I disagree with this boycott. Visiting Myanmar is not giving support to this stupid military government.
I think that if more foreigners go to Myanmar it will foster the opening of Burma: the sight of weathy visitors may but strengthen the will of the people to overthrow the generals for more democracy and a more opened economy.
The boycott of the Lonely is more helpful to Lonely’s competiters than to Burma’s people…
Does anyone else notice the kind of language our “leftist” critics of Thaksin and elcted politicians, like Michael or Ji, use nowsaday in regards to the monarch?
Michael:
The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman
In both contexts, it has been witness to terrible atrocities,
Just “witness”, Michael? 6 Tula?
Ji:
On occasions the king has supported modern [?!] democratic methods.
Wow! This is certainly new to me. “New kind of Socialists”. Polite, almost deferent to un-elected monarch, WITH SUCH “DISTINGUISHED” CARRER RECORDS (Sarit, 6 Tula, etc.)
So, by your excuse, HE doesn’t have to be held to account, for instance, for the role his chief’s adviser played in overthrowing the Contitution?
On the other hand, by any normal standard of democracy, since his adviser, his “circle” (remember the blue kerchief?) and possibly even he himself, violated the Constitution and the law (ka-bot) by which he himself “agreed to play”, WHY DON’T YOU ISSUE A CALL FOR HIS OUSTING AS YOU DID THAKSIN?
The monarchy has never really claimed a democratic mandate in any operative sense (despite allusions to an elective monarchy), nor has it ever been elected (and in so being elected, agreed to play by the rules of the game).
What kind of ‘explanation’ or excuse is this?
The monarchy in a DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY “agreed to play by the rule of the game” i.e. the Constitution.
As I said, the 1957 Proclmation appointing Sarit, urging people to obey Sarit was in DIRECT VIOLATION of the 1952 Constitution that the monarchy “agreed to play by [its] rules”
All other cases (6 Tula, 14 Tula, “Sapha Sanamma” even the overthrew of general elections by judges, not to mention the coup itself) are all instances of the VIOLATION of “the rules of the games” by which the monarchy “agreed to play”.
Don’t you know anything about the “rules” of Constitutional monarchy at all?
The kind of excuses you made for HIS behavior is really sad, and sickening.
Didn’t you write some thing about ” turn a blind eye to the palace’s history, ?
So it’s “obscure the issues of the present ” now to raise “historical injustice” and require them to be addressed?
So, let’s all worship HIM now for His “refusal” to use Article 7? Let’s now not say anything about Sarit, 6 Tula, etc? Let demand no justice to all those brutally murdered, least it’d “obscure” the “present injustice”?
Given the different forms of legitimacy in play, Somsak’s attempt to elicit from me a statement of equivalence regarding the monarchy (or more specifically Bhumiphol) and Thaksin is misguided. Thaksin was an elected prime minister and in entering an election he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game;
Didn’t you hear HMK claim in the 25 April speech that he ALWAYS acts according to the Constitution, or to use your language “he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game”
Now you criticises Thaksin by what you claims is a left-wing, socialt stance, why on earth do you now say “given the different forms of legitimacy in play” (see also the first paragraph: KMK “agreed” to “play by the rules …”)? Shouldn’t you apply the same “socilait” stance to both HMK and elected politicians?
…obscures the issues of the present and requires that to address present injustices requires that all historical injustices are addressed.
So for a “socialist”, 6 Tula is just “historical injustice” now? The three pages executed in King Anan’s case too? What about the so-call “juditiary revolution” that overthrew general elections? Too “historical”, not “present” enough as well? What about the 19 Sep coup itself? Where is your call to account for “the other side”?
1. “…the BBC Worldwide’s refusal to remove the book is in direct contradiction of the BBC’s own CSR statement, which acknowledges the corporation’s responsibility ‘for both the impact of our output and how we run our business.'”
2. “…we don’t believe it is possible for any company, including BBC Worldwide, to adopt a neutral position on the issue of travel to the country…
3. “…Holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime….”
Just an emotional declaration of “belief” ?
Where is the proof that not going to Burma, not engaging with Burma and Burmese people, not publishing a Burma guidebook, is the right thing to do?
