With that last paragraph, you do sound like Polpot Teth. It implies a rather radical, violent ‘impractical’ position. You must outline your manifesto Teth – how do we get to your utopia?
The key difference is that I don’t desire to kill or brainwash or become what my opposition is. But carry on with your Polpot references.
Alternatively, how do we get to your utopia, Sidh? Pray that Thaksin (and all politicians, bureaucrats, police, judges, military officers, citizens) respect the rule of law overnight? Or that a law (eg a charter) will suddenly bestow respect for the rule of law upon a people who have no respect for the rule of law?
All that I’m saying is that I’m sick and tired of the PAD’s hidden agendas, the Government’s incompetency, the media’s biases and failures to do their job, the rotten criminal justice system, the backward educational system, and us Thais who continue to preach but never practice what we preach. So instead of continuing to preach (rather ineffectively, I must add), Sidh, how can we change Thai society? Instead of mourning the 1997 constitution’s inability to create grassroots political change, why don’t we the People do it?
Attitudinal change and practicing what you preach is what we need.
Another problematic view is that 1976 seems to be a watershed for you – for goodness sakes Teth, you were a baby at most, you will never fully comprehend those times and places. You lived through 1992, 1997, War on Drugs, Krue-sae, Takbai – what is your take on those? I understand from some past comments that you consider yourself a ‘good Buddhist’ – please focus on the here and now…
You sound like Samak talking to that female reporter with his very brash accent. “Were you born yet?” “How old are you?”
I still await you to offer something substantial with regards to evidence, but that argument was long ago. Even then, you have again failed to understand my point. I am not saying the monarchy is evil, but I am attacking your version of the “benevolent, kind, all-knowingly good” bunch of white haired (or hairless) men. In fact, you denied its existence. That you now move towards a less emetic view was exactly my goal (all your rubbish about agencies and factors was what I wanted to hear).
I am not a good Buddhist nor did I ever claim to be one. I simply take pleasure in pointing out Thai people’s contradictions and hypocrisy.
So, Sidh, how old are you anyways? Still have some energy left to change some things?
“No comments here? Is it because PMSamak is already bound for merely a footnote in Thailand’s political and democratic history?”
No, no comments from me because i bought the book. It was only 160 baht. Looks interesting but it takes me a long time to read Thai.
I hope Samak hangs tough and stays in there. Because he’s been around for a long time and is considered as someone with impeccable “Royalist” ceredentials he could provide stability and a good mediating influence.
I also hope he would get some work done, like pass a law or two, make sure that none of those sneaky school fees slip through.
Even the argument that school fees are unavoidable for the best public schools is untenable. Poor kids should have just as equal access to the best public schools too.
One hears way too little from the media about the education and schools of poor people.
With that last paragraph, you do sound like Polpot Teth. It implies a rather radical, violent ‘impractical’ position. You must outline your manifesto Teth – how do we get to your utopia?
Another problem with your position is that it has the benefit of hindsight. It is assuming that the Siamese elites of 60 years ago should have the foresight to see what the consequences of their decisions will be in 2008. I will just say that it is a safe bet that in 60 years the future generations reading these blogs will really be amused by our senile, irrelevant exchanges!
As I have implied in the last comment (that everyone has a price), it is commonsense that any person or institution will have ‘self-preservation’ as a fundamental objective. It is only human nature. A good, objective measurement of a person’s or an institution’s ‘altruism’ is how they contributed (or not) to the ‘greater good’ – which is never easy to define.
You also see these various ‘institutions’ as monolithic and incapable of change and adaptation. I beg to differ and evidence abound that the monarchy, the military, the parliament, the bureaucracy, businessmen, Thai society in 1932, 1976, 1992, 2006 have significantly evolved (and evolved together). There are multiple agencies, factors, events (internal, external, inbetween) influencing the highly complex course of contemporary Thai society and it is rather simplistic to reduce them the way many in NM like to. It may be useful to teach college freshmen courses, but it is highly misleading.
In your comment about bribing traffic police, you seem to agree that the ‘rule of law’ is critical in this change towards the ‘greater good’. I see it as fundamental – and it is embedded in the 1997 Constitution, which (and this might surprise you) also does not trust electoral politics, elected politicians, bureaucrats, the military – hence the ‘independent’ bodies, a more robust judiciary and the encouragement of civic participation in politics, which sadly has been underused or just ignored by politicians and bureaucrats as it threatens their power. And also partially because the 1997 Constitution has so far not been successful in generating grassroot activism, the onus are on the independent agencies and judiciary branch to be both free from interference and be bold and unbiased in the use of their significant new powers (and HMK did constantly encourage the judges appointed to be bold and do what is right – but you did not and refuse to hear that Teth – so there’s no ‘evidence’!).
