Reg, again note my suffix “ultra-” as differentiation for why I did not lump PAD with other civic-assertiveness movements (on which we agree – no need for further debates).
For you, I will admit to another “injustice” in not mentioning Jakrapob’s and Dr.Weng’s DADD’s riot in front of PMPrem’s resident that resulted in injuries mainly to the security forces (200+ police as I recall Thairath reporting) which is also unprecedented. This is further evidence for stressing my differentiation point and how a lot of this is already a significant development from Black May 16 years ago when mainly middle-class, Bangkok-based protestors got massacred by the security forces.
While PAD may be in danger of becoming right-wing (quite problematic in the Thai context, really), I don’t have that fear for Tulakarnphiwat as the bribes inevitably get raised from 2 million to 10s, 100s or even billions (not to mention pressure from the PPP government – for the stakes are very high here – unfreezing 73 billion baht). A major institution in Thailand’s progress towards a rule of law culture will face another round of severe pressure/test. The country’s future will be determined there – not by the PAD – whether Thailand gets a more robust rule of law as a fundamental base for its democratic progress or is it back to the Wild, Wild, West.
While I don’t agree with all of Kuson’s points, it seem to illustrate the Bangkok, middle-class frustrations – and solutions (or just untying of societal knots) is in the offing when they can meet and be concilliated/mitigated with the rural (and urban) poor’s frustrations (bought up by Andrew, Jonfernquest etc.). An ideal scenario (my turn to mumble) is for PAD to also start talking to Assembly of the Poor and others and turn this into a more inclusive, Thailand-wide movement that bridges socio-economic divides…
It will also require serious analysis and knowledge of the underlying historical and cultural factors which have produced the present impasse, and then a policy approach which takes all this into consideration. At this point that does not seem very likely any time soon.
Don, I am in full agreement with you that current policy approaches that haven’t moved beyond isolationism need far more historically and culturally informed analysis in order to tangibly contribute to any sort of positive change in Burma. I believe that this was Thant Myint-U’s underlying argument in The River of Lost Footsteps. I also share Jon Fernquest’s frustration (perhaps he wrote this in a different thread) at various US administrations using Burma as a ‘whipping boy’ in an attempt at recouping from the moral deficit of their gross human rights violating policies elsewhere in the world.
However, I don’t think that the failure of isolationism means foreign policy on Burma should swing to the other extreme. The polarisation of the discussions on engagement with the Burma has been extremely limiting. On the on hand we have those who argue that there can be no improvement in the conditions of people presently living in Burma until there is regime change and on the other hand we have those who argue that only unconditional economic investment and ostensibly ‘apolitical’ development programmes can (and necessarily will) lead to an improvement in the situation for those in the country. Actually, I don’t think that many people hold either extreme but occasionally we hear accusations that those leaning towards more engagement are ‘apologists for the regime’ or ‘enemies of the revolution’ while those concerned about the harmful fallout of politically blind economic investment and development programmes in the immediate and long-term are selfish ideologues willing to hold the population of Burma hostage to long term political goals narrowly defined as regime change.
Somewhere in between these two extremes is a form of engagement that is politically aware and supports local structures that challenge the totalising and exploitative efforts of the SPDC. I think that Ashley South’s 2004 article “Political Transition in Burma: A new model for democratisation,” in Contemporary Southeast Asia is a useful step in this direction. I think that a further step would be a deeper understanding of what Benedict Kerkvliet called ‘everyday politics’ and a form of engagement that supports local people’s own efforts to resist exploitative implementation of State policy. This could involve incorporating greater ‘protection’ efforts into existing programmes of humanitarian agencies working in Burma. I think that the International Labour Organisation has done some positive work in this direction. Anyway, I’m also not a policy maker but this middle way seems a possible means of getting beyond the polarised debate on engagement.
My given name is “Lleij,” and, for the future, I kindly ask you to use it (or Mr. Schwartz if you’re more comfortable with that) when addressing me. Thank you.
Secondly, as for Tak Bai vs. Oct 6th, 1976, while I find Prof. Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s tone to be distasteful, I share his concern against the trend for moral equivalency that is quite common in Thai political discource. (Thaksin = Hitler, anyone?)