Is this the whole argument that they provide to support their position?
The proof of the exact opposite is sitting in my friend’s email inbox.
Friends of his in Burma (both poor and middle income business owners who employ poorer people) who derive their income from the tourism industry complaining that they cannot make ends meet because there are no tourists anymore.
I think the logic runs something like this, because I am working in the area of human rights, I am by definition altruistic and doing good things for other people, without any self-interest, so trust me unconditionally, even though I present no hard evidence and engage in no debate.
(I have seen so many people making money under these pretenses, as NGOs or fundraisers. The latest being a hilltribe missionary canned after he was caught in a sexual indiscretion. He was more likely to be found on the golf course than helping people. Or pay to volunteer scams.)
If there are specific tourism projects that are violating human rights TUC should give details and be selective in targeting those specific projects *****and provide citations******* TUC staff members went to college, didn’t they?
Publications like that highly informative ANU publication with papers from the current state of Myanmar conference 2006 is what I’m talking about.
This is a hard one to call – does one wish to stop tourists entering Burma? That will only hurt the poor people. Or encourage tourism which suggest that Burma is a nice ‘tourist’ destination despite the junta?
I would focus efforts on China who are the main prop for the Military regime. But China does not have a history of budging on anything.
*sigh
Maybe Samak is trying to emulate Thanin – he’s already PM (also after being personally selected), so after a bit of ‘hunting’, he might be be on to the Privy Council.
I have no problem in arguing that monarchy is illegitimate from a political perspective that is based on equality of human beings, and indeed this is the drift of much of my work. Even if a vast majority of people voted for a monarchy, and provided that monarchy with immense wealth and power and elevated it to semi-divine status with arbitrary power to be lord of life, I would still consider it illegitimate, and would so argue (if my life and freedom and my loved ones were unharmed, otherwise I am afraid that I would most likely be more circumspect). I assume that Somsak would also argue that an elected hereditary institution was offensive and illegitimate, and so would go against the “popular will” in that instance.
I suspect that my view on monarchy is not shared by many people in Thailand, which points to the need to differentiate between judgement of legitimacy based on personal beliefs, and those based on wide social practise and beliefs, although of course the two often combine. The Thai monarchy’s legitimacy (in the sense of having won broad support based on self and state propagated principles) is rooted in the long history of the modern monarchy, ideological production and state-craft, and this is something even pro-Thaksin forces are unlikely to dispense with (as a resource for social order). The Thai monarchy’ hegemonic position is not merely a product of coercion, but rather rests in processes of identification and material compromise – a historical process. In that sense. I would say that to most Thai people the monarchy remains a legitimate institution (that legitimacy being based on principles related very indirectly to democracy).
Given the different forms of legitimacy in play, Somsak’s attempt to elicit from me a statement of equivalence regarding the monarchy (or more specifically Bhumiphol) and Thaksin is misguided. Thaksin was an elected prime minister and in entering an election he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game; in not doing so he forfeited his legitimacy, or so I would argue. I also recognise that to most Thais he remained the legitimate prime minister (one among various reasons why people reasonably opposed the coup). In any case, a coup was not a legitimate way to depose him, something I have always argued.
The monarchy has never really claimed a democratic mandate in any operative sense (despite allusions to an elective monarchy), nor has it ever been elected (and in so being elected, agreed to play by the rules of the game). Its assumed legitimacy is based on its own terms of Buddhist leadership and just rule etc. I would argue that the monarchy has been quite successful in propagating this form of legitimacy, and the Thaksin government supported such propagation.
In contrast to Thaksin’s relatively brief rule, the monarchy has risen and consolidated its position through close relations with authoritarian regimes over several generations, and has also adapted itself to semi-democratic forms of power (though this has hardly been a smooth transition). In both contexts, it has been witness to terrible atrocities, and I would have no problem in its role being examined. The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman, which I take to mean that he would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law in his position as an individual, not as an institution. Anything more would require a kind of transitional justice commission, the kind of thing that is only born of major social change.
