I’ve been thinking along similar lines to “Contributor” for some time now. Whether the PAD can directly force Samak out seems to me to be just part of the game.
What’s more important is that they be *perceived* as the force responsible, though the eventual collapse of Samak’s coalition seems to me to fall more into the category of a natural disaster, political-style.
It’s pretty apparent at least some of the PAD are playing the long game, and if people believe you have political muscle, you are a player. They’ve shown awareness of this all along, for example with all those constant cryptic leaks about military backing to the always gullible Thai press.
Firstly I would repeat my apologies to PAD, Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul for my rash to condemn them and calling them names I am too embarrassed to repeat. I take back every negatives I directed at them and I now laud their courage and their purpose and even their stubborn journey ‘to educate’ the Thais about the dangers of the Thaksinism and its corruptive influence still, even while Thaksin had exiled himself to escape Thai justice.
I personally believe that PAD’s strategy and philosophy is just that: to totally ensure that Thaksin’s corruptive influence in Thailand had been removed brick by brick . . . and to obstruct any Thaksin wannabe, or any Thaksin proxy, from assuming powers to govern.
Which ‘character’ of Thaksin was assassinated Colum G.? I am not sure anyone would dare impugn Thaksin’s character Colum because while in power or out, billionaire Thaksin was notorious for suing anyone for slander (to the tune of multi-millions) for even suggesting Thaksin has bad breath!
Had Thaksin really possessed character, he would face his slanderers and accusers, with conviction and fortitude. But Thaksin is Thailand’s fastest running cowardly fugitive . . . himself slandering the Thai courts just because he can no longer camouflage, hide or bribe his way out of, his guilt.
Anwar Ibrahim had never hesitated to face his accusers and was not one to run . . . So was Aung Sang Suu Kyi . . . And here right now we have Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul ready to face arrests and defend their convictions in court . . . but NOT running away.
As an outsider I cannot see how PAD can step back without loosing their face. Words from Chamlong “stay or we lose” are symbols of a strong need to keep going. The question till when and where? Having sent TS out, having Samak on very thin ice and probably stepping down in December, cause of Party Dissolution, PAD needs some recognition or some martyrs to feed their cause so they will keep going to ( not even they know where) in the hope of something that can support at least their ego. If they step back now it is curtains. No one anymore will gather upon their request and the Leaders know that. So my believe is that they will keep pushing (or standing-sitting) till the other part does something that they can claim as a victory and pack their bags. From the Government side it looks that they are engaged in winning the battle, by starving and fatiguing the demonstrators. Hence all the gloves ( and “tenderness”) used to tackle the situation.
HMK is likely to unwind and even smile a little when someone comes to him with a gift of large monetary value. You just watch. As for politics, the guy just sits on the fence and sides with whoever is winning.
Michael Connors: Not sure if this is a bit of misplaced pomposity or something else. The earlier thread asked whether it was time for PAD to go home. Had they done enough? Indeed, there were similar questions raised in a number of press editorials. An entirely reasonable question for the people who read NM at the time. Where is your contribution to this supposedly “more useful” analysis? It’d be interesting to get your take on current events rather than your views on what is appropriate blogging.
You forgot: “break the coalition.” Confidence of coalition members has wavered continually. The current government needs a coalition to stay in power.
“A compromise Prime Minister – perhaps someone who cannot be tagged as a dreaded “politician” – could then step into the void unopposed by any Thai who values the king’s word.
Why use the negative? There are “leaders” and then there are what could be likened to a “conductor” of a “rent-seeking orchestra,” that in the end just consumes the nation, leaving people to foot the bill in the future. (Keep an eye on suspicious looking counter-intuitive high budget projects like the Bangkok bus rental scheme.)
“Whether even the king (with his carefully calibrated “charisma”) could risk such an “anti-democratic” intervention is unsure.”
BTW, I just thought of something. The quote I cited above at the top of my #9, in which Samak is said to have said to Cabinet members: “I beg all of you to understand and sympathize with me.”
Sympathize that he has to be “soft and gentle” since it is the King’s advice? That does seem to suggest that the Cabinet members were pressuring Samak for tough measures against the protesters and thus Samak had to defend himself by reference to King’s advice.
I’m sorry AW. I’m a regular reader of your web and mostly concur with your fine materials. But here I have to disagree. I check out your “published” article on hydrology ( and references therein) and.. well.. what can I say. maybe you’re an “authority” in hydrology, but your statistics are not convincing to say the least.
I would not say with such conviction you have.. it is not this.. it is not that. One would have thought from reading in passing that it is a rigorously proven piece of exact science.
You can at most say.. it is consistent with.. it correlates with.. if that
Environmental science is difficult.. it takes a lot of painstaking work to do it right. I wouldn’t cheapen it by just using something like this with not enough data to score some points against the ancien regime. It’s not like that you have a shortage of ammo. You know.
There is no doubt the King eventually becomes involved in politics, but I don’t recall Handley or anyone proving the point that the King intervenes before being dragged into it to diffuse a crisis.