I think that we can all agree with Sidh that the events at Thammasat, Tak Bai, Kru Sae, ect. were abuses of state power; the question is to what degree? To borrow terminology from common law (yes, I know Thailand follows civil law), we must determine the mens rea of each event before we can declare them equivalent. From what I know of each event, I would classify Thammasat (6/Oct/76) as first degree murder, i.e. the premeditated and malicious killing of human beings. Tak Bai, on the other hand, I would classify as negligent manslaughter, that is, there was no intent to kill but death occured from extreme negligence and/or recklessness.
Krue Sae, in case anyone was wondering, would be the totally justified, albeit unpopular, killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as recognized by all conventions of international law.
So the question remains, what degree of murder justifies the military overthrow of a civil government?
[…] But no matter how much we devote ourselves to issues in mainland Southeast Asia we all still need to eat. And on a day when Gordon Brown is telling those of us in Britain to stop wasting food it seems […]
I was just trying to give you firsthand information that, as self credited Burma experts, you might like to consider.
I know it’s not the first battle and I know damn well it’s not going to be the last.
Why don’t you put your life on the line instead of tapping away at your keyboard in comfort?
And what is the price of fish at the moment mate?
Or salt?
Or petrol?
You wouldn’t know would you, because you’re not here.
Let me play Devil’s Advocate – as an educated Thai.
In Defense of PAD: “Perverted form of democracy” is a result of “Everyone Who Knows Whats Going On In Thai Democracy” to find a way to Rid Thaksin from wasting so much quality time from Thai people’s lives, from having to talk day after day in family outings just about this unscrupulous character. The same way corrupt, the most corrupt, the most hideous politicians still stay in power despite being bad. You guys in Australia – imagine if you had Mr. Hitler as a prime minister because 70% of the population are voting him- and you grumble your golden years day in and day out.
Why do these bad characters STILL exist in the Thai landscape, where people are generally very kind at heart? The rural Thailand, vast 60-70% of the population who fall prey – day after day, year after year, decade after decade. I can predict another decade OR EVEN MY LIFETIME -or so before a rurul poor Thai is to know he is not supposed to sell his vote!
I’m no expert in democracy but understanding of its true fundaments – the Best Lousiest form of government in general, the Worst Form of Government for a country “with Gullibles and a Thaksin that Turns Tricks”.
That is why I think another form of government – whilst preserving ‘representation’ and a strong free press which is important in democracy — is worth looking at; How to get the Best Minds to Govern the country, and to prevent -I’m sorry to say- the Uneducated Gullible from bringing back the Freaks to Govern the Country.
There you go my Nelson Mandela oops Mandala friends 🙂
Ok – back to the ‘Ideal Form of Government’ – everybody votes and each count the same; I would prefer if this is the case — if and only if they do according to my ingenious Kuson Maneuver Proposal: the Uneducated Gullibles (and everyone alike) get to swear, before they cast their ballot, that “They Will Not Vote To The Party That Sell Votes”. This way, voters, however gullible, get best of both worlds- the money they get from the transaction and the vote they give to the good guys. Perhaps also a Best Practices pamphlet, the country should strategize to vote mainly 2 political parties in, because Coalition Governments in my experience truly su*k and get nothing done; 2 parties is a good check and balance.
Dear Jon: Burmese leaders have been isolationist for centuries not just since the 1950s. This is part of a deeply introverted tradtion stemming from an inland kingdom with little outside contact until the arrival of the British, whose conquest of Burma further fueled xenophobia and dislike for meddling foreigners. Now a few western educated Burmese seem to think they can just wipe this long heritage off the books and Burma will instantaneously become a well adjusted modern nation. This will not happen. Overcoming the long heritage of isolation will inevitably be a slow process and those poorly informed international groups who wish to isolate the country further are just retarding movement in this direction. That approach betrays a total lack of knowledge about Burmese history and an incredible arrogance which can be described in my view as a new form of imperialism. You may not be a policy maker but I think you understand the incredients of a sound policy toward Burma. Unfortunately the so-called policy makers do not and are so full of themselves that they refuse to listen to anyone who tells them they are on the wrong track. It is understandable that Burmese like Moe Aung want to hope for a positive outcome but in my view hope alone will not do the trick. It will also require serious analysis and knowledge of the underlying historical and cultural factors which have produced the present impasse, and then a policy approach which takes all this into consideration. At this point that does not seem very likely any time soon.
