Nice one again, hobby. A victory for law and order would mean a defeat of minority opinions.
Somehow, that is non sequitur. The mob has clearly lost its legitimacy, but future minority opinions that respect the law and don’t play this dangerous game (after all that is what it is) still have the same voice.
P.S. Here is an example of a slick operator: Sondhi L. And here is an example of manipulated masses: PAD crowds. Yep, so let’s disenfranchise all of Isaan and the North and allow only Bangkok, Kanchanaburi, and the South a vote.
although i┬┤m no expert and i cannot see the complete text, i┬┤d go for “the Thai-Chinese love Thailand” -actually it says “the Thai-Huayi”, the term “huayi” referring to persons of Chinese origin or more specifically the descendants of overseas Chinese or “huaqiao”
I also am of the opinion that if either side is seen to ‘win’ completely, then that will be bad for democracy in Thailand.
There is no need for me to comment on what it would mean if PAD has a complete victory, but would a complete victory by Samak/PPP be the best outcome?
The stakes are so high now, that such a victory would basically say the government only needs to win elections – there is no need to be concerned with minority viewpoints – as long as the majority vote for us we can do what do what we like!
In most western countries we can live with election outcomes because there are functioning checks and balances to overcome the tyranny of the majority, but we all have seen how those checks and balances are continually manipulated in Thailand
(by all sides).
Also in most western democracies, we know the majority of the voters have a reasonable standard of education, and know that if the government acts badly, firstly the checks and balances will keep them under control, and if that fails the people will – at the next election.
(That’s the theory anyway, although lets wait until the next US election result to see if it still works that way, or has western democracy evolved to something else again?)
In Thailand, it has not even reached the ‘in theory’ stage because the level of education of the masses is relatively low, and they are also relatively poor.
Lets leave whose fault that is to another post, but IMO that leaves too much opportunity for slick operators to manipulate the masses.
Whether they are hoodwinked, seduced or co-erced becomes irrelevant, and all that counts is who won the election, and without functioning checks and balances that becomes bad democracy.
So whilst I would hate to see PAD have a complete victory, I think it is in the best interests of Thai democracy that Samak/PPP at least be seen to be acknowlegding and addressing the legitimate concerns of the PAD rank & file, at the same time as they dismiss and ridicule the more outlandish claims of some of the PAD leadership.
Wonder what the intellectuals and media would say if the poor farmers from the North and Isaan decided, hey, we are going to go take over The Manager, The Nation, Chamlong’s leadership school in Kanchanaburi, ThaiPBS, the faculty offices at the universities, the offices of the corporations that are financing these mobs to stand up to the fact they are being disenfranchised by proto-fascists once again.
After all, they would just be exercising their right to protest just like the PAD.
nganadeeleg makes some good points. The education plan idea is a good one but not sufficient since voters in general even if somewhat educated cannot be expected to always vote for the public good or even rationally. That is why democracy isn’t all about just having (free and fair) elections. There are also other generally accepted essential components of democracy, namely, protection of human rights, public participation in decision-making processes, and rule of law.
So for example, even to take something which might seem trivial, let’s say country X has a legal requirement that a PM must hold at least a high school diploma. If PM Cheat of country X having won landslide victory in elections was later on found to have faked his highschool diploma, what happens? In a democratic country, you don’t have to wait until the next election cycle for PM Cheat to get voted out and for civil society to try and educate the citizens that cheating is bad. In a properly functioning democratic system, PM Cheat would be immediately subject to the relevant processes and be disqualified and replaced (the prospect of disqualification would probably prompt him to resign anyways).
A more important case would be politicians who break the law or abuse fundamental human rights. In a democratic system, we aren’t supposed to wait for such elected politicians to get voted out in the next elections. The system is supposed to get rid of these politicians via parliamentary (eg. impeachment) or legal proceedings, REGARDLESS of whether voters want them to continue governing the country or not. (but of course, after serving their time in jail, they can run in elections again and people can vote them back if they want to – although it seems quite possible that many countries probably have certain limitations about people with criminal records running for elections, which is understandable)
So, I think for Thailand, we really need to improve the check and balance system. There should be a strong rule of law, and rule by mob is not a desirable alternative. With a stronger rule of law in Thailand, I don’t expect to see any more major instances of attempts to rule by mob.
ie. If elections fail to filter out the corrupt and abusive politicians, then the parliament/independent bodies/courts must get rid of them and thereby people will have no reason to attempt rule by mob.