Somsak’s position (if one can find it after the unnecessary abuse and misrepresentation) obscures the issues of the present and requires that to address present injustices requires that all historical injustices are addressed. In any case, just as those subject to injustices during the 1970s and 1980s remain in a kind of judicial purgatory, I doubt that those who suffered injustice under the Thaksin regime will find much justice in the present political system. That’s a good reason as any to be critical of both sides.
If the Gambari mission was to try to get the SPDC and Aung San Suu Kyi to do a deal, it was always doomed from the start. I think anyone even remotely familiar with Burmese politics over the past 20 years could have told you that.
If his mission is to try and see how the UN could possibily help Burma overcome its multiple political/social/economic crises, then perhaps it could/can achieve something – but it will take a lot of time, not least because the SPDC now instinctively distrusts anything the international community
The Burmese democracy opposition has no options left but to do what it should have done a while back – come up with some ideas for long-term change and not the uprising/sanctions regime/miracle UN visit that’s going to turn things around 180 degrees.
Acute: PPP’s House Speaker Yongyuth red-carded by ECT — but only by 3 to 2 votes. Was the case so unclear — after all the investigations? Or was there something more fishy within the ECT? If the case is so weak, what will the Supreme Court say?
EC finds Yongyuth guilty of electoral fraud charge
(BangkokPost.com) – Election Commission (EC) on Tuesday found House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat guilty of electoral fraud charge in the Dec 23 general election.
The five-member panel voted 3-2 to red-card him, according to Election Commissioner Somchai Juengprasert.
“The majority voters decided to forward the case to the Supreme Court,” he said.
He added that the Supreme Court will decide on the case, and Mr Yongyuth will be banned from politics for five years if the court follows the EC’s ruling.
The ruling came after one-week delay, after Mr Yongyuth requested the panel to question one more witness before the ruling.
Mr Yongyuth, a list-MP for zone 1 covering Chiang Rai and other provinces in the upper North, was found by the sub-panel to have bribed local administrators in Chiang Rai to campaign for votes for the People Power party in the general election. He was a deputy leader of the PPP at the time.
The ruling causes the Stock Exchange of Thailand index to drop more than 10 points as investors fear that PPP could be resolved.
BP 26 February 2008
My point precisely… so much emotion and hate.
By that standard, HMK takes the responsibility for every action of the Thai state as he ‘constitutionally’ appointed every elected and non-elected leader (including PMThaksin) since his acension to the throne. KhunSomsak almost paints Thailand as a North Korea with power concentrated in the hands of the monarch, reducing other historical agents to puppets and nominees (the ‘in trend’ term).
While I don’t have the “song mai ao” position, I find they are more even-handed and objective in the treatment of the past and present events.
Maybe KhunSomsak (or ajarn) should collate his substantial knowledge into a well researched and argued book – but I doubt this will be any more illuminating, or shed more light on Thai political history. As I’ve said before, we need thick volumes on other critical figures involved in critical events from King Prajadhibok, AjarnPridi, FMPibul, GenSarit, GenPrapas – and the long lineage of powerful soldiers, policemen, chaopohs, tycoons, the very visible hand of America during the Cold War etc. that have variously influenced Thai politics and society. Dismissing their significant roles only leaves us with a highly biased, entrenched view and is very unhelpful.
My inclination is to start from the present, hence my focus on PMThaksin, PMSamak, Chalerm, Newin, Chakrapob, PMSurayud, Gen Sonthi, tycoon Sonthi etc. as it is highly relevant for the now and the future. If any of the Big Men can stop the next massacre in the name of ‘War on Drugs’, can make the South peaceful, can deliver high quality education to all Thai children (and children of immigrants too it is hoped), encourage a more democratic culture, more transparent and inclusive governance, free and high quality media (like SBS and ABC in Australia) etc…etc…, I would be highly grateful. Maybe in that open and fair future (it is hoped), we might be able to make a more objective assessment of the pasts that led to it…
For all those who show outrage against Samak’s disgrace, here I suggest another similar – indeed more relevant – case to show your high morality: Thanin Kraiwichian.
Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear enough last time, for no one who shows outrage at Samak’s disgrace seems too eager to take up my sugggestion. So let me make the point even clearer: Here’s another case concerning a “Disgrace” about the 6 Tula events. It’s also an ONGOING case. I’m speaking of Thanin Kraiwichian.
Like Samak, Thanin went on TV regularly befor Oct6 to promote hatred of the student movement.
Even more than Samak, Thanin was the architech of the coup d’etat that took place on the night of October 6. He drafted a “plan” for a post-coup government more than six months before the eventual coup. (It was he who, in all probability, coined the term “Khana patirup kan pokkrong phaendin” – the name of the coup group.) He was also the drafter of the post-coup constitution which proclaimed a 12 year dictatorial regime. (Thankfully, it ended just after a year!)
Even more than Samak, Thanin after the coup assumed the top government post of PM using his power to hunt down, arrested survivors of the 6 Tula massacre. He also used the Article 21 of the Constitution he drafted to punish people including with execution, outside any juditial process.
Even more than Samak, Thanin after loosing his government job, has assumed a highly prestigeous position, richly paid by public money contunually for over 30 years now.
As regards the last point, if anyone would say without thinking that Thanin’s position is insignificant and powerless, let me ask: Isn’t it all the more reasonable to dis-continue spending public money on him given that his position has no importance? If he has had no power, then you all would surely be “safer” to mount a critique of him, wouldn’t you? Even more reasons to show outrage at his continution in the position.
So, how about that? Let’s start a campaign. Who first?
Thanks. Vicarious tourism is fun and a lot more easy and comfortable than the real thing.
“It was designed to re-supply troops fighting the Japanese in China. ”
And the book that brings it all alive is Sir Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper’s magisterial Forgotten Armies. The Fall of British Asia 1941-45 with Dr Tim Harper (2004) .
Ajarn Somsak, I think it’s because you have to have a double standard for the actions of deities. Imagine angering Zeus on Mount Olympus; calling him out on being less golden than his PR deities told you… you manage to run away but you can never return or slander Zeus to your friends – the whole lightening bolt from atop mountain thing. Maybe Michael Connors wishes to return to Thailand without having his curry spiked??
Less superciliously, it is up to Thai people to decide the role and legitimacy of the King. The Thai people elected Thaksin and Samak so foreign academics can only really talk of this because I think Bhumibol is much more an icon of Thai culture and democracy is just a system of administration. I can criticize an administration and an election, but I cannot criticize a culture.
My only point is: this is the all-reaching, universal system of bribery in Thailand. It’s so widespread that a lot of Thai people take it for granted and look upon it quite admiringly! Actually, this is the very origin of bribery. No wonder corruption can never be done away with in the normal stream of Thai life.
Since Michael is a man of high principles and can see no reason to support the legitimacy of an elected politician like Thaksin, he should – in fact, he MUST – agree to the following , with even MORE enthussiasm (since they involve NON-ELECTIVE leaders):
Let’s call for a truly independent enquiry into the case of King Anan’s Death and the WRONGFUL execution of Nai Chit, Butre, Chaliew.
Let’s call for an enquiry into the constitutionality of HMK’s appointment of Sarit, and his support of Sarit during the latter’s six BLOODY years.
Let’s call for an enquiry into the role of HMK in the 1973 events, the constitutionality of the so-called “sapha sanamma”
Let’s call for an enquiry into the 6 Oct 1976 events, the role of HMK, the Crown Prince, the Crown Princess and the Village Scouts under KMK’s patronage.
in deed,
Let’s call for an enquiry into the contitutionality of HMK’s 25 April 2006 speech that set off the so-call “juditiary revolution” which overthrew the general elections.
last, but definitely not least:
Let’s call for an enquiry into the role of KMK and the royal family in the 19 Sep coup d’etat itself.
Now, why on earth a man high principle like Michael wouldn’t make (indeed didn’t already make) such open calls at the same time that he supports the ousting of Thaksin really escapes me!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
I disagree with this boycott. Visiting Myanmar is not giving support to this stupid military government.
I think that if more foreigners go to Myanmar it will foster the opening of Burma: the sight of weathy visitors may but strengthen the will of the people to overthrow the generals for more democracy and a more opened economy.
