matty: How could I possibly fend myself from such accurate accusations! I prostrate myself before you! I plead guilty to patronizing a Thai about constitutional value because clearly, erronous was I in thinking that perhaps Thailand had no time for constitutional appreciation. I also plead guilty to the most despicable crime of supporting Thaksin Shinawatra, Robert Mugabe, Ferdinand Marcos and their cronies inadvertently. I await your sentence wearing an expensive yellow silk shirt and, re-educated, I will join the PAD upon release if you will have me.
I’m wondering if all his pseudonyms are Karen inspired on some level. Isn’t it common for Karens to be known as “The father of so-and-so”? And shouldn’t the Son of the Blue Eyed Shan really be the Son of the Blue Eyed Lahu?
Ta-doe-hti means “hippopotamus”. Like Ta-u-war A’pa it is not Burmese, but Sgaw Karen. It may not be fair to expect Kaplan to know this, but is The Bull aware that he’s actually The Hippo?
Nick N yes it bothers me that a certain assassin named Colonel(now General) Panlop Pinmanee managed to carry out his “assasinations” with impunity before, during and maybe continuing still after Thaksin’s rule.
Thaksin and leaders before Thaksin had clearly employed Panlop’s deadly talents that allowed this mad dog to remain untouchable.
Who knows? . . . Perhaps when Thaksin’s judicial trial begins, Thaksin Shinawatra himself will ‘sing’ about Panlop and many others and they would all go down together.
To Nick N and Colum G, if the world is to wait for the ‘perfect system’ or ‘consistent justice’ before judicially prosecuting Thaksin Shinawatra (who taught himself a genius at exploiting ‘imperfect political systems’ and ‘inconsistent Thai justice), Thailand would be facing even more monstrous Thaksin copycats in its future.
Nothing extenuates Thaksin’s transgressions against his Thai people . . . nothing! That Thaksin helped millions of Thai villagers with his populist policies is true. But it is also unconscionable and unpardonable that Thaksin’s politics was maliciously divisive and deeply corruptive.
It is difficult to ‘respect’ any political system with a Thaksin Shinawatra (or a Marcos or Mugabe, et al) leading, directing, and eroding Thai judicial institutions and checks & balances. That perhaps explain, but not excuse, the flowers and the garlands that was Bangkok’s gleeful Thai welcome to General Sonthi’s tanks.
It is moronic for Colum G (#71) to chide a Thai with his puerile “The constitution should have the same level of respect that you would have for your child (because that’s whose should inherit it), not a hard drive that an elite formats when things aren’t working.” Colum G should have directed his elementary lesson about the Thai constitution to a certain Thaksin Shinawatra and his gang of TRT bullies.
Colum Graham are you whining “improper decorum” by yours truly? But you think Thaksin’s past decorum impecable . . . . ?
“Dramatic semantics” I will take as a compliment. And ‘you think’ Nick N was talking about ‘inconsistent justice’ – – – so what? You think Thaksin’s injudicious extra-consitutional police killings were ‘consistent’? Educate me man . . . educate me!
This dog picture is awefil my seven year old was looking on line to look @ dogs or puppies and then she sees a picture from vietnam and dog eating?!!!!!! That’s so wrong that this is where a child c&n see!
for your first response, you could just as easily be talking about the privy council. Therefore, you only highlight that there are many instances of injustice in Thailand, Thaksin being one.
for your second response – I should have made REAL italicized. You are one person of many saying that Thaksin corrupted Thai democracy. That you refuse to acknowledge anyone other than Thaksin and the TRT as responsible for corrupting Thai democracy only serves to lessen your appreciation of a -real- democracy.
Thailand hasn’t given democracy a chance to flourish because the system is not respected by you, one citizen of many. Go on say “but Thaksin didn’t respect the system” again!! Why weren’t you better than Thaksin by preventing a coup out of your respect for the system? You -one citizen- of many, are accountable. You cannot argue that getting rid of one constitution and replacing it with another is respectful. It would be tantamount to saying “I drowned our child in the bath peacefully because it had been corrupted! Now a year later, we have a new updated model.” The constitution should have the same level of respect that you would have for your child (because that’s whose should inherit it), not a hard drive that an elite formats when things aren’t working.
for your third point, if supporting a democratic system means to you that I am a Thaksin, TRT or PPP supporter, then theres nothing I can say.
thought I had heard it all, but this takes the cake.
Cheers,
Dave
DICTATOR WATCH
> (www.dictatorwatch.org)
>
> Contact: Roland Watson, [email protected]
>
> RUSSIAN SUPPORT FOR BURMA’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM, #2
>
> August 7, 2008
>
> Please forward.
>
>
> We have received additional intelligence that both confirms and expands our last report, about how Russia is guiding the SPDC’s nuclear development and more generally its military modernization. This intelligence is from new sources.
>
> In May 2001, at the National Defence College (Rangoon), SPDC Science and Technology Minister U Thaung said that Burma would make an effort to possess nuclear weapons by 2020. Once achieved, this would make the regime the strongest military power in Southeast Asia; the country would be transformed into the “Fourth Burman Empire”; and, it would be able to threaten Thailand militarily.
>
This statement reveals the SPDC to be a grave threat to international security and peace. The regime’s announcement that its new 10 MW reactor is intended for peaceful research purposes is a lie.