It seems to boil down to: mob rule is better than vote buying.
The system should follow the will of 30,000 people – all presumably pure of heart with towering integrity and intellect – threatening chaos, and disregard the votes of millions, who can be dismissed as ignorant bumpkins who will do anything for a little beer money.
Civics lesson: Laws are meaningless.
Here’s a hypothetical: suppose several thousand Samak supporters with banners and t-shirts declaring their allegiance decide they would also like to camp out at Government House. Now.
This is perfectly ok, right? And you would condemn any PAD attempt to stop them, right? And the Samak supporters have the right to push their way in if necessary, right? All Thais have equal rights and privileges, right?
No? Why not? — because it is a provocation? Because they are trying to cause trouble? And the PAD occupation is not a provocation? They are not trying to create trouble?
A couple of days ago there was an article in the paper, describing how the price of rat meat in Viet Nam is skyrocketing due to a food shortage. It was accompanied with a photo of several skinned rats on a skewer.
I suppose that if you marinate them for a while, then bread them, they taste like chicken wings.
Samak is not that Bad he is just an average old style politician, yet highly initiative and artistic. The only problem is that Samak is the Frontman of PPP and trying to ignore the reality of what his gangster colleagues are doing. Fonzi , BP and Andrew will link whatever actions against this Gov with anti-Thaksin by promoting their anti monarchy propaganda. See , whenever they got chance , they worked like programmed machines.
Especially if the reports coming in today are true, it would seem that each and every one of your four points is in the process of being actualized as an integral part of some kind of an overall strategy. I’m impressed. Especially, with the way the most unlikely of the quad, #4 (martyrs) is succeeding. Great list guys.
I forgot to add, that if Samak merely waits for this protest to fizzle out (or crushes it) and then proceeds full steam ahead with the exoneration/manipulation strategy outlined above, then for sure the matter will not be really over and the FINAL SHOWDOWN will just be delayed until another time.
All these problems will only be over (for good) once the ruling politicians act reasonably, and it is up to the people to keep choosing new politicians until they find some that do.
Third hands become irrelevant once you have reasonable politicians.
Why does it always have to be winner take all?
Is losing face really so bad?
Why is admitting you might have been wrong seen as a weakness rather than a strength?
The solution to this stalemate is simple for rational people.
In a nutshell, the problem (simplified):
– PAD are concerned that Samak/PPP are crooks who are hell bent on amending the constitution to exonerate themselves & Thaksin, get back the loot and manipulate the institutions in their favor.
(I know it a lot more complicated than that and there are other issues such as a ‘third’ hand etc, but IMO, for the majority of the protesters the problem is as stated above)
– Samak & PPP were elected, and feel a mob has no right to demand they resign.
The solution: Each side take a step back from their ‘winner take all’ strategy.
Samak should explain that resignation is out of the question, however he should also acknowledge the PAD concerns and agree to put the proposed constitutional amendments up for public consultation, followed by parliamentary debate which results in a model constitution that is then to be put to a public referendum.
Once that offer has been made by Samak (not sure of the legalities, but something like a cabinet resolution & media announcements should suffice) then the PAD protesters be given 24 hours to disperse.
(they would retain the right to resume protests if Samak/PPP does not follow through with the promise)
If PAD fail to accept the proposal, then they have no right to complain when police move in to disperse them.
PAD/UDD/academics/media should all then put across their points of view regarding the model constitution.
For PAD, rather than trying to stop the ‘uneducated’ masses from having a vote, they would be better served formulating an education plan that highlights to the masses that the same problems will continue for as long the same sort of politicians continue to be elected.
matty said: If Tumbler you did NOT vote in any election because you just want to get on with your life, you ARE now paying the price for not making any choice. Next time vote, and vote wisely.
You said it yourself. Now I’d like to ask why the PAD don’t wait until the next election for a change of government?