The boycott of the Lonely is more helpful to Lonely’s competiters than to Burma’s people…
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
P.S. (my last for now.)
Does anyone else notice the kind of language our “leftist” critics of Thaksin and elcted politicians, like Michael or Ji, use nowsaday in regards to the monarch?
Michael:
The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman
In both contexts, it has been witness to terrible atrocities,
Just “witness”, Michael? 6 Tula?
Ji:
On occasions the king has supported modern [?!] democratic methods.
Wow! This is certainly new to me. “New kind of Socialists”. Polite, almost deferent to un-elected monarch, WITH SUCH “DISTINGUISHED” CARRER RECORDS (Sarit, 6 Tula, etc.)
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Finally, let’s talk “the present”:
So, by your excuse, HE doesn’t have to be held to account, for instance, for the role his chief’s adviser played in overthrowing the Contitution?
On the other hand, by any normal standard of democracy, since his adviser, his “circle” (remember the blue kerchief?) and possibly even he himself, violated the Constitution and the law (ka-bot) by which he himself “agreed to play”, WHY DON’T YOU ISSUE A CALL FOR HIS OUSTING AS YOU DID THAKSIN?
What kind of “principle” is this?
What a fake!
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
The monarchy has never really claimed a democratic mandate in any operative sense (despite allusions to an elective monarchy), nor has it ever been elected (and in so being elected, agreed to play by the rules of the game).
What kind of ‘explanation’ or excuse is this?
The monarchy in a DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY “agreed to play by the rule of the game” i.e. the Constitution.
As I said, the 1957 Proclmation appointing Sarit, urging people to obey Sarit was in DIRECT VIOLATION of the 1952 Constitution that the monarchy “agreed to play by [its] rules”
All other cases (6 Tula, 14 Tula, “Sapha Sanamma” even the overthrew of general elections by judges, not to mention the coup itself) are all instances of the VIOLATION of “the rules of the games” by which the monarchy “agreed to play”.
Don’t you know anything about the “rules” of Constitutional monarchy at all?
The kind of excuses you made for HIS behavior is really sad, and sickening.
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Didn’t you write some thing about ” turn a blind eye to the palace’s history, ?
So it’s “obscure the issues of the present ” now to raise “historical injustice” and require them to be addressed?
So, let’s all worship HIM now for His “refusal” to use Article 7? Let’s now not say anything about Sarit, 6 Tula, etc? Let demand no justice to all those brutally murdered, least it’d “obscure” the “present injustice”?
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
The last point about “present” vs “historical” injustices is quite sickening really. What kind of “socialism” is this? A NON-HISTORICAL Socialism?
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Given the different forms of legitimacy in play, Somsak’s attempt to elicit from me a statement of equivalence regarding the monarchy (or more specifically Bhumiphol) and Thaksin is misguided. Thaksin was an elected prime minister and in entering an election he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game;
Didn’t you hear HMK claim in the 25 April speech that he ALWAYS acts according to the Constitution, or to use your language “he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game”
Now you criticises Thaksin by what you claims is a left-wing, socialt stance, why on earth do you now say “given the different forms of legitimacy in play” (see also the first paragraph: KMK “agreed” to “play by the rules …”)? Shouldn’t you apply the same “socilait” stance to both HMK and elected politicians?
…obscures the issues of the present and requires that to address present injustices requires that all historical injustices are addressed.
So for a “socialist”, 6 Tula is just “historical injustice” now? The three pages executed in King Anan’s case too? What about the so-call “juditiary revolution” that overthrew general elections? Too “historical”, not “present” enough as well? What about the 19 Sep coup itself? Where is your call to account for “the other side”?
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
1. “…the BBC Worldwide’s refusal to remove the book is in direct contradiction of the BBC’s own CSR statement, which acknowledges the corporation’s responsibility ‘for both the impact of our output and how we run our business.'”
2. “…we don’t believe it is possible for any company, including BBC Worldwide, to adopt a neutral position on the issue of travel to the country…
3. “…Holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime….”
Just an emotional declaration of “belief” ?