Our report further describes the respective roles of China, India, Japan, North Korea and Iran in assisting the SPDC to develop a nuclear capability. It also lists recent purchases of major weapons systems.
George Bush is now touring East Asia. The threat posed by the SPDC, and its relations with other countries in the region, should be at the top of his agenda. This is the true responsibility of a United States President, to help lead the world in addressing its most serious problems, not to participate in an entertainment spectacle and through this to legitimize its totalitarian host.
>
> For the full brief, please see:
> http://www.dictatorwatch.org/articles/russianintel2.html
>
>
One major difference between the pre-coup PAD demonstrations and the post coup UDD demonstrations was that the PAD got the red carpet treatment. They could go wherever they wanted – they went to Prem’s residence to hand him a letter, the walked to Army Headquarters where Sonthi Limthongkul was even invited inside to hand over a letter. They could block government house for weeks, they could sit in front of Siam Paragon.
The UDD could hardly leave Sanam Luang, they were blocked wherever they went. When they went to Army Headquarters – they were blocked.
Between my house – a few kilometers from Sanam Luang upriver – and Sanam Luang there were three military road blocks that turned protesters back. In the outskirts and upcountry there were even more.
In the slums were military patrols that discouraged people from joining UDD protests.
UDD leaders were harrased regularly. Many unpublicized behind the scenes nasties happened, such as the driver of Jakrapop Penkair having been kidnapped overnight a day or two after the Prem Comound clashes, and left drugged at a petrol station in the outskirts.
I am not going here at why exactly the pointed Prem as the initiator of the coup. Many foreign news articles at the time have also speculated on the same. I am sure you can find many of those articles in the archives.
This was the second or third attempt to reach Prem’s house. Previous attempts have been blocked.
I am very sure that the PAD has exactly the same potential for violence. If the PAD would not have been permitted to wherever they wanted, we also would have seen such clashes. Maybe even worse ones, as the PAD had more people.
And don’t forget – the UDD here was attacked by police. PAD was never attacked by police.
The UDD after the elections is different. The main leaders have stayed away from the demonstrations, and most anti PAD demonstration now are demonstrations of small splinter groups. The “Udon lovers” i am not even sure if they are part of the UDD umbrella, or something completely different.
“And it was certainly looking very bright for the country after the passage of the 1997 Constitution until he came along (and , to be fair, he was great in his first 1-2 years ofcourse, DREAM TEAM cabinet line up, great policies, quick action etc.).”
Well, that is a question of perception. While things in the city indeed started to look nicer soon after the crises, the situation in the villages deteriorated badly.
Many villagers position would be: ‘First came the financial crises, and we lost all our jobs in the city, and had hardly no income at all back in the village, and then came the Democrats along, and did nothing for us.’
Don’t you remember the arrogance many urban dwellers who stated that they were hit much harder by the crises because they can’t keep up with their payments for their cars while villagers supposedly could always go to the village, plant rice and scavenge for food? What a incredible misconception of these people’s lifes, in line with the later idea that SE would be accepted by those villagers (Andrew’s research has clearly proven the opposite).
Basically, after the ’97 crises the drugs have taken such a firm hold in many villages that in several i am aware off you could not find anybody below the age of 40 who was not a regular user. For many of those villagers Thaksin was and still is a hero – he stopped drugs, he introduced the first universal healthcare scheme (and didn’t just talk about it), and he initiated micro loan schemes that enabled those people to take loans with comparatively low interest.
I personally did not like Thaksin, not during the first one or two years, as many civil liberties were taken away. I was shocked when after the second year it came to the drug war killings.
After the second election i felt that things started to normalize again somewhat, no more gross human rights violations. I was sort of happy first when Sonthi Limthongkul started his TV shows from Thammasat, but only until i heard his first speeches, and i was revolted by the extreme nationalism.
Only then, with the formation of the PAD did i realize that Thaksin’s most outspoken critics were far more anti-democratic than TRT. It has been a learning curve for me.
It’s not that i like Thaksin, but i dislike his most noisy opponents even more. I nowadays view Thaksin as a precursor to democracy and a more egalitarian system, in the way that sometime after Thaksin, if he would not have been ousted by a coup, people one day would have voted him out of office as soon as another party would have been a viable option.
Right now i see a step back into the weak governments of the 90’s, maybe even into premocracy, if PAD gets their way. Or even worse – a possibility of descending into the political and social instabilities of the 70’s, yet on a larger scale with more social sectors involved.
I am sorry, i do not share your optimism. I think it will take a long time before Thailand gets back to political and social stability. Why is the PAD still out there sprouting extreme nationalism, and their infantile “new politics”?
Thaksin has left the house, and there are far more immediate problems to take care of. A weakening economy, huge price rise of basic necessities, and a police force whose most capable officers are bound up in observing these demonstrations, while drugs are making a huge comeback, and these officers would be desperately needed to fight that.
And doing that they have to listen to the worst insults slung at them from the PAD stage, while the equally corrupt military is praised by the PAD. They have to watch and can’t do anything while the PAD is parading with metal bars, golf clubs, baseball bats and slingshots.
Have you any idea how many police officers from all over town are busy round the clock with especially the PAD demonstrations, and to a smaller part with the counter demonstrations – officers who would be needed to fight drugs and the rise in crime?