“What was your beef with Thaksin? He was a crook and law breaker, right? To justify coups and anarchy and lawlessness to get a crook is intellectually, ethically and morally inconsistent.” Amazed Fonzi
‘Moral authority to rule’ is an abstract that Thaksin, Samak and Fonzi may have read about but had failed to comprehend. Because Thaksin and his proxy Samak themselves and by their conduct, are believed by these (PAD) people to have violated the substance of the constitution Thaksin/Samak flaunt to justify their ‘moral authority to lead’. Thaksin and Samak could rip and throw the pages of constitutional law at those thousands of angry PAD crowd and their supporters with a plea ‘intellectually, ethically and morally consistency’ is when street anarchy shall prevail.
Had I mocked the Thai poor Fonzi? You must have surely misunderstood what I have written.
While not wishing to sanction the brutal treatment meted out to Anwar at UMNO’s hands, people who wish to see in him as a liberal-democratic saviour for Malaysia (e.g., much of the recent media coverage) seem to have quite a selective viewpoint. Doubtless this image is very attractive to Western governments who love to project their own self-understandings onto figures in non-Western states, and doubtless it has been very useful for Anwar himself as he has hopped from one visiting fellow post to another and become the darling of many liberal academics. But as Edmund Gomez points out*, before the Asian financial crisis, Anwar was just as much engaged in cronyist network building as Mahathir and Daim. He just wasn’t as good at it, and the struggles between these players was as much (or more) a part of Anwar’s downfall as his supposedly liberal credentials. (At a Q&A after a paper he presented on Islam and modernity at St Antony’s College, Oxford, a couple of years ago, he essentially admitted his own complicity.) So yes, Anwar promoted ‘transparent auditing’, but this can be seen less as an unequivocal, principled move towards ‘good governance’ and more part of this internecine competition – a weapon of the weak, perhaps.
As such I’d agree with Colum’s point about the small role that Anwar’s corruption played in his demonisation being significant — especially since much of ‘reformasi’ was a protest against corruption, rather than a demand for liberal democracy, per se (hence the rise in support for PAS). It was probably too much of pots calling a kettle black, hence the resort to sodomy charges as the main mode of demonisation.
* E. T. Gomez, ‘Political Business in Malaysia: Party Factionalism, Corporate Development, and Economic Crisis’, in his edited book, Political Business in East Asia (Routledge: London, 2002): 82-114.
I am too tired to make a long comment here, after having worked day and night at the protest site.
This is not anymore about Samak resigning, who is right and who is wrong. The situation on the ground is that any little spark could incite civil war. What i have seen today is the collapse of democracy, how politics of patronage has won over the law.
Please be aware that if the powers in this country don’t find a solution very soon – this will be the end of the Thailand we know and love.
Nich, thanks for the “exposure”. If someone has time and expertise on their hands, I am really keen to know what the Chinese language says on the back of the shirt Luk-Jin Rak Chat (in graphic detail, of course).
Your hypocrisy and double standards never cease to amaze me.
What was your beef with Thaksin? He was a crook and law breaker, right?
To justify coups and anarchy and lawlessness to get a crook is intellectually, ethically and morally inconsistent.
You want the courts to enforce the law against Thaksin, but get upset if the police enforce the laws against the PAD?
You mock the poor, rural people for being oppressive while cheerleading the PAD mobs for fascist thuggery and for committing treasonous and illegal acts in their attempted overthrow of the legally installed government that was elected under the new constitution and signed off by HMTK.
The PAD didn’t even try to stand in elections.
Where does their authority derive from? It doesn’t derive from Thai culture, Buddhist morality, democratic politics, or loyalty to the monarchy.
They don’t have one justification for their outrageous actions, just like you don’t have a justification for your intellectually inconsistent arguments.
I find it very strange with your “as usual, Bangkok Pundit is the best English language source”. Andrew , you could have put it otherwise. This is really embarrassing.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“We love Thailand”
so, this is going to be some sort of thai-guo min tang? time to give the yellow emperor another chance?
Crack down
Nice one again, hobby. A victory for law and order would mean a defeat of minority opinions.
Somehow, that is non sequitur. The mob has clearly lost its legitimacy, but future minority opinions that respect the law and don’t play this dangerous game (after all that is what it is) still have the same voice.
