict between Islam and the Enlightenment. Last year a school was burnt down in NE Thailand.
Monarchy is not all bad. Since the days of Hume, observers have noted that the subjects of monarchies are usually more charming, polite, and generous than the citizens of republics. They have noted that the Arts tend to thrive in monarchies and languish in republics. All this rings true of Thailand, and there is reason to hope that the best of Thailand’s national character would be preserved in a genuinely democratic constitutional monarchy. It is my hope that in a reformed monarchy, the main function of the monarch would be as the principal patron of the national arts of Thailand with a very large budget for that purpose. He or she would, as a matter of duty, cultivate a strong relationship with all elected politicians without taking sides. The monarch would exercise a civilising influence on them, helping them to love their country by teaching them about the best of its culture. The special relationship of the military with the Crown would be ended, and the command structure firmly anchored in the Ministry of Defence. The Privy Council would be abolished, and a Constitution enacted that for ever protected the monarch from becoming a focus for anti-democratic interests.
Mekong reflections
[…] Ltd consultant Ian Campbell, whose work on the Mekong River was recently blogged on New Mandala, told the ABC on Friday that if the sediments dry out and are exposed to oxygen, the sulphur will […]