“Much of what Thaksin did was at least questionable, and inappropriate – i believe nobody here disputes that. But it was in collaboration with many that are now his outspoken opponents, who raise his questionable actions into levels of crime they might not belong, or, where they clearly belong, they are not prosecuted, and his collaborators and beneficiaries are not even mentioned.
Demonizing Thaksin, by distorting facts, and going on a witch hunt does not serve Thailand or its people – it only serves his opponents who benefit from the same system that allowed Thaksin to rise.”
I basically agree, except I’m not so sure about the “nobody here disputes that” bit.
I think the emphasis should be placed on pushing for them all to have their day in court (instead of defending Thaksin just because others are untouched)
Too right Nick, we all have it in us. It boils down to selective nuturing of nature, doesn’t it? A kind of cultural conditioning if you like whether acute or chronic. Demagogues excel in it. What was this experiment in the US all those years ago when a group of students was given the power to boss over and abuse a second group of students? And all hell broke loose. So power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. By the same token, violence begets violence, given half the chance.
You guys sounded like these Democrat Congressmen and Senators blaming the commodity speculators and money market traders for every economic woes in US and the world.
Speculation is totally different from the gambling and speculation is the main force driving the money around the world and making it available to the entrepreneurs all over the wide world.
And as almost everyone knows, without the free and rapid movement of capital we humans would still be living in the caves with neanderthals, or now extinct together with the neanderthals.
Yes Dennis, best-selling bodice rippers or whodunnits, sex and violence in massive doses please – today’s opium of the people on top of the real stuff, religion beaten hands down where communism never succeded. No competition to consumption and instant gratification, is there? Nowhere near as famous as John Lennon, Kirsty McColl still got done, and I don’t buy the lone gunman or freak accident theories.
Colum: If the people who make up the greasy pole valued democratic systems of governance, they would have had no need to overthrow him and the whole system.
If the people who make up the TRT valued democratic systems of governance, they would have had no need to sabotage checks and balances, done away with the rule of law, abuse people’s human rights on large scale, suppress freedom of expression, and steal excessively from the people…. they would not have screwed up the whole system in this manner.
Who are you to say there wasn’t real democracy in Thailand under Thaksin? One citizen?
No. Many people said it.
This time the tanks won’t be rolling in? Why not?
ok, maybe they will roll in, if Thaksin camp do another Udon-style brutal attack on the protesters. I forgot, we can never underestimate the Thaksin camp. Sorry.
If Thaksin is your devil, stop telling everyone else so he’s theirs too.
Yes, I’ve described a lot of Thaksin wrong-doings. I’ve quoted Human Rights Watch’s condemnation of him as a “serious human rights abuser” who should be put on trial, and views of respectable scholars such as Baker, Pasuk and Connors on his dismantling of democracy. But I do find it surprising that you would from all this come to the conclusion of “devil”. My own guess is that most would say, “Gosh. What a horrible person. Hope he goes to jail like the rest of the other criminals.” or perhaps some may say, “Thailand surely deserves better than this!” But, that you – a seemingly keen Thaksin supporter – would conclude “devil” after hearing about his wrong-doings is rather surprisingly if I may say.
Too right Ladyboy, then they are called lemmings I think. This kind of gambling of course plays a major part in today’s problem of recurrent global economic crises, and wreaks havoc with any long term planning and development the world over not least with the livelihoods of millions and millions of ordinary people.
“…. More importantly, the crisis represented a conflict between Thaksin and what McCargo (2005) has coined the “network monarchy.” The coup itself was orchestrated by members of this network and the ground for it was prepared for by direct interventions by the king and Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda (see Hewison, 2008). However, we argue that intra-elite conflict is an insufficient explanation for the dynamics or the social base of the protest movement, unless the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are simply seen as royalist followers of protest leaders Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang…..
…….
The characterisation of the anti-Thaksin movement as “middle class” does not do justice to the complex make-up of the protest movement. It will be shown that the dynamics of the protests led to a broadening of its social base, and opened the space for discontent towards Thaksin, which had grown over the preceding several years, to emerge in activist form……
…….
The PAD was an alliance between a wide range of sections of Thai society and between diverse political organisations. One wing was made up groups who could be described as an urban elite or as conservatives, such as disgruntled royalist civil servants who were being marginalised by the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party, or sections of business who were not part of Thaksin’s patronage system (see Ukrist, 2008). Another wing (and this is what we will focus on in our argument) was made up of social movements and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with a grassroots base, such as workers, farmers, teachers and students. The PAD thus brought together elite and grassroots opposition to Thaksin.
…..
The contradictory nature of the PAD coalition was epitomised by the debate around the demand for royal intervention and the reference to Clause 7 of the 1997 Constitution (see Connors, 2008). This was highly contested from the onset, and was one of the reasons for the hesitation of many grassroots organisations to join the PAD. Because of general scepticism about Sondhi Limthongkul who was seen as a royalist conservative, some groups decided not to join the PAD at all (e.g. some smaller student groups and the Thai Labour Campaign)……
………
A range of protests ensued. School students developed initiatives, university campus demonstrations were held, women’s marches were organised, and rallies, marches and protests in towns and cities up and down the country were held. There was talk of strike action, and the countless and ongoing discussions and organising meetings meant that politics became everyday fare for hundreds of thousands of people over a period of several weeks.
……….