Another problematic view is that 1976 seems to be a watershed for you – for goodness sakes Teth, you were a baby at most, you will never fully comprehend those times and places. You lived through 1992, 1997, War on Drugs, Krue-sae, Takbai – what is your take on those? I understand from some past comments that you consider yourself a ‘good Buddhist’ – please focus on the here and now…
And finally, because you live in a 1976 that you didn’t exist in, you are blind to the here and now. Again, evidences abound that the most powerful and influential person in Thailand 2001-present is (even during the coup government, he was omnipresent) … Guess who Teth? And why, I’d be very interested to know…
I’ll give you another clue, in the past 10 years there are people who try to adhere to the written law and there are others, formally in power most of that time and whose task is to uphold the law, but who instead blatantly either abused and ignore it.
Did you live through those 10 years Teth – it is rather enough time for those formally in power to reform society and build institutions according to the roadmap defined in the 1997 Constitution…
This must have been one of those rare instances where the writer was helped by a bad review. Imagine what it would have been like if the regime had responded positively to his work.
Bertil was so rightly proud of the following glorious review of ‘Outrage’ [White Lotus 1990] from the ‘Working People’s Daily’ [since re-named ‘New Light of Myanmar’], that he reproduced it below the blurb on the back-cover of his book: “… a pot-pourri of maliciously selected misrepresentations, misinterpretaqtions, fabrications, and rumour-sourced disinformation … by past master of malice, foreign journalist Bertil Lintner.” … pot … kettle … black – indeed !
[…] others also seem to be getting visas for Burma, even after the long-term (pre-cyclone) clampdown discussed here. Where there is a will there is often (it seems) a way…unless you are Bertil […]
To be frank, I have aged past those idealist sentiments.
But maybe you haven’t matured so much.
With your idealism, I don’t think you will acknowledge any of that Teth. The ’song mai oa’ position can be problematic as you clearly don’t want PMThaksin’s excesses on the one hand, but what is really on the other? In 2008, as in 1976, a return to the monarchy system was never on the cards anyway – so what is it that you also don’t want? Maybe ’song mai ao’ should just admit that they desire a republic, period – which is a position that will not aid Thai democracy in its current context. Meanwhile, the drama carries on in the streets of Bangkok, the parliament, the barracks, the palace, the internet sites regardless.
I don’t want a Republic, because it is unfeasible in Thailand, at least for the next 50 years. What I want is our monarchy to be like Japan’s emperor–meek, powerless, and under the power of elected politicians, no matter how evil.
The Old Guard is hardly angelic, Sidh. If you think that power corrupts, why would it not corrupt these people? “Their” 1997 constitution? I laugh, because you haven’t told me how “they” gave us that constitution. Maybe like how Rama VII “gave” us the first constitution? You have been unable to give me a reason or evidence of why the network monarchy doesn’t exist.
I maintain that if there’s such a thing as a ‘network monarchy’ they’ve retired since the passage of the 1997 Constitution leaving in place, what ‘they’ thought were structures for a strong rule of law with the Constitutional Court’s judicial wisdom to deal with corruption and any future societal conflicts in line with other mature democracies. PMThaksin’s assets concealment case put an end to that ideal… If the judges did their job then and not cower to power and money, PMThaksin will be out for five years (2001-2006) and, by today he’d likely be back as prime minister already… (and mechanisms to deal with corruption, conflicts of interests of politicians, bureacuats – including the military just might remain intact and have a chance to mature)
They could’ve put these structures up since the days of military rule. But did they do that?
In fact, this “network” has been famous for tearing these structures down coup by coup. In fact, refer to the early 1990s and see what HMK has to say about the critics of Suchinda’s constitution, which, startlingly, bears many similarities to the 2008 constitution.
Besides, the 2007 Constitution is mainly based on the 1997 one, with additions to reign in one man’s excesses – simple as that.
No, its not simple as that.
Its to entrench and empower “them”, because they don’t trust electoral politics, but its not simple as that either.
If it were about being institutional, they should know that one Constitution does not turn anything institutional overnight. They’ve had 60 years and what have they done except building up one institution?