[…] Andrew Walker over at New Mandala has a good take on the public protests by the PAD (People’s Alliance for Democracy) in Bangkok lately. These protests have largely revolved around the nationalist complaint that the recognition of Cambodia’s historic and legal claim to Preah Vihea temple amounts to the abdication of Thai territory and sovreignty. It’s total b.s., of course, as even Minister of Foreign Affairs Noppadon – who originally stood by the agreement and correctly argued that no territory nor sovreignty was lost – has now capitulated and simply started blaming the last government. Andrew writes: But I strongly suspect that the PA(S)D doesn’t want to go home (though court orders and a lack of mass support may force them to). They don’t want to leave the streets because they are not really interested in the specific issues that they have used to attack the government. These issues are just convenient tools. Government backdowns mean nothing because the PA(S)D has a much more ambitious agenda. […]
Sidh: I was responding to: “They have done much in this new Thai phenomena of civic ultra-assertiveness…”. My point is that they were on a well-worn path. The injustice I refer to is that you ignore all of the others who have been shot, beaten etc. Sort of in concert with your willingness to only want justice for Thaksin and his mob and not those responsible for smashing earlier attempts at “civic ultra-assertiveness.” Don’t recall many of the PADites getting this treatment. But maybe you just display your own eccentricity.
Frankly, I find it eccentric that you consider PAD + Tulakarnphiwat is exciting and positive (not your word). Nothing wrong with the rule of law, but plenty wrong with PAD, which is in danger of becoming ultra-right wing. The two together bring to mind earlier examples of parties that controlled the courts to defeat their enemies. Even the Nation has recently managed to recognise this potential threat.
Actually I prefer the image of Robert DeNiro’s Travis Bickle (“you looking at me?”) than a ‘grassroot – lower class’ person.
I’ve never planted rice, but does mun sumparang qualify me as a prole?
But while we’re on the subject of taxi drivers, and a more serious note, I’ve always believed Nuamthong Praiwan deserves to be remembered forever for what he did (the initial ‘stupid’ act that got him noticed, that is).
Now back to the catnip.
Fox news cliche or not (I don’t know because I’ve watched so very little Fox News but enough to know to never watch it again), my point still stands.
So stupid Tak Bai mother has to campaign for people to vote for, ummm, the Democrats? Does she have to travel from her home to Isan and the North to do this too? I guess in your world, she just HAS to accept that since the majority think its no big deal, all she can do is campaign to change people’s vote at the next elections…She should not expect equal access to justice under the law.
So, if Les Majeste was abolished, all YOU would do is to educate the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so) of 6 Tula and other abuses and then call for a referendum on the King? You would not try to seek justice through the justice system? I guess not, from your logic.
” The thing that just about every blogger on Thai issues ( both Thai & non-Thai) usually forgets is that they will never be a true part of the real equation. We will never be anything other than spectators. Spectators with bad seats too…”
Well put efg!
Here, I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the real Thais who are ” doing some things right” according to Andrew – I would argue that they have done MANY things right, not just some. I know many of them personally – from classmates and contemporaries who finished undergraduate studies together to those who finished their education abroad and chose to go back to enter the strait-jacket system of the Thai bureaucracy (I must also include those in the private sector doing work for the state) and do the best they could within the system’s constraints. I get to catch up with them once a year – yes, they complain a lot about the corruption, the collusion, the patronage (etc…etc…) – while keeping themselves in check so as not to be ‘swallowed’ by the system over the decade-plus. Those with family also have real worries of their children’s education and future prospects (and sometimes succumb). It is indeed an honor to have their acquantance (and, come to think of it, I should actually let them know the next time I drop by if it is worth anything).