On the eve of the 4 February demonstration, lecturers from Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science signed a public declaration calling for Thaksin’s resignation. After Professor Amara Pongsapich, Dean of the Faculty, supported the declaration, she was leaned on to resign by pro-Thaksin government officials in the Political Science Alumni Association. In support, faculty members threatened to resign in protest if Amara was punished (Wattana, 2006; The Nation Online, 7 February 2006). Meanwhile, students at Thammasat University launched a campaign to collect 50,000 signatures calling for Thaksin’s resignation and Thammasat professors organised a controversial mock trial of Thaksin on his conflict of interest as prime minister and businessman. The Student Federation of Thailand kicked off the first PAD demonstration on 11 February 2006 by marching from Thammasat University to the Royal Plaza, in defiance of the government ban of the rally.
….By the 4th PAD demonstration on 14 March, activists from the Southern Community Forestry Network, the Federation of Small Scale Fishers from the south, the Isan Network of Small-Scale Farmers and the Northern Peasants Federation had joined the movement
………..
For the first time during Thaksin’s period in government, a mass movement was articulating different criticisms against him at the same place and time. Previously, he had tended to face criticism on single issues. Moreover, the public and mass nature of the criticism, broke through the previous apathy and fear that Thaksin’s powerful hold on the media and government had generated, and opened up space for politicisation and self-organisation. The single issues became connected to each other through the common demand for Thaksin’s resignation. Students were now protesting side by side with state enterprise unionists, and listening to speeches about the violence in the south. A new self-confidence was born out of a mass movement, where previously, solutions to particular problems had seemed unattainable because of Thaksin’s dominating position.
………
The mass movement against Thaksin was not simply made up of royalist followers of Sondhi and nor was it comprised of an urban, free-market elite as suggested by Kasian (2005: 132). At least part of the movement was made up of self-organised groups of workers, students, farmers and teachers, and of political activists from social movements and NGOs. The issues that were articulated under the common demand for Thaksin to resign, from media reform to FTAs, from teachers pensions to peace in the south, were, as we will proceed to argue, interconnected and sustained through contradictions within Thaksin’s project itself.
………
One of the greatest achievements of the anti-Thaksin movement, apart from concrete successes, such as the postponement of FTA talks or the halting of EGAT’s privatisation, was to bring these social and economic issues together with a political criticism of Thaksin’s regime. The misuse of political power for private economic gain was the predominant theme, of course, but the corporate undermining of free and democratic media, symbolised by Supinya’s successful fight against the libel charge, was also highly significant. And the fact that Angkhana Neelapaichit could speak to tens of thousands of people in Bangkok was immensely important in connecting the criticism of Thaksin’s repression in the south with the situation of the people in the rest of Thailand.”
I often feel frustrated when I read papers written by thai academics. They never go to the point.
When discussing royalty, they cant go to the point.
This is Thailand, there is free speech and there is free speech.
Why “three major national institutions – nation, religion and monarchy – had conspired together to form the core opposition.”?
I would say “three major national institutions” is just the mean, not the end. The question could be shorten to “Why oppose”?
No one live forever and when changes come, the existing business men suffer. TRT/PPP effect old business/power clique too much, they must go.
The most severe violation that happened under Thaksin were in my opinion the drug war killings. Yet, the investigation under the military government came to the conclusion that there is no direct link provable between the orders to kill thousands of people and Thaksin. Which is a very convenient result.
I have in several posts here argued that the drug war killings were only possible because of the active collaboration between all different power networks in Thailand, both formal and informal – military, police, civil service, politics and palace – as has been tradition in Thailand whenever a real or perceived threat to society arises and won’t disappear by itself (there are several historical precedents).
I have already quoted once a key speech commenting on the drug war killings specifically, again – the 2003 birthday speech of H.M. the King:
“Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drugs trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll. The lives of many officials are lost in working to bring the drug trade under control. These figures are often not counted, but it could be as high as the number of victims in the war on drugs.”
I hope i don’t need to explain any further how complex this particular issue is.
The assorted Human Rights violations in the South were also notable. Yet, the person who has given the order to attack Krue Sue Mosque – Gen. Panlop Pinmanee – has even been made special adviser to ISOC under the military government. The responsible officers for Tak Bai were also not tried during the time of the military government, so their only punishment remains which was dished out during Thaksin’s government – a whopping sent off to inactive posts until things calmed down.
As to the other pending court cases, and how questionable they are, you should read following article from Asia Sentinel:
Much of what Thaksin did was at least questionable, and inappropriate – i believe nobody here disputes that. But it was in collaboration with many that are now his outspoken opponents, who raise his questionable actions into levels of crime they might not belong, or, where they clearly belong, they are not prosecuted, and his collaborators and beneficiaries are not even mentioned.
Demonizing Thaksin, by distorting facts, and going on a witch hunt does not serve Thailand or its people – it only serves his opponents who benefit from the same system that allowed Thaksin to rise.
I understand it is easy to apply such an impertinent tone from the position of anonymity, but it will not lead to a productive discussion. So, please, for the sake of the discussion, be more civil, please.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
PAD – ready for violence
matty: How could I possibly fend myself from such accurate accusations! I prostrate myself before you! I plead guilty to patronizing a Thai about constitutional value because clearly, erronous was I in thinking that perhaps Thailand had no time for constitutional appreciation. I also plead guilty to the most despicable crime of supporting Thaksin Shinawatra, Robert Mugabe, Ferdinand Marcos and their cronies inadvertently. I await your sentence wearing an expensive yellow silk shirt and, re-educated, I will join the PAD upon release if you will have me.