If GenSonthi and co or ‘network monarchist’ or whatever one percieves it to be were that ruthless, why not just govern for the next decade (to match PMThaksin’s original plan of 21 years). If PMSurayud wants to retire ASAP, then GenSonthi can just step in. They staged a coup, they can write any rules they want. Why not just set up a kangaroo court and ban TRT for 100 years? No need to wait for proper judicial processes or evidences – just convict PMThaksin of the most horrendous crimes against Thai citizens (War on Drugs, Southern Unrest etc.) followed by the firing squad if he ever steps back into the country. Or do the Putin (PMThaksin’s good friend) and send an assasin to ManCity’s stadium…
If the kind, benevolent, loving, caring, peaceful, merciful, endearing, and not to mention senile bunch really wanted a strong democracy, they could’ve used their clout for the past 60 years. If they wanted rule of law, people in their own ranks would have to be punished (instead, there are pardons in place for the perpetrators of 6 Oct…and you wonder why Samak can’t be punished). If they were por pieng why do they seem to love their billion baht stocks, sports cars, and massive amounts of land? If they actually did “give” us the 1997 constitution, why did they not just amend it to exclude Thaksin rather than give power to themselves.
I’ll tell you why. They only care for themselves. They will not go out of their way to convict Thaksin because they can live with him! They can tolerate him (as they have tolerated military dictators and their tang daeng and lack of any rule of law) as long as he is distinctly subordinate to them. But if they did go out of their way to do what you listed, it would be a bigger PR disaster than the coup already was. Plus, it wouldn’t allow Sidh to justify their actions.
Basically, Sidh, what we have here is that every good thing that has happened to our country (1997 constitution, standing up against Thaksin) has been thanks to the old geezers. But when it comes to them being just as evil as Thaksin, its “They don’t exist.” Please give me a break. You say you’ve grown up and abandoned youthful ideals, but its clear you still believe in a childlike world of pure good versus pure evil that doesn’t actually exist. Hell, you’re already gathering arguments to preemptively support another “good” coup.
Maybe, in the futility of ’song mai oa’ in these times of high stakes and high tensions, what is your practical position Teth?
I have already shared you my position, that change cannot come from any of the senile, self serving elite. Thai people’s attitudes MUST change from the bottom up. If anti-Thaksin campaigners continue to bribe traffic police (as most urban Thais, anti-Thaksin or not do) how can you expect the likes of Thaksin to be gone from office?
The practical position is that we need to assault the very rotten core of Thai society and expose it for what it is, a backwards, hypocritical, and feudal society that it is. If anything, it is the cause for all this trouble.
Thank you. That was a very interesting debate to read and gives the reader a flavour of what NGO projects are like. I wish more articles that probe issues in Southeast Asian farming like this would make it into the media, thus providing much needed background information.
Thanks for this reference. The Wikipedia page you cited is really worth reading. It certainly shows that on both sides (government, opposition) there are a multiplicity of actors, standpoints, and interests, and is thus an antodote to the essentialism that pervades almost all reporting on Burma.
And my full encouragement to you Teth (Just don’t turn into a Polpot in the process!). Your ideals are truly commendable.
To be frank, I have aged past those idealist sentiments. At the end of the day, I believe, like PMThaksin, that ANYONE can be bought. If PMThaksin throws me Ericksson’s salary for me to do good PR for him on NM (or anywhere else for that matter), I will probably take it…
Based on that, I have considered all ‘evidences’ (and projection exercises) and I, like Nganadeeleg, prefer the ‘Old Guard’ any time. Compared to the current incumbents (PMThaksin & co), they are retired, kind and aging grandfathers. Maybe if we put the Myanmese Junta at the other end of the spectrum, you might get the picture. Who is holding on to money and power at any cost to society (PAD and the pro-PPP opponents are now rallying on the streets – raising the possibility of another coup)?
I maintain that if there’s such a thing as a ‘network monarchy’ they’ve retired since the passage of the 1997 Constitution leaving in place, what ‘they’ thought were structures for a strong rule of law with the Constitutional Court’s judicial wisdom to deal with corruption and any future societal conflicts in line with other mature democracies. PMThaksin’s assets concealment case put an end to that ideal… If the judges did their job then and not cower to power and money, PMThaksin will be out for five years (2001-2006) and, by today he’d likely be back as prime minister already… (and mechanisms to deal with corruption, conflicts of interests of politicians, bureacuats – including the military just might remain intact and have a chance to mature)
PMThaksin tore the 1997 Constitution there and then (and his intents were later confirmed anyway with the manipulation of ‘independent’ agencies and institutions) long before GenSonthi and co staged a coup. Besides, the 2007 Constitution is mainly based on the 1997 one, with additions to reign in one man’s excesses – simple as that.