Where is the proof that not going to Burma, not engaging with Burma and Burmese people, not publishing a Burma guidebook, is the right thing to do?
Is this the whole argument that they provide to support their position?
The proof of the exact opposite is sitting in my friend’s email inbox.
Friends of his in Burma (both poor and middle income business owners who employ poorer people) who derive their income from the tourism industry complaining that they cannot make ends meet because there are no tourists anymore.
I think the logic runs something like this, because I am working in the area of human rights, I am by definition altruistic and doing good things for other people, without any self-interest, so trust me unconditionally, even though I present no hard evidence and engage in no debate.
(I have seen so many people making money under these pretenses, as NGOs or fundraisers. The latest being a hilltribe missionary canned after he was caught in a sexual indiscretion. He was more likely to be found on the golf course than helping people. Or pay to volunteer scams.)
If there are specific tourism projects that are violating human rights TUC should give details and be selective in targeting those specific projects *****and provide citations******* TUC staff members went to college, didn’t they?
Publications like that highly informative ANU publication with papers from the current state of Myanmar conference 2006 is what I’m talking about.
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
This is a hard one to call – does one wish to stop tourists entering Burma? That will only hurt the poor people. Or encourage tourism which suggest that Burma is a nice ‘tourist’ destination despite the junta?
I would focus efforts on China who are the main prop for the Military regime. But China does not have a history of budging on anything.
*sigh
Samak’s disgrace
Maybe Samak is trying to emulate Thanin – he’s already PM (also after being personally selected), so after a bit of ‘hunting’, he might be be on to the Privy Council.
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
I have no problem in arguing that monarchy is illegitimate from a political perspective that is based on equality of human beings, and indeed this is the drift of much of my work. Even if a vast majority of people voted for a monarchy, and provided that monarchy with immense wealth and power and elevated it to semi-divine status with arbitrary power to be lord of life, I would still consider it illegitimate, and would so argue (if my life and freedom and my loved ones were unharmed, otherwise I am afraid that I would most likely be more circumspect). I assume that Somsak would also argue that an elected hereditary institution was offensive and illegitimate, and so would go against the “popular will” in that instance.
I suspect that my view on monarchy is not shared by many people in Thailand, which points to the need to differentiate between judgement of legitimacy based on personal beliefs, and those based on wide social practise and beliefs, although of course the two often combine. The Thai monarchy’s legitimacy (in the sense of having won broad support based on self and state propagated principles) is rooted in the long history of the modern monarchy, ideological production and state-craft, and this is something even pro-Thaksin forces are unlikely to dispense with (as a resource for social order). The Thai monarchy’ hegemonic position is not merely a product of coercion, but rather rests in processes of identification and material compromise – a historical process. In that sense. I would say that to most Thai people the monarchy remains a legitimate institution (that legitimacy being based on principles related very indirectly to democracy).
Given the different forms of legitimacy in play, Somsak’s attempt to elicit from me a statement of equivalence regarding the monarchy (or more specifically Bhumiphol) and Thaksin is misguided. Thaksin was an elected prime minister and in entering an election he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game; in not doing so he forfeited his legitimacy, or so I would argue. I also recognise that to most Thais he remained the legitimate prime minister (one among various reasons why people reasonably opposed the coup). In any case, a coup was not a legitimate way to depose him, something I have always argued.
The monarchy has never really claimed a democratic mandate in any operative sense (despite allusions to an elective monarchy), nor has it ever been elected (and in so being elected, agreed to play by the rules of the game). Its assumed legitimacy is based on its own terms of Buddhist leadership and just rule etc. I would argue that the monarchy has been quite successful in propagating this form of legitimacy, and the Thaksin government supported such propagation.
In contrast to Thaksin’s relatively brief rule, the monarchy has risen and consolidated its position through close relations with authoritarian regimes over several generations, and has also adapted itself to semi-democratic forms of power (though this has hardly been a smooth transition). In both contexts, it has been witness to terrible atrocities, and I would have no problem in its role being examined. The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman, which I take to mean that he would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law in his position as an individual, not as an institution. Anything more would require a kind of transitional justice commission, the kind of thing that is only born of major social change.