As you said, efg, I am a spectator here – although I have many ‘good seats’ via my family and friends who are doing the best they can in their jobs for the country… Thanks Andrew for reporting some positive news too!
Ofcourse they are Reg Varney, no debates there. I can see that you equate failing to mention with injustice! To each, their charming eccentricities! Besides if you actually read Andrew’s blog, it’s on the PAD and not on other groups – so I am not completely sure why you raised those points considering you are well aware of their inherent differences. I added the suffix “ultra” to differentiate PAD – as Andrew added the “(S)”. For me it is an broad reflection of Thailand’s overall “Sufficient” (in Andrew’s twist, not the original) Democracy that middle-class Bangkokian protesters can bring down governments, poor rural protestors are totally ignored (such the many years of the Assembly of the Poor you mentioned), while Southern ones get massacred.
I actually find the PAD phenomenon and the parallel ‘Tulakarnphiwat’ quite exciting. I only hope that it is not short-lived – being only inspired by the one-man-phenomena of PMThaksin – only to lose traction and resume business-as-usual when he is dealt with. If the rule of law starts applying robustly to abusers higher up the socio-economic ladder – it is an excellent start (or re-start – as we had that promising period after the passage and early implementation of the 1997 Constitution). Fingers-crossed the new culture also becomes a new tradition.
Sidh: you do a another injustice to many people who have struggled for years to participate. As Nidhi has pointed out about a month ago, Bangkok’s streets have long been filled by people asserting a right to participate. You apparently ignore years of AOP and other farmers organisations. Why are those struggles not worth thinking about as forms of “civic assertiveness?”
And, when wasn’t PAD going down the less democratic path? My feeling is that you need to go back to its first iteration, before it was hijacked by Chamlong and Sondhi.
But Frank, don’t you think that what is called corruption here might be locally defined in Thailand and that some might just think it an issue here as well, irrespective of what the US government does or what people there think?
I’m not suggesting that there is no corruption in the US, but I am not sure what that actually has to do with the current and recent debates in Thailand.
I’m also not suggesting that various interests in the US (and other places too) don’t try to influence thinking and policy on corruption internationally.
But I am suggesting that all the surveys and writing done here (and a lot of the politics that goes on) has much to do with local concerns about corruption.
Just for the record, I could fill page after page of this blog with examples of what I and most other people (including in Thailand and Asia) would consider to be corruption here in the USA. And every bit of it is “legal”.
The underlying issue here that needs to be dealt with at some point is that the USA wants to impose its version of legalized corruption on the world in general, and in the developing world in particular. A haphazard system of corruption in a place like Thailand makes it far more difficult for the USA to impose its supposedly superior western values.
😉 The thing that just about every blogger on Thai issues ( both Thai & non-Thai) usually forgets is that they will never be a true part of the real equation. We will never be anything other than spectators. Spectators with bad seats too. One’s political efforts and comments are actually better off invested elsewhere. That doesn’t stop you enjoying the country, but don’t for one minute run away with the idea that you can contribute to a change process here. The same goes for most Thais too. However, apoplectic they drive themselves in either ultra-nash or dodgy fashion-statement phoney socialist forums.
“We must expose and fight the Tulakarnphiwat because it is the abuses of judicial authority. But we need not go as far as to say that a govt is free from legal accountability.”
fed-up observer, if PMSamak (a right-wing royalist) laments against Tulakarnphiwat, it could be a good thing.
I say let Tulakarnphiwat run its full course. From the current low base, minimal accountability and rule of law, it may not be the right time to fight it yet. Keep tabs on it, yes. If it becomes blatantly abusive and corrupt (e.g. when the bribes are raised from 2 million to billions), a PAD-style civic ultra-assertiveness must be on the cards.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Time to go home
Reg, again note my suffix “ultra-” as differentiation for why I did not lump PAD with other civic-assertiveness movements (on which we agree – no need for further debates).
For you, I will admit to another “injustice” in not mentioning Jakrapob’s and Dr.Weng’s DADD’s riot in front of PMPrem’s resident that resulted in injuries mainly to the security forces (200+ police as I recall Thairath reporting) which is also unprecedented. This is further evidence for stressing my differentiation point and how a lot of this is already a significant development from Black May 16 years ago when mainly middle-class, Bangkok-based protestors got massacred by the security forces.