If GenSonthi and co or ‘network monarchist’ or whatever one percieves it to be were that ruthless, why not just govern for the next decade (to match PMThaksin’s original plan of 21 years). If PMSurayud wants to retire ASAP, then GenSonthi can just step in. They staged a coup, they can write any rules they want. Why not just set up a kangaroo court and ban TRT for 100 years? No need to wait for proper judicial processes or evidences – just convict PMThaksin of the most horrendous crimes against Thai citizens (War on Drugs, Southern Unrest etc.) followed by the firing squad if he ever steps back into the country. Or do the Putin (PMThaksin’s good friend) and send an assasin to ManCity’s stadium…
With your idealism, I don’t think you will acknowledge any of that Teth. The ‘song mai oa’ position can be problematic as you clearly don’t want PMThaksin’s excesses on the one hand, but what is really on the other? In 2008, as in 1976, a return to the monarchy system was never on the cards anyway – so what is it that you also don’t want? Maybe ‘song mai ao’ should just admit that they desire a republic, period – which is a position that will not aid Thai democracy in its current context. Meanwhile, the drama carries on in the streets of Bangkok, the parliament, the barracks, the palace, the internet sites regardless.
PMThaksin has played his card – and hence, another coup is in the offing. The main objective of this coup might just be to ensure that cases against PMThaksin and his partners in corruption are properly tried in court (something PMThaksin clearly does not want). If that happens, there’s a likelihood that this will be the last coup.
While if PMThaksin gets his way and is white-washed of all wrong-doings, expect this new mega-scale of corruption and conflict of interests to be the norm for Thai society of the future.
Maybe, in the futility of ‘song mai oa’ in these times of high stakes and high tensions, what is your practical position Teth?
“Khun Tongdaeng” probably symbolizes the idea that no Thai may approach the canine stage of development. This is confirmed by the fact that no Thai, but rather a Cerberus incarnation, is allowed to sit in a seat next to HMK’s.
Incidentally, we hear nowadays of a team of Thai doctors under the patronage of the CP (not chicken product) going to help the Burmese. I wonder who foots the bill for this team, the taxpayers or the Divine Being? This kind of thing should be put in a proper perspective, or it must be said, “Pity the Thai people.” Isn’t it against Buddhism or Islam to file a false claim?
i would like to make you clear that we singpho are never a part of Naga group. its our universal belief that make them think so. Acc. to our belief we are son of our great great grandfather ie SHAPAWNG YOUNG and he has got five brother among them are britishers as the eldest then chinese,and the naga are the immediate elder brother of him.
so i think this will be sufficient to refute the claims made by naga.
About the of singpho people’s i would like to say that there are many singpho who have been converted to assamese after adopting “NAAM DHARAM” cult who have been staying with assamese people after having war with them in the yesteryear but many of are coming back to their own community after our people started celebrating shapawng festival and this is the greatness of this festival. where the zig-zag logo in the ”MANAU SHADUNG” indicates wherever you are ”YOU ARE YOU WILL COME BACK AGAIN” . Thats all
I, too, thought it was very odd that the DKBA was having problems with the SPDC.
As many people know, the DKBA broke away from the KNLA because they (the DBKA) felt that they were getting short shrift from the KNU leadership.
The DBKA made peace with the SPDC, and then went on to attack the KNLA at every opportunity.
In addition, it’s said that they guard the drug labs and smugglers for the SPDC.
The “U.N. rep” is also pretty strange. I sort of wonder if it was just some guy passing himself off as one so he could gain access.
Dear Jonfernquest:
Yours is a rhetorical question. No sir (or madam), no act under a patronage system is a rule by law. It is maa-moo (dogs in melee) rulelessness!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Samak’s talents!
With that last paragraph, you do sound like Polpot Teth. It implies a rather radical, violent ‘impractical’ position. You must outline your manifesto Teth – how do we get to your utopia?
The key difference is that I don’t desire to kill or brainwash or become what my opposition is. But carry on with your Polpot references.
Alternatively, how do we get to your utopia, Sidh? Pray that Thaksin (and all politicians, bureaucrats, police, judges, military officers, citizens) respect the rule of law overnight? Or that a law (eg a charter) will suddenly bestow respect for the rule of law upon a people who have no respect for the rule of law?