P.S. Here is an example of a slick operator: Sondhi L. And here is an example of manipulated masses: PAD crowds. Yep, so let’s disenfranchise all of Isaan and the North and allow only Bangkok, Kanchanaburi, and the South a vote.
“We love Thailand”
LJ,
although i┬┤m no expert and i cannot see the complete text, i┬┤d go for “the Thai-Chinese love Thailand” -actually it says “the Thai-Huayi”, the term “huayi” referring to persons of Chinese origin or more specifically the descendants of overseas Chinese or “huaqiao”
Crack down
I also am of the opinion that if either side is seen to ‘win’ completely, then that will be bad for democracy in Thailand.
There is no need for me to comment on what it would mean if PAD has a complete victory, but would a complete victory by Samak/PPP be the best outcome?
The stakes are so high now, that such a victory would basically say the government only needs to win elections – there is no need to be concerned with minority viewpoints – as long as the majority vote for us we can do what do what we like!
In most western countries we can live with election outcomes because there are functioning checks and balances to overcome the tyranny of the majority, but we all have seen how those checks and balances are continually manipulated in Thailand
(by all sides).
Also in most western democracies, we know the majority of the voters have a reasonable standard of education, and know that if the government acts badly, firstly the checks and balances will keep them under control, and if that fails the people will – at the next election.
(That’s the theory anyway, although lets wait until the next US election result to see if it still works that way, or has western democracy evolved to something else again?)
In Thailand, it has not even reached the ‘in theory’ stage because the level of education of the masses is relatively low, and they are also relatively poor.
Lets leave whose fault that is to another post, but IMO that leaves too much opportunity for slick operators to manipulate the masses.
Whether they are hoodwinked, seduced or co-erced becomes irrelevant, and all that counts is who won the election, and without functioning checks and balances that becomes bad democracy.
So whilst I would hate to see PAD have a complete victory, I think it is in the best interests of Thai democracy that Samak/PPP at least be seen to be acknowlegding and addressing the legitimate concerns of the PAD rank & file, at the same time as they dismiss and ridicule the more outlandish claims of some of the PAD leadership.
Crack down
amber-
I like your argument.
Wonder what the intellectuals and media would say if the poor farmers from the North and Isaan decided, hey, we are going to go take over The Manager, The Nation, Chamlong’s leadership school in Kanchanaburi, ThaiPBS, the faculty offices at the universities, the offices of the corporations that are financing these mobs to stand up to the fact they are being disenfranchised by proto-fascists once again.
After all, they would just be exercising their right to protest just like the PAD.
Laos ne s’est pas fait en un jour!
Looking forward to this indeed. Further to the first comment, the real issue of course is whether there will be a Lao language version.
Crack down
nganadeeleg makes some good points. The education plan idea is a good one but not sufficient since voters in general even if somewhat educated cannot be expected to always vote for the public good or even rationally. That is why democracy isn’t all about just having (free and fair) elections. There are also other generally accepted essential components of democracy, namely, protection of human rights, public participation in decision-making processes, and rule of law.
So for example, even to take something which might seem trivial, let’s say country X has a legal requirement that a PM must hold at least a high school diploma. If PM Cheat of country X having won landslide victory in elections was later on found to have faked his highschool diploma, what happens? In a democratic country, you don’t have to wait until the next election cycle for PM Cheat to get voted out and for civil society to try and educate the citizens that cheating is bad. In a properly functioning democratic system, PM Cheat would be immediately subject to the relevant processes and be disqualified and replaced (the prospect of disqualification would probably prompt him to resign anyways).
A more important case would be politicians who break the law or abuse fundamental human rights. In a democratic system, we aren’t supposed to wait for such elected politicians to get voted out in the next elections. The system is supposed to get rid of these politicians via parliamentary (eg. impeachment) or legal proceedings, REGARDLESS of whether voters want them to continue governing the country or not. (but of course, after serving their time in jail, they can run in elections again and people can vote them back if they want to – although it seems quite possible that many countries probably have certain limitations about people with criminal records running for elections, which is understandable)
So, I think for Thailand, we really need to improve the check and balance system. There should be a strong rule of law, and rule by mob is not a desirable alternative. With a stronger rule of law in Thailand, I don’t expect to see any more major instances of attempts to rule by mob.
ie. If elections fail to filter out the corrupt and abusive politicians, then the parliament/independent bodies/courts must get rid of them and thereby people will have no reason to attempt rule by mob.