While PAD may be in danger of becoming right-wing (quite problematic in the Thai context, really), I don’t have that fear for Tulakarnphiwat as the bribes inevitably get raised from 2 million to 10s, 100s or even billions (not to mention pressure from the PPP government – for the stakes are very high here – unfreezing 73 billion baht). A major institution in Thailand’s progress towards a rule of law culture will face another round of severe pressure/test. The country’s future will be determined there – not by the PAD – whether Thailand gets a more robust rule of law as a fundamental base for its democratic progress or is it back to the Wild, Wild, West.
While I don’t agree with all of Kuson’s points, it seem to illustrate the Bangkok, middle-class frustrations – and solutions (or just untying of societal knots) is in the offing when they can meet and be concilliated/mitigated with the rural (and urban) poor’s frustrations (bought up by Andrew, Jonfernquest etc.). An ideal scenario (my turn to mumble) is for PAD to also start talking to Assembly of the Poor and others and turn this into a more inclusive, Thailand-wide movement that bridges socio-economic divides…
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Don, I am in full agreement with you that current policy approaches that haven’t moved beyond isolationism need far more historically and culturally informed analysis in order to tangibly contribute to any sort of positive change in Burma. I believe that this was Thant Myint-U’s underlying argument in The River of Lost Footsteps. I also share Jon Fernquest’s frustration (perhaps he wrote this in a different thread) at various US administrations using Burma as a ‘whipping boy’ in an attempt at recouping from the moral deficit of their gross human rights violating policies elsewhere in the world.
However, I don’t think that the failure of isolationism means foreign policy on Burma should swing to the other extreme. The polarisation of the discussions on engagement with the Burma has been extremely limiting. On the on hand we have those who argue that there can be no improvement in the conditions of people presently living in Burma until there is regime change and on the other hand we have those who argue that only unconditional economic investment and ostensibly ‘apolitical’ development programmes can (and necessarily will) lead to an improvement in the situation for those in the country. Actually, I don’t think that many people hold either extreme but occasionally we hear accusations that those leaning towards more engagement are ‘apologists for the regime’ or ‘enemies of the revolution’ while those concerned about the harmful fallout of politically blind economic investment and development programmes in the immediate and long-term are selfish ideologues willing to hold the population of Burma hostage to long term political goals narrowly defined as regime change.
Somewhere in between these two extremes is a form of engagement that is politically aware and supports local structures that challenge the totalising and exploitative efforts of the SPDC. I think that Ashley South’s 2004 article “Political Transition in Burma: A new model for democratisation,” in Contemporary Southeast Asia is a useful step in this direction. I think that a further step would be a deeper understanding of what Benedict Kerkvliet called ‘everyday politics’ and a form of engagement that supports local people’s own efforts to resist exploitative implementation of State policy. This could involve incorporating greater ‘protection’ efforts into existing programmes of humanitarian agencies working in Burma. I think that the International Labour Organisation has done some positive work in this direction. Anyway, I’m also not a policy maker but this middle way seems a possible means of getting beyond the polarised debate on engagement.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
re: Chris Fry, et al.
My given name is “Lleij,” and, for the future, I kindly ask you to use it (or Mr. Schwartz if you’re more comfortable with that) when addressing me. Thank you.
Secondly, as for Tak Bai vs. Oct 6th, 1976, while I find Prof. Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s tone to be distasteful, I share his concern against the trend for moral equivalency that is quite common in Thai political discource. (Thaksin = Hitler, anyone?)
I think that we can all agree with Sidh that the events at Thammasat, Tak Bai, Kru Sae, ect. were abuses of state power; the question is to what degree? To borrow terminology from common law (yes, I know Thailand follows civil law), we must determine the mens rea of each event before we can declare them equivalent. From what I know of each event, I would classify Thammasat (6/Oct/76) as first degree murder, i.e. the premeditated and malicious killing of human beings. Tak Bai, on the other hand, I would classify as negligent manslaughter, that is, there was no intent to kill but death occured from extreme negligence and/or recklessness.