All that I’m saying is that I’m sick and tired of the PAD’s hidden agendas, the Government’s incompetency, the media’s biases and failures to do their job, the rotten criminal justice system, the backward educational system, and us Thais who continue to preach but never practice what we preach. So instead of continuing to preach (rather ineffectively, I must add), Sidh, how can we change Thai society? Instead of mourning the 1997 constitution’s inability to create grassroots political change, why don’t we the People do it?
Attitudinal change and practicing what you preach is what we need.
Another problematic view is that 1976 seems to be a watershed for you – for goodness sakes Teth, you were a baby at most, you will never fully comprehend those times and places. You lived through 1992, 1997, War on Drugs, Krue-sae, Takbai – what is your take on those? I understand from some past comments that you consider yourself a ‘good Buddhist’ – please focus on the here and now…
You sound like Samak talking to that female reporter with his very brash accent. “Were you born yet?” “How old are you?”
I still await you to offer something substantial with regards to evidence, but that argument was long ago. Even then, you have again failed to understand my point. I am not saying the monarchy is evil, but I am attacking your version of the “benevolent, kind, all-knowingly good” bunch of white haired (or hairless) men. In fact, you denied its existence. That you now move towards a less emetic view was exactly my goal (all your rubbish about agencies and factors was what I wanted to hear).
I am not a good Buddhist nor did I ever claim to be one. I simply take pleasure in pointing out Thai people’s contradictions and hypocrisy.
So, Sidh, how old are you anyways? Still have some energy left to change some things?
Samak’s talents!
“No comments here? Is it because PMSamak is already bound for merely a footnote in Thailand’s political and democratic history?”
No, no comments from me because i bought the book. It was only 160 baht. Looks interesting but it takes me a long time to read Thai.
I hope Samak hangs tough and stays in there. Because he’s been around for a long time and is considered as someone with impeccable “Royalist” ceredentials he could provide stability and a good mediating influence.
I also hope he would get some work done, like pass a law or two, make sure that none of those sneaky school fees slip through.
Even the argument that school fees are unavoidable for the best public schools is untenable. Poor kids should have just as equal access to the best public schools too.
One hears way too little from the media about the education and schools of poor people.
Thomas Bleming in the news
New Mandala readers keen to read Thomas Bleming’s take on the post-cyclone situation in Burma will find this opinion piece worth a look.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Samak’s talents!
With that last paragraph, you do sound like Polpot Teth. It implies a rather radical, violent ‘impractical’ position. You must outline your manifesto Teth – how do we get to your utopia?
Another problem with your position is that it has the benefit of hindsight. It is assuming that the Siamese elites of 60 years ago should have the foresight to see what the consequences of their decisions will be in 2008. I will just say that it is a safe bet that in 60 years the future generations reading these blogs will really be amused by our senile, irrelevant exchanges!
As I have implied in the last comment (that everyone has a price), it is commonsense that any person or institution will have ‘self-preservation’ as a fundamental objective. It is only human nature. A good, objective measurement of a person’s or an institution’s ‘altruism’ is how they contributed (or not) to the ‘greater good’ – which is never easy to define.
You also see these various ‘institutions’ as monolithic and incapable of change and adaptation. I beg to differ and evidence abound that the monarchy, the military, the parliament, the bureaucracy, businessmen, Thai society in 1932, 1976, 1992, 2006 have significantly evolved (and evolved together). There are multiple agencies, factors, events (internal, external, inbetween) influencing the highly complex course of contemporary Thai society and it is rather simplistic to reduce them the way many in NM like to. It may be useful to teach college freshmen courses, but it is highly misleading.
In your comment about bribing traffic police, you seem to agree that the ‘rule of law’ is critical in this change towards the ‘greater good’. I see it as fundamental – and it is embedded in the 1997 Constitution, which (and this might surprise you) also does not trust electoral politics, elected politicians, bureaucrats, the military – hence the ‘independent’ bodies, a more robust judiciary and the encouragement of civic participation in politics, which sadly has been underused or just ignored by politicians and bureaucrats as it threatens their power. And also partially because the 1997 Constitution has so far not been successful in generating grassroot activism, the onus are on the independent agencies and judiciary branch to be both free from interference and be bold and unbiased in the use of their significant new powers (and HMK did constantly encourage the judges appointed to be bold and do what is right – but you did not and refuse to hear that Teth – so there’s no ‘evidence’!).