Robert Kaplan on Burma and American war-fighters
I’m wondering if all his pseudonyms are Karen inspired on some level. Isn’t it common for Karens to be known as “The father of so-and-so”? And shouldn’t the Son of the Blue Eyed Shan really be the Son of the Blue Eyed Lahu?
Robert Kaplan on Burma and American war-fighters
Ta-doe-hti means “hippopotamus”. Like Ta-u-war A’pa it is not Burmese, but Sgaw Karen. It may not be fair to expect Kaplan to know this, but is The Bull aware that he’s actually The Hippo?
PAD – ready for violence
Nick N yes it bothers me that a certain assassin named Colonel(now General) Panlop Pinmanee managed to carry out his “assasinations” with impunity before, during and maybe continuing still after Thaksin’s rule.
Thaksin and leaders before Thaksin had clearly employed Panlop’s deadly talents that allowed this mad dog to remain untouchable.
Who knows? . . . Perhaps when Thaksin’s judicial trial begins, Thaksin Shinawatra himself will ‘sing’ about Panlop and many others and they would all go down together.
PAD – ready for violence
To Nick N and Colum G, if the world is to wait for the ‘perfect system’ or ‘consistent justice’ before judicially prosecuting Thaksin Shinawatra (who taught himself a genius at exploiting ‘imperfect political systems’ and ‘inconsistent Thai justice), Thailand would be facing even more monstrous Thaksin copycats in its future.
Nothing extenuates Thaksin’s transgressions against his Thai people . . . nothing! That Thaksin helped millions of Thai villagers with his populist policies is true. But it is also unconscionable and unpardonable that Thaksin’s politics was maliciously divisive and deeply corruptive.
It is difficult to ‘respect’ any political system with a Thaksin Shinawatra (or a Marcos or Mugabe, et al) leading, directing, and eroding Thai judicial institutions and checks & balances. That perhaps explain, but not excuse, the flowers and the garlands that was Bangkok’s gleeful Thai welcome to General Sonthi’s tanks.
It is moronic for Colum G (#71) to chide a Thai with his puerile “The constitution should have the same level of respect that you would have for your child (because that’s whose should inherit it), not a hard drive that an elite formats when things aren’t working.” Colum G should have directed his elementary lesson about the Thai constitution to a certain Thaksin Shinawatra and his gang of TRT bullies.
PAD – ready for violence
Colum Graham are you whining “improper decorum” by yours truly? But you think Thaksin’s past decorum impecable . . . . ?
“Dramatic semantics” I will take as a compliment. And ‘you think’ Nick N was talking about ‘inconsistent justice’ – – – so what? You think Thaksin’s injudicious extra-consitutional police killings were ‘consistent’? Educate me man . . . educate me!
Lunch?
This dog picture is awefil my seven year old was looking on line to look @ dogs or puppies and then she sees a picture from vietnam and dog eating?!!!!!! That’s so wrong that this is where a child c&n see!
PAD – ready for violence
karmablues,
for your first response, you could just as easily be talking about the privy council. Therefore, you only highlight that there are many instances of injustice in Thailand, Thaksin being one.
for your second response – I should have made REAL italicized. You are one person of many saying that Thaksin corrupted Thai democracy. That you refuse to acknowledge anyone other than Thaksin and the TRT as responsible for corrupting Thai democracy only serves to lessen your appreciation of a -real- democracy.
Thailand hasn’t given democracy a chance to flourish because the system is not respected by you, one citizen of many. Go on say “but Thaksin didn’t respect the system” again!! Why weren’t you better than Thaksin by preventing a coup out of your respect for the system? You -one citizen- of many, are accountable. You cannot argue that getting rid of one constitution and replacing it with another is respectful. It would be tantamount to saying “I drowned our child in the bath peacefully because it had been corrupted! Now a year later, we have a new updated model.” The constitution should have the same level of respect that you would have for your child (because that’s whose should inherit it), not a hard drive that an elite formats when things aren’t working.
for your third point, if supporting a democratic system means to you that I am a Thaksin, TRT or PPP supporter, then theres nothing I can say.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Hi All,
thought I had heard it all, but this takes the cake.
Cheers,
Dave
DICTATOR WATCH
> (www.dictatorwatch.org)
>
> Contact: Roland Watson, [email protected]
>
> RUSSIAN SUPPORT FOR BURMA’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM, #2
>
> August 7, 2008
>
> Please forward.
>
>
> We have received additional intelligence that both confirms and expands our last report, about how Russia is guiding the SPDC’s nuclear development and more generally its military modernization. This intelligence is from new sources.
>
> In May 2001, at the National Defence College (Rangoon), SPDC Science and Technology Minister U Thaung said that Burma would make an effort to possess nuclear weapons by 2020. Once achieved, this would make the regime the strongest military power in Southeast Asia; the country would be transformed into the “Fourth Burman Empire”; and, it would be able to threaten Thailand militarily.
>
This statement reveals the SPDC to be a grave threat to international security and peace. The regime’s announcement that its new 10 MW reactor is intended for peaceful research purposes is a lie.
Our report further describes the respective roles of China, India, Japan, North Korea and Iran in assisting the SPDC to develop a nuclear capability. It also lists recent purchases of major weapons systems.