Krue Sae, in case anyone was wondering, would be the totally justified, albeit unpopular, killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as recognized by all conventions of international law.
So the question remains, what degree of murder justifies the military overthrow of a civil government?
Time for AusAID to rethink Burma
Gee thanks, Dan, for putting your life on the line and telling us like it is. I’m not worthy. When’s your book coming out BTW?
Would you like Tsa Pi with that?
[…] But no matter how much we devote ourselves to issues in mainland Southeast Asia we all still need to eat. And on a day when Gordon Brown is telling those of us in Britain to stop wasting food it seems […]
Time for AusAID to rethink Burma
I was just trying to give you firsthand information that, as self credited Burma experts, you might like to consider.
I know it’s not the first battle and I know damn well it’s not going to be the last.
Why don’t you put your life on the line instead of tapping away at your keyboard in comfort?
And what is the price of fish at the moment mate?
Or salt?
Or petrol?
You wouldn’t know would you, because you’re not here.
Time to go home
Let me play Devil’s Advocate – as an educated Thai.
In Defense of PAD: “Perverted form of democracy” is a result of “Everyone Who Knows Whats Going On In Thai Democracy” to find a way to Rid Thaksin from wasting so much quality time from Thai people’s lives, from having to talk day after day in family outings just about this unscrupulous character. The same way corrupt, the most corrupt, the most hideous politicians still stay in power despite being bad. You guys in Australia – imagine if you had Mr. Hitler as a prime minister because 70% of the population are voting him- and you grumble your golden years day in and day out.
Why do these bad characters STILL exist in the Thai landscape, where people are generally very kind at heart? The rural Thailand, vast 60-70% of the population who fall prey – day after day, year after year, decade after decade. I can predict another decade OR EVEN MY LIFETIME -or so before a rurul poor Thai is to know he is not supposed to sell his vote!
I’m no expert in democracy but understanding of its true fundaments – the Best Lousiest form of government in general, the Worst Form of Government for a country “with Gullibles and a Thaksin that Turns Tricks”.
That is why I think another form of government – whilst preserving ‘representation’ and a strong free press which is important in democracy — is worth looking at; How to get the Best Minds to Govern the country, and to prevent -I’m sorry to say- the Uneducated Gullible from bringing back the Freaks to Govern the Country.
There you go my Nelson Mandela oops Mandala friends 🙂
Ok – back to the ‘Ideal Form of Government’ – everybody votes and each count the same; I would prefer if this is the case — if and only if they do according to my ingenious Kuson Maneuver Proposal: the Uneducated Gullibles (and everyone alike) get to swear, before they cast their ballot, that “They Will Not Vote To The Party That Sell Votes”. This way, voters, however gullible, get best of both worlds- the money they get from the transaction and the vote they give to the good guys. Perhaps also a Best Practices pamphlet, the country should strategize to vote mainly 2 political parties in, because Coalition Governments in my experience truly su*k and get nothing done; 2 parties is a good check and balance.
I dunno. Maybe I’m just mumbling.
The price of salt in Myanmar
The junta does not care about fuel price, riot monk, or bodies floating around. What make you think they would care about salt price?
The people can alway get salt from their sweat and tear…
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Dear Jon: Burmese leaders have been isolationist for centuries not just since the 1950s. This is part of a deeply introverted tradtion stemming from an inland kingdom with little outside contact until the arrival of the British, whose conquest of Burma further fueled xenophobia and dislike for meddling foreigners. Now a few western educated Burmese seem to think they can just wipe this long heritage off the books and Burma will instantaneously become a well adjusted modern nation. This will not happen. Overcoming the long heritage of isolation will inevitably be a slow process and those poorly informed international groups who wish to isolate the country further are just retarding movement in this direction. That approach betrays a total lack of knowledge about Burmese history and an incredible arrogance which can be described in my view as a new form of imperialism. You may not be a policy maker but I think you understand the incredients of a sound policy toward Burma. Unfortunately the so-called policy makers do not and are so full of themselves that they refuse to listen to anyone who tells them they are on the wrong track. It is understandable that Burmese like Moe Aung want to hope for a positive outcome but in my view hope alone will not do the trick. It will also require serious analysis and knowledge of the underlying historical and cultural factors which have produced the present impasse, and then a policy approach which takes all this into consideration. At this point that does not seem very likely any time soon.