Another problematic view is that 1976 seems to be a watershed for you – for goodness sakes Teth, you were a baby at most, you will never fully comprehend those times and places. You lived through 1992, 1997, War on Drugs, Krue-sae, Takbai – what is your take on those? I understand from some past comments that you consider yourself a ‘good Buddhist’ – please focus on the here and now…
And finally, because you live in a 1976 that you didn’t exist in, you are blind to the here and now. Again, evidences abound that the most powerful and influential person in Thailand 2001-present is (even during the coup government, he was omnipresent) … Guess who Teth? And why, I’d be very interested to know…
I’ll give you another clue, in the past 10 years there are people who try to adhere to the written law and there are others, formally in power most of that time and whose task is to uphold the law, but who instead blatantly either abused and ignore it.
Did you live through those 10 years Teth – it is rather enough time for those formally in power to reform society and build institutions according to the roadmap defined in the 1997 Constitution…
Burma journalists given the boot, and the like
This must have been one of those rare instances where the writer was helped by a bad review. Imagine what it would have been like if the regime had responded positively to his work.
Burma journalists given the boot, and the like
Bertil was so rightly proud of the following glorious review of ‘Outrage’ [White Lotus 1990] from the ‘Working People’s Daily’ [since re-named ‘New Light of Myanmar’], that he reproduced it below the blurb on the back-cover of his book: “… a pot-pourri of maliciously selected misrepresentations, misinterpretaqtions, fabrications, and rumour-sourced disinformation … by past master of malice, foreign journalist Bertil Lintner.” … pot … kettle … black – indeed !
Reporting from Naypyidaw…or Sittwe…or Traders Hotel
[…] others also seem to be getting visas for Burma, even after the long-term (pre-cyclone) clampdown discussed here. Where there is a will there is often (it seems) a way…unless you are Bertil […]
Samak’s talents!
To be frank, I have aged past those idealist sentiments.
But maybe you haven’t matured so much.
With your idealism, I don’t think you will acknowledge any of that Teth. The ’song mai oa’ position can be problematic as you clearly don’t want PMThaksin’s excesses on the one hand, but what is really on the other? In 2008, as in 1976, a return to the monarchy system was never on the cards anyway – so what is it that you also don’t want? Maybe ’song mai ao’ should just admit that they desire a republic, period – which is a position that will not aid Thai democracy in its current context. Meanwhile, the drama carries on in the streets of Bangkok, the parliament, the barracks, the palace, the internet sites regardless.
I don’t want a Republic, because it is unfeasible in Thailand, at least for the next 50 years. What I want is our monarchy to be like Japan’s emperor–meek, powerless, and under the power of elected politicians, no matter how evil.
The Old Guard is hardly angelic, Sidh. If you think that power corrupts, why would it not corrupt these people? “Their” 1997 constitution? I laugh, because you haven’t told me how “they” gave us that constitution. Maybe like how Rama VII “gave” us the first constitution? You have been unable to give me a reason or evidence of why the network monarchy doesn’t exist.
I maintain that if there’s such a thing as a ‘network monarchy’ they’ve retired since the passage of the 1997 Constitution leaving in place, what ‘they’ thought were structures for a strong rule of law with the Constitutional Court’s judicial wisdom to deal with corruption and any future societal conflicts in line with other mature democracies. PMThaksin’s assets concealment case put an end to that ideal… If the judges did their job then and not cower to power and money, PMThaksin will be out for five years (2001-2006) and, by today he’d likely be back as prime minister already… (and mechanisms to deal with corruption, conflicts of interests of politicians, bureacuats – including the military just might remain intact and have a chance to mature)
They could’ve put these structures up since the days of military rule. But did they do that?
In fact, this “network” has been famous for tearing these structures down coup by coup. In fact, refer to the early 1990s and see what HMK has to say about the critics of Suchinda’s constitution, which, startlingly, bears many similarities to the 2008 constitution.
Besides, the 2007 Constitution is mainly based on the 1997 one, with additions to reign in one man’s excesses – simple as that.
No, its not simple as that.
Its to entrench and empower “them”, because they don’t trust electoral politics, but its not simple as that either.
If it were about being institutional, they should know that one Constitution does not turn anything institutional overnight. They’ve had 60 years and what have they done except building up one institution?