George Bush is now touring East Asia. The threat posed by the SPDC, and its relations with other countries in the region, should be at the top of his agenda. This is the true responsibility of a United States President, to help lead the world in addressing its most serious problems, not to participate in an entertainment spectacle and through this to legitimize its totalitarian host.
>
> For the full brief, please see:
> http://www.dictatorwatch.org/articles/russianintel2.html
>
>
Revisiting the Prem compound clashes
“Sidh S.”
One major difference between the pre-coup PAD demonstrations and the post coup UDD demonstrations was that the PAD got the red carpet treatment. They could go wherever they wanted – they went to Prem’s residence to hand him a letter, the walked to Army Headquarters where Sonthi Limthongkul was even invited inside to hand over a letter. They could block government house for weeks, they could sit in front of Siam Paragon.
The UDD could hardly leave Sanam Luang, they were blocked wherever they went. When they went to Army Headquarters – they were blocked.
Between my house – a few kilometers from Sanam Luang upriver – and Sanam Luang there were three military road blocks that turned protesters back. In the outskirts and upcountry there were even more.
In the slums were military patrols that discouraged people from joining UDD protests.
UDD leaders were harrased regularly. Many unpublicized behind the scenes nasties happened, such as the driver of Jakrapop Penkair having been kidnapped overnight a day or two after the Prem Comound clashes, and left drugged at a petrol station in the outskirts.
I am not going here at why exactly the pointed Prem as the initiator of the coup. Many foreign news articles at the time have also speculated on the same. I am sure you can find many of those articles in the archives.
This was the second or third attempt to reach Prem’s house. Previous attempts have been blocked.
I am very sure that the PAD has exactly the same potential for violence. If the PAD would not have been permitted to wherever they wanted, we also would have seen such clashes. Maybe even worse ones, as the PAD had more people.
And don’t forget – the UDD here was attacked by police. PAD was never attacked by police.
The UDD after the elections is different. The main leaders have stayed away from the demonstrations, and most anti PAD demonstration now are demonstrations of small splinter groups. The “Udon lovers” i am not even sure if they are part of the UDD umbrella, or something completely different.
PAD – ready for violence
“Sidh S”:
You said:
“And it was certainly looking very bright for the country after the passage of the 1997 Constitution until he came along (and , to be fair, he was great in his first 1-2 years ofcourse, DREAM TEAM cabinet line up, great policies, quick action etc.).”
Well, that is a question of perception. While things in the city indeed started to look nicer soon after the crises, the situation in the villages deteriorated badly.
Many villagers position would be: ‘First came the financial crises, and we lost all our jobs in the city, and had hardly no income at all back in the village, and then came the Democrats along, and did nothing for us.’
Don’t you remember the arrogance many urban dwellers who stated that they were hit much harder by the crises because they can’t keep up with their payments for their cars while villagers supposedly could always go to the village, plant rice and scavenge for food? What a incredible misconception of these people’s lifes, in line with the later idea that SE would be accepted by those villagers (Andrew’s research has clearly proven the opposite).
Basically, after the ’97 crises the drugs have taken such a firm hold in many villages that in several i am aware off you could not find anybody below the age of 40 who was not a regular user. For many of those villagers Thaksin was and still is a hero – he stopped drugs, he introduced the first universal healthcare scheme (and didn’t just talk about it), and he initiated micro loan schemes that enabled those people to take loans with comparatively low interest.
I personally did not like Thaksin, not during the first one or two years, as many civil liberties were taken away. I was shocked when after the second year it came to the drug war killings.
After the second election i felt that things started to normalize again somewhat, no more gross human rights violations. I was sort of happy first when Sonthi Limthongkul started his TV shows from Thammasat, but only until i heard his first speeches, and i was revolted by the extreme nationalism.
Only then, with the formation of the PAD did i realize that Thaksin’s most outspoken critics were far more anti-democratic than TRT. It has been a learning curve for me.
It’s not that i like Thaksin, but i dislike his most noisy opponents even more. I nowadays view Thaksin as a precursor to democracy and a more egalitarian system, in the way that sometime after Thaksin, if he would not have been ousted by a coup, people one day would have voted him out of office as soon as another party would have been a viable option.
Right now i see a step back into the weak governments of the 90’s, maybe even into premocracy, if PAD gets their way. Or even worse – a possibility of descending into the political and social instabilities of the 70’s, yet on a larger scale with more social sectors involved.
I am sorry, i do not share your optimism. I think it will take a long time before Thailand gets back to political and social stability. Why is the PAD still out there sprouting extreme nationalism, and their infantile “new politics”?
Thaksin has left the house, and there are far more immediate problems to take care of. A weakening economy, huge price rise of basic necessities, and a police force whose most capable officers are bound up in observing these demonstrations, while drugs are making a huge comeback, and these officers would be desperately needed to fight that.
And doing that they have to listen to the worst insults slung at them from the PAD stage, while the equally corrupt military is praised by the PAD. They have to watch and can’t do anything while the PAD is parading with metal bars, golf clubs, baseball bats and slingshots.
Have you any idea how many police officers from all over town are busy round the clock with especially the PAD demonstrations, and to a smaller part with the counter demonstrations – officers who would be needed to fight drugs and the rise in crime?
PAD – ready for violence
“Much of what Thaksin did was at least questionable, and inappropriate – i believe nobody here disputes that. But it was in collaboration with many that are now his outspoken opponents, who raise his questionable actions into levels of crime they might not belong, or, where they clearly belong, they are not prosecuted, and his collaborators and beneficiaries are not even mentioned.