Crack down
I can’t say I follow Matty’s argument at all.
It seems to boil down to: mob rule is better than vote buying.
The system should follow the will of 30,000 people – all presumably pure of heart with towering integrity and intellect – threatening chaos, and disregard the votes of millions, who can be dismissed as ignorant bumpkins who will do anything for a little beer money.
Civics lesson: Laws are meaningless.
Here’s a hypothetical: suppose several thousand Samak supporters with banners and t-shirts declaring their allegiance decide they would also like to camp out at Government House. Now.
This is perfectly ok, right? And you would condemn any PAD attempt to stop them, right? And the Samak supporters have the right to push their way in if necessary, right? All Thais have equal rights and privileges, right?
No? Why not? — because it is a provocation? Because they are trying to cause trouble? And the PAD occupation is not a provocation? They are not trying to create trouble?
Lunch?
A couple of days ago there was an article in the paper, describing how the price of rat meat in Viet Nam is skyrocketing due to a food shortage. It was accompanied with a photo of several skinned rats on a skewer.
I suppose that if you marinate them for a while, then bread them, they taste like chicken wings.
Crack down
Samak is not that Bad he is just an average old style politician, yet highly initiative and artistic. The only problem is that Samak is the Frontman of PPP and trying to ignore the reality of what his gangster colleagues are doing. Fonzi , BP and Andrew will link whatever actions against this Gov with anti-Thaksin by promoting their anti monarchy propaganda. See , whenever they got chance , they worked like programmed machines.
Historian
A PAD strategy?
Especially if the reports coming in today are true, it would seem that each and every one of your four points is in the process of being actualized as an integral part of some kind of an overall strategy. I’m impressed. Especially, with the way the most unlikely of the quad, #4 (martyrs) is succeeding. Great list guys.
Crack down
I forgot to add, that if Samak merely waits for this protest to fizzle out (or crushes it) and then proceeds full steam ahead with the exoneration/manipulation strategy outlined above, then for sure the matter will not be really over and the FINAL SHOWDOWN will just be delayed until another time.
All these problems will only be over (for good) once the ruling politicians act reasonably, and it is up to the people to keep choosing new politicians until they find some that do.
Third hands become irrelevant once you have reasonable politicians.
Crack down
Why does it always have to be winner take all?
Is losing face really so bad?
Why is admitting you might have been wrong seen as a weakness rather than a strength?
The solution to this stalemate is simple for rational people.
In a nutshell, the problem (simplified):
– PAD are concerned that Samak/PPP are crooks who are hell bent on amending the constitution to exonerate themselves & Thaksin, get back the loot and manipulate the institutions in their favor.
(I know it a lot more complicated than that and there are other issues such as a ‘third’ hand etc, but IMO, for the majority of the protesters the problem is as stated above)
– Samak & PPP were elected, and feel a mob has no right to demand they resign.
The solution: Each side take a step back from their ‘winner take all’ strategy.
Samak should explain that resignation is out of the question, however he should also acknowledge the PAD concerns and agree to put the proposed constitutional amendments up for public consultation, followed by parliamentary debate which results in a model constitution that is then to be put to a public referendum.
Once that offer has been made by Samak (not sure of the legalities, but something like a cabinet resolution & media announcements should suffice) then the PAD protesters be given 24 hours to disperse.
(they would retain the right to resume protests if Samak/PPP does not follow through with the promise)
If PAD fail to accept the proposal, then they have no right to complain when police move in to disperse them.
PAD/UDD/academics/media should all then put across their points of view regarding the model constitution.
For PAD, rather than trying to stop the ‘uneducated’ masses from having a vote, they would be better served formulating an education plan that highlights to the masses that the same problems will continue for as long the same sort of politicians continue to be elected.
Crack down
matty said: If Tumbler you did NOT vote in any election because you just want to get on with your life, you ARE now paying the price for not making any choice. Next time vote, and vote wisely.