If GenSonthi and co or ‘network monarchist’ or whatever one percieves it to be were that ruthless, why not just govern for the next decade (to match PMThaksin’s original plan of 21 years). If PMSurayud wants to retire ASAP, then GenSonthi can just step in. They staged a coup, they can write any rules they want. Why not just set up a kangaroo court and ban TRT for 100 years? No need to wait for proper judicial processes or evidences – just convict PMThaksin of the most horrendous crimes against Thai citizens (War on Drugs, Southern Unrest etc.) followed by the firing squad if he ever steps back into the country. Or do the Putin (PMThaksin’s good friend) and send an assasin to ManCity’s stadium…
If the kind, benevolent, loving, caring, peaceful, merciful, endearing, and not to mention senile bunch really wanted a strong democracy, they could’ve used their clout for the past 60 years. If they wanted rule of law, people in their own ranks would have to be punished (instead, there are pardons in place for the perpetrators of 6 Oct…and you wonder why Samak can’t be punished). If they were por pieng why do they seem to love their billion baht stocks, sports cars, and massive amounts of land? If they actually did “give” us the 1997 constitution, why did they not just amend it to exclude Thaksin rather than give power to themselves.
I’ll tell you why. They only care for themselves. They will not go out of their way to convict Thaksin because they can live with him! They can tolerate him (as they have tolerated military dictators and their tang daeng and lack of any rule of law) as long as he is distinctly subordinate to them. But if they did go out of their way to do what you listed, it would be a bigger PR disaster than the coup already was. Plus, it wouldn’t allow Sidh to justify their actions.
Basically, Sidh, what we have here is that every good thing that has happened to our country (1997 constitution, standing up against Thaksin) has been thanks to the old geezers. But when it comes to them being just as evil as Thaksin, its “They don’t exist.” Please give me a break. You say you’ve grown up and abandoned youthful ideals, but its clear you still believe in a childlike world of pure good versus pure evil that doesn’t actually exist. Hell, you’re already gathering arguments to preemptively support another “good” coup.
Maybe, in the futility of ’song mai oa’ in these times of high stakes and high tensions, what is your practical position Teth?
I have already shared you my position, that change cannot come from any of the senile, self serving elite. Thai people’s attitudes MUST change from the bottom up. If anti-Thaksin campaigners continue to bribe traffic police (as most urban Thais, anti-Thaksin or not do) how can you expect the likes of Thaksin to be gone from office?
The practical position is that we need to assault the very rotten core of Thai society and expose it for what it is, a backwards, hypocritical, and feudal society that it is. If anything, it is the cause for all this trouble.
The political economy of rice seed
Thank you. That was a very interesting debate to read and gives the reader a flavour of what NGO projects are like. I wish more articles that probe issues in Southeast Asian farming like this would make it into the media, thus providing much needed background information.
Cyclone Nargis discussion at the ANU
[…] couple of weeks ago I mentioned the discussion being held at the ANU in relation to Cyclone Nargis. I didn’t write up a report immediately […]
The Irrawaddy interviews Zarni
Thanks for this reference. The Wikipedia page you cited is really worth reading. It certainly shows that on both sides (government, opposition) there are a multiplicity of actors, standpoints, and interests, and is thus an antodote to the essentialism that pervades almost all reporting on Burma.
Samak’s talents!
And my full encouragement to you Teth (Just don’t turn into a Polpot in the process!). Your ideals are truly commendable.
To be frank, I have aged past those idealist sentiments. At the end of the day, I believe, like PMThaksin, that ANYONE can be bought. If PMThaksin throws me Ericksson’s salary for me to do good PR for him on NM (or anywhere else for that matter), I will probably take it…
Based on that, I have considered all ‘evidences’ (and projection exercises) and I, like Nganadeeleg, prefer the ‘Old Guard’ any time. Compared to the current incumbents (PMThaksin & co), they are retired, kind and aging grandfathers. Maybe if we put the Myanmese Junta at the other end of the spectrum, you might get the picture. Who is holding on to money and power at any cost to society (PAD and the pro-PPP opponents are now rallying on the streets – raising the possibility of another coup)?
I maintain that if there’s such a thing as a ‘network monarchy’ they’ve retired since the passage of the 1997 Constitution leaving in place, what ‘they’ thought were structures for a strong rule of law with the Constitutional Court’s judicial wisdom to deal with corruption and any future societal conflicts in line with other mature democracies. PMThaksin’s assets concealment case put an end to that ideal… If the judges did their job then and not cower to power and money, PMThaksin will be out for five years (2001-2006) and, by today he’d likely be back as prime minister already… (and mechanisms to deal with corruption, conflicts of interests of politicians, bureacuats – including the military just might remain intact and have a chance to mature)
PMThaksin tore the 1997 Constitution there and then (and his intents were later confirmed anyway with the manipulation of ‘independent’ agencies and institutions) long before GenSonthi and co staged a coup. Besides, the 2007 Constitution is mainly based on the 1997 one, with additions to reign in one man’s excesses – simple as that.