Time to go home
[…] Andrew Walker over at New Mandala has a good take on the public protests by the PAD (People’s Alliance for Democracy) in Bangkok lately. These protests have largely revolved around the nationalist complaint that the recognition of Cambodia’s historic and legal claim to Preah Vihea temple amounts to the abdication of Thai territory and sovreignty. It’s total b.s., of course, as even Minister of Foreign Affairs Noppadon – who originally stood by the agreement and correctly argued that no territory nor sovreignty was lost – has now capitulated and simply started blaming the last government. Andrew writes: But I strongly suspect that the PA(S)D doesn’t want to go home (though court orders and a lack of mass support may force them to). They don’t want to leave the streets because they are not really interested in the specific issues that they have used to attack the government. These issues are just convenient tools. Government backdowns mean nothing because the PA(S)D has a much more ambitious agenda. […]
Time to go home
Sidh: I was responding to: “They have done much in this new Thai phenomena of civic ultra-assertiveness…”. My point is that they were on a well-worn path. The injustice I refer to is that you ignore all of the others who have been shot, beaten etc. Sort of in concert with your willingness to only want justice for Thaksin and his mob and not those responsible for smashing earlier attempts at “civic ultra-assertiveness.” Don’t recall many of the PADites getting this treatment. But maybe you just display your own eccentricity.
Frankly, I find it eccentric that you consider PAD + Tulakarnphiwat is exciting and positive (not your word). Nothing wrong with the rule of law, but plenty wrong with PAD, which is in danger of becoming ultra-right wing. The two together bring to mind earlier examples of parties that controlled the courts to defeat their enemies. Even the Nation has recently managed to recognise this potential threat.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Actually I prefer the image of Robert DeNiro’s Travis Bickle (“you looking at me?”) than a ‘grassroot – lower class’ person.
I’ve never planted rice, but does mun sumparang qualify me as a prole?
But while we’re on the subject of taxi drivers, and a more serious note, I’ve always believed Nuamthong Praiwan deserves to be remembered forever for what he did (the initial ‘stupid’ act that got him noticed, that is).
Now back to the catnip.
Fox news cliche or not (I don’t know because I’ve watched so very little Fox News but enough to know to never watch it again), my point still stands.
So stupid Tak Bai mother has to campaign for people to vote for, ummm, the Democrats? Does she have to travel from her home to Isan and the North to do this too? I guess in your world, she just HAS to accept that since the majority think its no big deal, all she can do is campaign to change people’s vote at the next elections…She should not expect equal access to justice under the law.
So, if Les Majeste was abolished, all YOU would do is to educate the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so) of 6 Tula and other abuses and then call for a referendum on the King? You would not try to seek justice through the justice system? I guess not, from your logic.
The Thai state: doing some things right
” The thing that just about every blogger on Thai issues ( both Thai & non-Thai) usually forgets is that they will never be a true part of the real equation. We will never be anything other than spectators. Spectators with bad seats too…”
Well put efg!
Here, I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the real Thais who are ” doing some things right” according to Andrew – I would argue that they have done MANY things right, not just some. I know many of them personally – from classmates and contemporaries who finished undergraduate studies together to those who finished their education abroad and chose to go back to enter the strait-jacket system of the Thai bureaucracy (I must also include those in the private sector doing work for the state) and do the best they could within the system’s constraints. I get to catch up with them once a year – yes, they complain a lot about the corruption, the collusion, the patronage (etc…etc…) – while keeping themselves in check so as not to be ‘swallowed’ by the system over the decade-plus. Those with family also have real worries of their children’s education and future prospects (and sometimes succumb). It is indeed an honor to have their acquantance (and, come to think of it, I should actually let them know the next time I drop by if it is worth anything).
As you said, efg, I am a spectator here – although I have many ‘good seats’ via my family and friends who are doing the best they can in their jobs for the country… Thanks Andrew for reporting some positive news too!