You said it yourself. Now I’d like to ask why the PAD don’t wait until the next election for a change of government?
Crack down
“What was your beef with Thaksin? He was a crook and law breaker, right? To justify coups and anarchy and lawlessness to get a crook is intellectually, ethically and morally inconsistent.” Amazed Fonzi
‘Moral authority to rule’ is an abstract that Thaksin, Samak and Fonzi may have read about but had failed to comprehend. Because Thaksin and his proxy Samak themselves and by their conduct, are believed by these (PAD) people to have violated the substance of the constitution Thaksin/Samak flaunt to justify their ‘moral authority to lead’. Thaksin and Samak could rip and throw the pages of constitutional law at those thousands of angry PAD crowd and their supporters with a plea ‘intellectually, ethically and morally consistency’ is when street anarchy shall prevail.
Had I mocked the Thai poor Fonzi? You must have surely misunderstood what I have written.
Sodomy, demonisation and politics in Southeast Asia
While not wishing to sanction the brutal treatment meted out to Anwar at UMNO’s hands, people who wish to see in him as a liberal-democratic saviour for Malaysia (e.g., much of the recent media coverage) seem to have quite a selective viewpoint. Doubtless this image is very attractive to Western governments who love to project their own self-understandings onto figures in non-Western states, and doubtless it has been very useful for Anwar himself as he has hopped from one visiting fellow post to another and become the darling of many liberal academics. But as Edmund Gomez points out*, before the Asian financial crisis, Anwar was just as much engaged in cronyist network building as Mahathir and Daim. He just wasn’t as good at it, and the struggles between these players was as much (or more) a part of Anwar’s downfall as his supposedly liberal credentials. (At a Q&A after a paper he presented on Islam and modernity at St Antony’s College, Oxford, a couple of years ago, he essentially admitted his own complicity.) So yes, Anwar promoted ‘transparent auditing’, but this can be seen less as an unequivocal, principled move towards ‘good governance’ and more part of this internecine competition – a weapon of the weak, perhaps.
As such I’d agree with Colum’s point about the small role that Anwar’s corruption played in his demonisation being significant — especially since much of ‘reformasi’ was a protest against corruption, rather than a demand for liberal democracy, per se (hence the rise in support for PAS). It was probably too much of pots calling a kettle black, hence the resort to sodomy charges as the main mode of demonisation.
* E. T. Gomez, ‘Political Business in Malaysia: Party Factionalism, Corporate Development, and Economic Crisis’, in his edited book, Political Business in East Asia (Routledge: London, 2002): 82-114.
Crack down
I am too tired to make a long comment here, after having worked day and night at the protest site.
This is not anymore about Samak resigning, who is right and who is wrong. The situation on the ground is that any little spark could incite civil war. What i have seen today is the collapse of democracy, how politics of patronage has won over the law.
Please be aware that if the powers in this country don’t find a solution very soon – this will be the end of the Thailand we know and love.
“We love Thailand”
Nich, thanks for the “exposure”. If someone has time and expertise on their hands, I am really keen to know what the Chinese language says on the back of the shirt Luk-Jin Rak Chat (in graphic detail, of course).
Crack down
Matty-
Your hypocrisy and double standards never cease to amaze me.
What was your beef with Thaksin? He was a crook and law breaker, right?
To justify coups and anarchy and lawlessness to get a crook is intellectually, ethically and morally inconsistent.
You want the courts to enforce the law against Thaksin, but get upset if the police enforce the laws against the PAD?
You mock the poor, rural people for being oppressive while cheerleading the PAD mobs for fascist thuggery and for committing treasonous and illegal acts in their attempted overthrow of the legally installed government that was elected under the new constitution and signed off by HMTK.
The PAD didn’t even try to stand in elections.
Where does their authority derive from? It doesn’t derive from Thai culture, Buddhist morality, democratic politics, or loyalty to the monarchy.
They don’t have one justification for their outrageous actions, just like you don’t have a justification for your intellectually inconsistent arguments.
Crack down
I find it very strange with your “as usual, Bangkok Pundit is the best English language source”. Andrew , you could have put it otherwise. This is really embarrassing.