Demonizing Thaksin, by distorting facts, and going on a witch hunt does not serve Thailand or its people – it only serves his opponents who benefit from the same system that allowed Thaksin to rise.”
I basically agree, except I’m not so sure about the “nobody here disputes that” bit.
I think the emphasis should be placed on pushing for them all to have their day in court (instead of defending Thaksin just because others are untouched)
Revisiting the Prem compound clashes
Too right Nick, we all have it in us. It boils down to selective nuturing of nature, doesn’t it? A kind of cultural conditioning if you like whether acute or chronic. Demagogues excel in it. What was this experiment in the US all those years ago when a group of students was given the power to boss over and abuse a second group of students? And all hell broke loose. So power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. By the same token, violence begets violence, given half the chance.
Interview with Professor Duncan McCargo
You guys sounded like these Democrat Congressmen and Senators blaming the commodity speculators and money market traders for every economic woes in US and the world.
Speculation is totally different from the gambling and speculation is the main force driving the money around the world and making it available to the entrepreneurs all over the wide world.
And as almost everyone knows, without the free and rapid movement of capital we humans would still be living in the caves with neanderthals, or now extinct together with the neanderthals.
Green Left Weekly on Burma
Yes Dennis, best-selling bodice rippers or whodunnits, sex and violence in massive doses please – today’s opium of the people on top of the real stuff, religion beaten hands down where communism never succeded. No competition to consumption and instant gratification, is there? Nowhere near as famous as John Lennon, Kirsty McColl still got done, and I don’t buy the lone gunman or freak accident theories.
PAD – ready for violence
Colum:
If the people who make up the greasy pole valued democratic systems of governance, they would have had no need to overthrow him and the whole system.
If the people who make up the TRT valued democratic systems of governance, they would have had no need to sabotage checks and balances, done away with the rule of law, abuse people’s human rights on large scale, suppress freedom of expression, and steal excessively from the people…. they would not have screwed up the whole system in this manner.
Who are you to say there wasn’t real democracy in Thailand under Thaksin? One citizen?
No. Many people said it.
This time the tanks won’t be rolling in? Why not?
ok, maybe they will roll in, if Thaksin camp do another Udon-style brutal attack on the protesters. I forgot, we can never underestimate the Thaksin camp. Sorry.
If Thaksin is your devil, stop telling everyone else so he’s theirs too.
Yes, I’ve described a lot of Thaksin wrong-doings. I’ve quoted Human Rights Watch’s condemnation of him as a “serious human rights abuser” who should be put on trial, and views of respectable scholars such as Baker, Pasuk and Connors on his dismantling of democracy. But I do find it surprising that you would from all this come to the conclusion of “devil”. My own guess is that most would say, “Gosh. What a horrible person. Hope he goes to jail like the rest of the other criminals.” or perhaps some may say, “Thailand surely deserves better than this!” But, that you – a seemingly keen Thaksin supporter – would conclude “devil” after hearing about his wrong-doings is rather surprisingly if I may say.
Interview with Professor Duncan McCargo
Too right Ladyboy, then they are called lemmings I think. This kind of gambling of course plays a major part in today’s problem of recurrent global economic crises, and wreaks havoc with any long term planning and development the world over not least with the livelihoods of millions and millions of ordinary people.
Nation, religion and monarchy in the fight against Thaksin
An interesting article about the anti-Thaksin movement can be found here (scroll down to second post on that page):
http://thaipoliticsreview.blogspot.com/search/label/Thaksin
Some excerpts:
“…. More importantly, the crisis represented a conflict between Thaksin and what McCargo (2005) has coined the “network monarchy.” The coup itself was orchestrated by members of this network and the ground for it was prepared for by direct interventions by the king and Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda (see Hewison, 2008). However, we argue that intra-elite conflict is an insufficient explanation for the dynamics or the social base of the protest movement, unless the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are simply seen as royalist followers of protest leaders Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang…..
…….
The characterisation of the anti-Thaksin movement as “middle class” does not do justice to the complex make-up of the protest movement. It will be shown that the dynamics of the protests led to a broadening of its social base, and opened the space for discontent towards Thaksin, which had grown over the preceding several years, to emerge in activist form……
…….
The PAD was an alliance between a wide range of sections of Thai society and between diverse political organisations. One wing was made up groups who could be described as an urban elite or as conservatives, such as disgruntled royalist civil servants who were being marginalised by the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party, or sections of business who were not part of Thaksin’s patronage system (see Ukrist, 2008). Another wing (and this is what we will focus on in our argument) was made up of social movements and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with a grassroots base, such as workers, farmers, teachers and students. The PAD thus brought together elite and grassroots opposition to Thaksin.
…..
The contradictory nature of the PAD coalition was epitomised by the debate around the demand for royal intervention and the reference to Clause 7 of the 1997 Constitution (see Connors, 2008). This was highly contested from the onset, and was one of the reasons for the hesitation of many grassroots organisations to join the PAD. Because of general scepticism about Sondhi Limthongkul who was seen as a royalist conservative, some groups decided not to join the PAD at all (e.g. some smaller student groups and the Thai Labour Campaign)……
………
A range of protests ensued. School students developed initiatives, university campus demonstrations were held, women’s marches were organised, and rallies, marches and protests in towns and cities up and down the country were held. There was talk of strike action, and the countless and ongoing discussions and organising meetings meant that politics became everyday fare for hundreds of thousands of people over a period of several weeks.