If GenSonthi and co or ‘network monarchist’ or whatever one percieves it to be were that ruthless, why not just govern for the next decade (to match PMThaksin’s original plan of 21 years). If PMSurayud wants to retire ASAP, then GenSonthi can just step in. They staged a coup, they can write any rules they want. Why not just set up a kangaroo court and ban TRT for 100 years? No need to wait for proper judicial processes or evidences – just convict PMThaksin of the most horrendous crimes against Thai citizens (War on Drugs, Southern Unrest etc.) followed by the firing squad if he ever steps back into the country. Or do the Putin (PMThaksin’s good friend) and send an assasin to ManCity’s stadium…
With your idealism, I don’t think you will acknowledge any of that Teth. The ‘song mai oa’ position can be problematic as you clearly don’t want PMThaksin’s excesses on the one hand, but what is really on the other? In 2008, as in 1976, a return to the monarchy system was never on the cards anyway – so what is it that you also don’t want? Maybe ‘song mai ao’ should just admit that they desire a republic, period – which is a position that will not aid Thai democracy in its current context. Meanwhile, the drama carries on in the streets of Bangkok, the parliament, the barracks, the palace, the internet sites regardless.
PMThaksin has played his card – and hence, another coup is in the offing. The main objective of this coup might just be to ensure that cases against PMThaksin and his partners in corruption are properly tried in court (something PMThaksin clearly does not want). If that happens, there’s a likelihood that this will be the last coup.
While if PMThaksin gets his way and is white-washed of all wrong-doings, expect this new mega-scale of corruption and conflict of interests to be the norm for Thai society of the future.
Maybe, in the futility of ‘song mai oa’ in these times of high stakes and high tensions, what is your practical position Teth?
King denies royal rumour
“Khun Tongdaeng” probably symbolizes the idea that no Thai may approach the canine stage of development. This is confirmed by the fact that no Thai, but rather a Cerberus incarnation, is allowed to sit in a seat next to HMK’s.
Incidentally, we hear nowadays of a team of Thai doctors under the patronage of the CP (not chicken product) going to help the Burmese. I wonder who foots the bill for this team, the taxpayers or the Divine Being? This kind of thing should be put in a proper perspective, or it must be said, “Pity the Thai people.” Isn’t it against Buddhism or Islam to file a false claim?
Who should be on Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission?
It is pointless to have the so-called human rights when certain groups of Thai nationals are exempted from the enforcement of these rights.
Sufficiency coyote – “getting weird”
Judging from their economy of costume, these coyotes should be applauded for truly practicing sufficiency economy.
Ministers at the Arunachal Pradesh Manau
i would like to make you clear that we singpho are never a part of Naga group. its our universal belief that make them think so. Acc. to our belief we are son of our great great grandfather ie SHAPAWNG YOUNG and he has got five brother among them are britishers as the eldest then chinese,and the naga are the immediate elder brother of him.
so i think this will be sufficient to refute the claims made by naga.
About the of singpho people’s i would like to say that there are many singpho who have been converted to assamese after adopting “NAAM DHARAM” cult who have been staying with assamese people after having war with them in the yesteryear but many of are coming back to their own community after our people started celebrating shapawng festival and this is the greatness of this festival. where the zig-zag logo in the ”MANAU SHADUNG” indicates wherever you are ”YOU ARE YOU WILL COME BACK AGAIN” . Thats all
Pictures of the DKBA on the Thailand-Burma border
Thanks Brian M.,
Just what I was looking for – some clarification. It all makes a great deal more sense now.
Best wishes to all,
NIch
“Coup de blogs”: Gordon Brown on “people power” and Burma
Gordon Brown, Cyberutopian.
http://him.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2008/5/24/3708399.html
[him] moderator
******************************
Pictures of the DKBA on the Thailand-Burma border
I, too, thought it was very odd that the DKBA was having problems with the SPDC.
As many people know, the DKBA broke away from the KNLA because they (the DBKA) felt that they were getting short shrift from the KNU leadership.
The DBKA made peace with the SPDC, and then went on to attack the KNLA at every opportunity.
In addition, it’s said that they guard the drug labs and smugglers for the SPDC.
The “U.N. rep” is also pretty strange. I sort of wonder if it was just some guy passing himself off as one so he could gain access.
Will any of these sites get banned?
Dear Jonfernquest:
Yours is a rhetorical question. No sir (or madam), no act under a patronage system is a rule by law. It is maa-moo (dogs in melee) rulelessness!