Time to go home
Ofcourse they are Reg Varney, no debates there. I can see that you equate failing to mention with injustice! To each, their charming eccentricities! Besides if you actually read Andrew’s blog, it’s on the PAD and not on other groups – so I am not completely sure why you raised those points considering you are well aware of their inherent differences. I added the suffix “ultra” to differentiate PAD – as Andrew added the “(S)”. For me it is an broad reflection of Thailand’s overall “Sufficient” (in Andrew’s twist, not the original) Democracy that middle-class Bangkokian protesters can bring down governments, poor rural protestors are totally ignored (such the many years of the Assembly of the Poor you mentioned), while Southern ones get massacred.
I actually find the PAD phenomenon and the parallel ‘Tulakarnphiwat’ quite exciting. I only hope that it is not short-lived – being only inspired by the one-man-phenomena of PMThaksin – only to lose traction and resume business-as-usual when he is dealt with. If the rule of law starts applying robustly to abusers higher up the socio-economic ladder – it is an excellent start (or re-start – as we had that promising period after the passage and early implementation of the 1997 Constitution). Fingers-crossed the new culture also becomes a new tradition.
Time to go home
Sidh: you do a another injustice to many people who have struggled for years to participate. As Nidhi has pointed out about a month ago, Bangkok’s streets have long been filled by people asserting a right to participate. You apparently ignore years of AOP and other farmers organisations. Why are those struggles not worth thinking about as forms of “civic assertiveness?”
And, when wasn’t PAD going down the less democratic path? My feeling is that you need to go back to its first iteration, before it was hijacked by Chamlong and Sondhi.
The Thai state: doing some things right
efg: puff away.
The Thai state: doing some things right
But Frank, don’t you think that what is called corruption here might be locally defined in Thailand and that some might just think it an issue here as well, irrespective of what the US government does or what people there think?
I’m not suggesting that there is no corruption in the US, but I am not sure what that actually has to do with the current and recent debates in Thailand.
I’m also not suggesting that various interests in the US (and other places too) don’t try to influence thinking and policy on corruption internationally.
But I am suggesting that all the surveys and writing done here (and a lot of the politics that goes on) has much to do with local concerns about corruption.
The Thai state: doing some things right
Reg –
Just for the record, I could fill page after page of this blog with examples of what I and most other people (including in Thailand and Asia) would consider to be corruption here in the USA. And every bit of it is “legal”.
The underlying issue here that needs to be dealt with at some point is that the USA wants to impose its version of legalized corruption on the world in general, and in the developing world in particular. A haphazard system of corruption in a place like Thailand makes it far more difficult for the USA to impose its supposedly superior western values.
The Thai state: doing some things right
😉 The thing that just about every blogger on Thai issues ( both Thai & non-Thai) usually forgets is that they will never be a true part of the real equation. We will never be anything other than spectators. Spectators with bad seats too. One’s political efforts and comments are actually better off invested elsewhere. That doesn’t stop you enjoying the country, but don’t for one minute run away with the idea that you can contribute to a change process here. The same goes for most Thais too. However, apoplectic they drive themselves in either ultra-nash or dodgy fashion-statement phoney socialist forums.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
“We must expose and fight the Tulakarnphiwat because it is the abuses of judicial authority. But we need not go as far as to say that a govt is free from legal accountability.”
fed-up observer, if PMSamak (a right-wing royalist) laments against Tulakarnphiwat, it could be a good thing.
“Samak frets about judicial meddling” in:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/07/07/politics/politics_30077436.php
‘р╕кр╕бр╕▒р╕Др╕г’р╕нр╣Йр╕▓р╕Зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕лр╣Ир╕зр╕З р╕нр╣Нр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г in:
http://www.thairath.co.th/offline.php?section=hotnews&content=96111
I say let Tulakarnphiwat run its full course. From the current low base, minimal accountability and rule of law, it may not be the right time to fight it yet. Keep tabs on it, yes. If it becomes blatantly abusive and corrupt (e.g. when the bribes are raised from 2 million to billions), a PAD-style civic ultra-assertiveness must be on the cards.