(like the teacher stopping the schoolyard fight)
It’s usually better to let them sort out the fight themselves so they can learn for the future, but sometimes the risk of violence is just so great that a wiser head needs to intervene.
btw, whilst I think the last 60 years in Thailand would have been much worse without the King around, I don’t believe the King can do no wrong, and I think his biggest failure has been not preparing the country well enough for his passing.
(or not allowing the country to prepare)
Tony: I think you missed our point: – you cannot compare what the response would be in both countries in isolation from the events leading up to the ‘problem’.
I suspect Samak Sundaravej is NOT really ‘in control’ of the situation is why ‘restraint’ had prevailed so far.
He may be taking advice from elsewhere, but do not forget he is a master of self preservation, and therefore restraint is clearly his best strategy.
Although Samak is an unsavory character (amongst many others), I still have some sympathy for his position and the tightrope he is walking between trying to satisfy so many competing interests.
A right winger/royalist leading a a pro Thaksin party which is trying to exonerate Thakin & get back the loot, a party which includes ex communists & republican types, whilst trying to keep the military and most important members of elite establishment on side.
Add in to this mix his past feud with Pa making it a real farce, but perhaps he is the right man for Thailand at this point in time as it keeps everyone guessing who’s side he is really on.
(I think we will have to wait and see if the Privy Council position comes up to know for sure).
Can I suggest that this sort of analysis is much more useful than the tendency to label PAD mad and telling people to go home (who is listening?), as usually occurs here. Whatever our political positions, some attempt to understand things is much better than insisting people be “rational”.
nganadeeleg: “Andrew – You have been following Thailand long enough to know that the King is above politics, and does not wish to be involved in such matters (nor should he).”
You have read Handley, so I take it that this is tongue in cheek, right?
“Whether even the king (with his carefully calibrated “charisma”) could risk such an “anti-democratic” intervention is unsure”
Let us remember that the king rarely speaks in direct terms. In your proposed scenario it is likely that HM would simply equivocate and leave the direct speech to a privy councillor behind closed doors. The real message would not be made public. Therefore HM is seen only as the wise man with words of reconciliation yet the stated goals is still achieved.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A PAD strategy?
I’ve been thinking along similar lines to “Contributor” for some time now. Whether the PAD can directly force Samak out seems to me to be just part of the game.
What’s more important is that they be *perceived* as the force responsible, though the eventual collapse of Samak’s coalition seems to me to fall more into the category of a natural disaster, political-style.
It’s pretty apparent at least some of the PAD are playing the long game, and if people believe you have political muscle, you are a player. They’ve shown awareness of this all along, for example with all those constant cryptic leaks about military backing to the always gullible Thai press.
Genius at work
Don’t you know that everybody in this family is genius?
A PAD strategy?
Firstly I would repeat my apologies to PAD, Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul for my rash to condemn them and calling them names I am too embarrassed to repeat. I take back every negatives I directed at them and I now laud their courage and their purpose and even their stubborn journey ‘to educate’ the Thais about the dangers of the Thaksinism and its corruptive influence still, even while Thaksin had exiled himself to escape Thai justice.
I personally believe that PAD’s strategy and philosophy is just that: to totally ensure that Thaksin’s corruptive influence in Thailand had been removed brick by brick . . . and to obstruct any Thaksin wannabe, or any Thaksin proxy, from assuming powers to govern.
Sodomy, demonisation and politics in Southeast Asia
Which ‘character’ of Thaksin was assassinated Colum G.? I am not sure anyone would dare impugn Thaksin’s character Colum because while in power or out, billionaire Thaksin was notorious for suing anyone for slander (to the tune of multi-millions) for even suggesting Thaksin has bad breath!
Had Thaksin really possessed character, he would face his slanderers and accusers, with conviction and fortitude. But Thaksin is Thailand’s fastest running cowardly fugitive . . . himself slandering the Thai courts just because he can no longer camouflage, hide or bribe his way out of, his guilt.
Anwar Ibrahim had never hesitated to face his accusers and was not one to run . . . So was Aung Sang Suu Kyi . . . And here right now we have Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul ready to face arrests and defend their convictions in court . . . but NOT running away.
A PAD strategy?
As an outsider I cannot see how PAD can step back without loosing their face. Words from Chamlong “stay or we lose” are symbols of a strong need to keep going. The question till when and where? Having sent TS out, having Samak on very thin ice and probably stepping down in December, cause of Party Dissolution, PAD needs some recognition or some martyrs to feed their cause so they will keep going to ( not even they know where) in the hope of something that can support at least their ego. If they step back now it is curtains. No one anymore will gather upon their request and the Leaders know that. So my believe is that they will keep pushing (or standing-sitting) till the other part does something that they can claim as a victory and pack their bags. From the Government side it looks that they are engaged in winning the battle, by starving and fatiguing the demonstrators. Hence all the gloves ( and “tenderness”) used to tackle the situation.
Royal hydrology
Hi Bystander. What are the particular issues you disagree with?
Still no word from the protector of the nation
HMK is likely to unwind and even smile a little when someone comes to him with a gift of large monetary value. You just watch. As for politics, the guy just sits on the fence and sides with whoever is winning.