……….
On the eve of the 4 February demonstration, lecturers from Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science signed a public declaration calling for Thaksin’s resignation. After Professor Amara Pongsapich, Dean of the Faculty, supported the declaration, she was leaned on to resign by pro-Thaksin government officials in the Political Science Alumni Association. In support, faculty members threatened to resign in protest if Amara was punished (Wattana, 2006; The Nation Online, 7 February 2006). Meanwhile, students at Thammasat University launched a campaign to collect 50,000 signatures calling for Thaksin’s resignation and Thammasat professors organised a controversial mock trial of Thaksin on his conflict of interest as prime minister and businessman. The Student Federation of Thailand kicked off the first PAD demonstration on 11 February 2006 by marching from Thammasat University to the Royal Plaza, in defiance of the government ban of the rally.
….By the 4th PAD demonstration on 14 March, activists from the Southern Community Forestry Network, the Federation of Small Scale Fishers from the south, the Isan Network of Small-Scale Farmers and the Northern Peasants Federation had joined the movement
………..
For the first time during Thaksin’s period in government, a mass movement was articulating different criticisms against him at the same place and time. Previously, he had tended to face criticism on single issues. Moreover, the public and mass nature of the criticism, broke through the previous apathy and fear that Thaksin’s powerful hold on the media and government had generated, and opened up space for politicisation and self-organisation. The single issues became connected to each other through the common demand for Thaksin’s resignation. Students were now protesting side by side with state enterprise unionists, and listening to speeches about the violence in the south. A new self-confidence was born out of a mass movement, where previously, solutions to particular problems had seemed unattainable because of Thaksin’s dominating position.
………
The mass movement against Thaksin was not simply made up of royalist followers of Sondhi and nor was it comprised of an urban, free-market elite as suggested by Kasian (2005: 132). At least part of the movement was made up of self-organised groups of workers, students, farmers and teachers, and of political activists from social movements and NGOs. The issues that were articulated under the common demand for Thaksin to resign, from media reform to FTAs, from teachers pensions to peace in the south, were, as we will proceed to argue, interconnected and sustained through contradictions within Thaksin’s project itself.
………
One of the greatest achievements of the anti-Thaksin movement, apart from concrete successes, such as the postponement of FTA talks or the halting of EGAT’s privatisation, was to bring these social and economic issues together with a political criticism of Thaksin’s regime. The misuse of political power for private economic gain was the predominant theme, of course, but the corporate undermining of free and democratic media, symbolised by Supinya’s successful fight against the libel charge, was also highly significant. And the fact that Angkhana Neelapaichit could speak to tens of thousands of people in Bangkok was immensely important in connecting the criticism of Thaksin’s repression in the south with the situation of the people in the rest of Thailand.”
Nation, religion and monarchy in the fight against Thaksin
I often feel frustrated when I read papers written by thai academics. They never go to the point.
When discussing royalty, they cant go to the point.
This is Thailand, there is free speech and there is free speech.
Why “three major national institutions – nation, religion and monarchy – had conspired together to form the core opposition.”?
I would say “three major national institutions” is just the mean, not the end. The question could be shorten to “Why oppose”?
No one live forever and when changes come, the existing business men suffer. TRT/PPP effect old business/power clique too much, they must go.
PAD – ready for violence
“matty”:
The most severe violation that happened under Thaksin were in my opinion the drug war killings. Yet, the investigation under the military government came to the conclusion that there is no direct link provable between the orders to kill thousands of people and Thaksin. Which is a very convenient result.
I have in several posts here argued that the drug war killings were only possible because of the active collaboration between all different power networks in Thailand, both formal and informal – military, police, civil service, politics and palace – as has been tradition in Thailand whenever a real or perceived threat to society arises and won’t disappear by itself (there are several historical precedents).
I have already quoted once a key speech commenting on the drug war killings specifically, again – the 2003 birthday speech of H.M. the King:
“Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drugs trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll. The lives of many officials are lost in working to bring the drug trade under control. These figures are often not counted, but it could be as high as the number of victims in the war on drugs.”
I hope i don’t need to explain any further how complex this particular issue is.
The assorted Human Rights violations in the South were also notable. Yet, the person who has given the order to attack Krue Sue Mosque – Gen. Panlop Pinmanee – has even been made special adviser to ISOC under the military government. The responsible officers for Tak Bai were also not tried during the time of the military government, so their only punishment remains which was dished out during Thaksin’s government – a whopping sent off to inactive posts until things calmed down.
As to the other pending court cases, and how questionable they are, you should read following article from Asia Sentinel:
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=536&Itemid=31
Much of what Thaksin did was at least questionable, and inappropriate – i believe nobody here disputes that. But it was in collaboration with many that are now his outspoken opponents, who raise his questionable actions into levels of crime they might not belong, or, where they clearly belong, they are not prosecuted, and his collaborators and beneficiaries are not even mentioned.
Demonizing Thaksin, by distorting facts, and going on a witch hunt does not serve Thailand or its people – it only serves his opponents who benefit from the same system that allowed Thaksin to rise.
I understand it is easy to apply such an impertinent tone from the position of anonymity, but it will not lead to a productive discussion. So, please, for the sake of the discussion, be more civil, please.