Somsak’s position (if one can find it after the unnecessary abuse and misrepresentation) obscures the issues of the present and requires that to address present injustices requires that all historical injustices are addressed. In any case, just as those subject to injustices during the 1970s and 1980s remain in a kind of judicial purgatory, I doubt that those who suffered injustice under the Thaksin regime will find much justice in the present political system. That’s a good reason as any to be critical of both sides.
Burma mission over for Gambari?
If the Gambari mission was to try to get the SPDC and Aung San Suu Kyi to do a deal, it was always doomed from the start. I think anyone even remotely familiar with Burmese politics over the past 20 years could have told you that.
If his mission is to try and see how the UN could possibily help Burma overcome its multiple political/social/economic crises, then perhaps it could/can achieve something – but it will take a lot of time, not least because the SPDC now instinctively distrusts anything the international community
The Burmese democracy opposition has no options left but to do what it should have done a while back – come up with some ideas for long-term change and not the uprising/sanctions regime/miracle UN visit that’s going to turn things around 180 degrees.
just my humble opinion
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Acute: PPP’s House Speaker Yongyuth red-carded by ECT — but only by 3 to 2 votes. Was the case so unclear — after all the investigations? Or was there something more fishy within the ECT? If the case is so weak, what will the Supreme Court say?
EC finds Yongyuth guilty of electoral fraud charge
(BangkokPost.com) – Election Commission (EC) on Tuesday found House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat guilty of electoral fraud charge in the Dec 23 general election.
The five-member panel voted 3-2 to red-card him, according to Election Commissioner Somchai Juengprasert.
“The majority voters decided to forward the case to the Supreme Court,” he said.
He added that the Supreme Court will decide on the case, and Mr Yongyuth will be banned from politics for five years if the court follows the EC’s ruling.
The ruling came after one-week delay, after Mr Yongyuth requested the panel to question one more witness before the ruling.
Mr Yongyuth, a list-MP for zone 1 covering Chiang Rai and other provinces in the upper North, was found by the sub-panel to have bribed local administrators in Chiang Rai to campaign for votes for the People Power party in the general election. He was a deputy leader of the PPP at the time.
The ruling causes the Stock Exchange of Thailand index to drop more than 10 points as investors fear that PPP could be resolved.
BP 26 February 2008
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
My point precisely… so much emotion and hate.
By that standard, HMK takes the responsibility for every action of the Thai state as he ‘constitutionally’ appointed every elected and non-elected leader (including PMThaksin) since his acension to the throne. KhunSomsak almost paints Thailand as a North Korea with power concentrated in the hands of the monarch, reducing other historical agents to puppets and nominees (the ‘in trend’ term).
While I don’t have the “song mai ao” position, I find they are more even-handed and objective in the treatment of the past and present events.
Maybe KhunSomsak (or ajarn) should collate his substantial knowledge into a well researched and argued book – but I doubt this will be any more illuminating, or shed more light on Thai political history. As I’ve said before, we need thick volumes on other critical figures involved in critical events from King Prajadhibok, AjarnPridi, FMPibul, GenSarit, GenPrapas – and the long lineage of powerful soldiers, policemen, chaopohs, tycoons, the very visible hand of America during the Cold War etc. that have variously influenced Thai politics and society. Dismissing their significant roles only leaves us with a highly biased, entrenched view and is very unhelpful.
My inclination is to start from the present, hence my focus on PMThaksin, PMSamak, Chalerm, Newin, Chakrapob, PMSurayud, Gen Sonthi, tycoon Sonthi etc. as it is highly relevant for the now and the future. If any of the Big Men can stop the next massacre in the name of ‘War on Drugs’, can make the South peaceful, can deliver high quality education to all Thai children (and children of immigrants too it is hoped), encourage a more democratic culture, more transparent and inclusive governance, free and high quality media (like SBS and ABC in Australia) etc…etc…, I would be highly grateful. Maybe in that open and fair future (it is hoped), we might be able to make a more objective assessment of the pasts that led to it…
Samak’s disgrace
For all those who show outrage against Samak’s disgrace, here I suggest another similar – indeed more relevant – case to show your high morality: Thanin Kraiwichian.
Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear enough last time, for no one who shows outrage at Samak’s disgrace seems too eager to take up my sugggestion. So let me make the point even clearer: Here’s another case concerning a “Disgrace” about the 6 Tula events. It’s also an ONGOING case. I’m speaking of Thanin Kraiwichian.
Like Samak, Thanin went on TV regularly befor Oct6 to promote hatred of the student movement.
Even more than Samak, Thanin was the architech of the coup d’etat that took place on the night of October 6. He drafted a “plan” for a post-coup government more than six months before the eventual coup. (It was he who, in all probability, coined the term “Khana patirup kan pokkrong phaendin” – the name of the coup group.) He was also the drafter of the post-coup constitution which proclaimed a 12 year dictatorial regime. (Thankfully, it ended just after a year!)
Even more than Samak, Thanin after the coup assumed the top government post of PM using his power to hunt down, arrested survivors of the 6 Tula massacre. He also used the Article 21 of the Constitution he drafted to punish people including with execution, outside any juditial process.
Even more than Samak, Thanin after loosing his government job, has assumed a highly prestigeous position, richly paid by public money contunually for over 30 years now.
As regards the last point, if anyone would say without thinking that Thanin’s position is insignificant and powerless, let me ask: Isn’t it all the more reasonable to dis-continue spending public money on him given that his position has no importance? If he has had no power, then you all would surely be “safer” to mount a critique of him, wouldn’t you? Even more reasons to show outrage at his continution in the position.
So, how about that? Let’s start a campaign.
Who first?
The Stilwell Road
Thanks. Vicarious tourism is fun and a lot more easy and comfortable than the real thing.
“It was designed to re-supply troops fighting the Japanese in China. ”
And the book that brings it all alive is Sir Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper’s magisterial Forgotten Armies. The Fall of British Asia 1941-45 with Dr Tim Harper (2004) .
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Wow – this is quite an angry outburst!
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Ajarn Somsak, I think it’s because you have to have a double standard for the actions of deities. Imagine angering Zeus on Mount Olympus; calling him out on being less golden than his PR deities told you… you manage to run away but you can never return or slander Zeus to your friends – the whole lightening bolt from atop mountain thing. Maybe Michael Connors wishes to return to Thailand without having his curry spiked??
Less superciliously, it is up to Thai people to decide the role and legitimacy of the King. The Thai people elected Thaksin and Samak so foreign academics can only really talk of this because I think Bhumibol is much more an icon of Thai culture and democracy is just a system of administration. I can criticize an administration and an election, but I cannot criticize a culture.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
My only point is: this is the all-reaching, universal system of bribery in Thailand. It’s so widespread that a lot of Thai people take it for granted and look upon it quite admiringly! Actually, this is the very origin of bribery. No wonder corruption can never be done away with in the normal stream of Thai life.
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Since Michael is a man of high principles and can see no reason to support the legitimacy of an elected politician like Thaksin, he should – in fact, he MUST – agree to the following , with even MORE enthussiasm (since they involve NON-ELECTIVE leaders):
Let’s call for a truly independent enquiry into the case of King Anan’s Death and the WRONGFUL execution of Nai Chit, Butre, Chaliew.
Let’s call for an enquiry into the constitutionality of HMK’s appointment of Sarit, and his support of Sarit during the latter’s six BLOODY years.
Let’s call for an enquiry into the role of HMK in the 1973 events, the constitutionality of the so-called “sapha sanamma”
Let’s call for an enquiry into the 6 Oct 1976 events, the role of HMK, the Crown Prince, the Crown Princess and the Village Scouts under KMK’s patronage.
in deed,
Let’s call for an enquiry into the contitutionality of HMK’s 25 April 2006 speech that set off the so-call “juditiary revolution” which overthrew the general elections.
last, but definitely not least:
Let’s call for an enquiry into the role of KMK and the royal family in the 19 Sep coup d’etat itself.
Now, why on earth a man high principle like Michael wouldn’t make (indeed didn’t already make) such open calls at the same time that he supports the ousting of Thaksin really escapes me!