A PAD strategy?
PAD, a l”enfer, vous savez.
A PAD strategy?
Michael Connors: Not sure if this is a bit of misplaced pomposity or something else. The earlier thread asked whether it was time for PAD to go home. Had they done enough? Indeed, there were similar questions raised in a number of press editorials. An entirely reasonable question for the people who read NM at the time. Where is your contribution to this supposedly “more useful” analysis? It’d be interesting to get your take on current events rather than your views on what is appropriate blogging.
A PAD strategy?
You forgot: “break the coalition.” Confidence of coalition members has wavered continually. The current government needs a coalition to stay in power.
“A compromise Prime Minister – perhaps someone who cannot be tagged as a dreaded “politician” – could then step into the void unopposed by any Thai who values the king’s word.
Why use the negative? There are “leaders” and then there are what could be likened to a “conductor” of a “rent-seeking orchestra,” that in the end just consumes the nation, leaving people to foot the bill in the future. (Keep an eye on suspicious looking counter-intuitive high budget projects like the Bangkok bus rental scheme.)
“Whether even the king (with his carefully calibrated “charisma”) could risk such an “anti-democratic” intervention is unsure.”
Implicit assumptions here are a nice change.
Still no word from the protector of the nation
BTW, I just thought of something. The quote I cited above at the top of my #9, in which Samak is said to have said to Cabinet members: “I beg all of you to understand and sympathize with me.”
Sympathize that he has to be “soft and gentle” since it is the King’s advice? That does seem to suggest that the Cabinet members were pressuring Samak for tough measures against the protesters and thus Samak had to defend himself by reference to King’s advice.
PAD tries a yellow “people’s coup”
Srithanonchai, once again you did an excellent job presenting to us what has happened in Thailand. Please take care too.
Royal hydrology
I’m sorry AW. I’m a regular reader of your web and mostly concur with your fine materials. But here I have to disagree. I check out your “published” article on hydrology ( and references therein) and.. well.. what can I say. maybe you’re an “authority” in hydrology, but your statistics are not convincing to say the least.
I would not say with such conviction you have.. it is not this.. it is not that. One would have thought from reading in passing that it is a rigorously proven piece of exact science.
You can at most say.. it is consistent with.. it correlates with.. if that
Environmental science is difficult.. it takes a lot of painstaking work to do it right. I wouldn’t cheapen it by just using something like this with not enough data to score some points against the ancien regime. It’s not like that you have a shortage of ammo. You know.
Still no word from the protector of the nation
Dog Lover: Yes I have read TKNS.
There is no doubt the King eventually becomes involved in politics, but I don’t recall Handley or anyone proving the point that the King intervenes before being dragged into it to diffuse a crisis.
(like the teacher stopping the schoolyard fight)
It’s usually better to let them sort out the fight themselves so they can learn for the future, but sometimes the risk of violence is just so great that a wiser head needs to intervene.
btw, whilst I think the last 60 years in Thailand would have been much worse without the King around, I don’t believe the King can do no wrong, and I think his biggest failure has been not preparing the country well enough for his passing.
(or not allowing the country to prepare)
Remarkable restraint
Tony: I think you missed our point: – you cannot compare what the response would be in both countries in isolation from the events leading up to the ‘problem’.
Remarkable restraint
I suspect Samak Sundaravej is NOT really ‘in control’ of the situation is why ‘restraint’ had prevailed so far.
He may be taking advice from elsewhere, but do not forget he is a master of self preservation, and therefore restraint is clearly his best strategy.
Although Samak is an unsavory character (amongst many others), I still have some sympathy for his position and the tightrope he is walking between trying to satisfy so many competing interests.
A right winger/royalist leading a a pro Thaksin party which is trying to exonerate Thakin & get back the loot, a party which includes ex communists & republican types, whilst trying to keep the military and most important members of elite establishment on side.
Add in to this mix his past feud with Pa making it a real farce, but perhaps he is the right man for Thailand at this point in time as it keeps everyone guessing who’s side he is really on.
(I think we will have to wait and see if the Privy Council position comes up to know for sure).
A PAD strategy?
Can I suggest that this sort of analysis is much more useful than the tendency to label PAD mad and telling people to go home (who is listening?), as usually occurs here. Whatever our political positions, some attempt to understand things is much better than insisting people be “rational”.
A PAD strategy?
I’d be grateful to hear people’s thoughts on the Democrat Party’s strategy vis a vis the PAD.
Still no word from the protector of the nation
nganadeeleg: “Andrew – You have been following Thailand long enough to know that the King is above politics, and does not wish to be involved in such matters (nor should he).”
You have read Handley, so I take it that this is tongue in cheek, right?
A PAD strategy?
“Whether even the king (with his carefully calibrated “charisma”) could risk such an “anti-democratic” intervention is unsure”
Let us remember that the king rarely speaks in direct terms. In your proposed scenario it is likely that HM would simply equivocate and leave the direct speech to a privy councillor behind closed doors. The real message would not be made public. Therefore HM is seen only as the wise man with words of reconciliation yet the stated goals is still achieved.