fall: Thanks for the link. Worachet probably is the sharpest mind in the area of public and constitutional law in Thailand right now. Much different from of his legal-political Srithanchai colleagues at Thammasat, such as Somkhit or Suraphol. Hope, Worachet will stay this way…
xLet’s see what “instruments” Michael will use in this “war” against his mightly “enemy” Republican. He has given him quite a number of things to chew on. Fortunately enough, this is only a war of words and ideas, not of tanks.
“If it’s a ‘return’ then I guess that must mean the Democrats?!!!!” >> Had the Constitution Drafting Assembly adopted the suggestions concerning the introduction of a proportional voting system, then we would now have exactly this–the Democrats, led by Abhisit as prime minister, joined by CTP and Phuea Phaendin. In that case, Michael probably would have seen more than just a “slim” chance for democracy.
Republican, the “song mai ao” position is as justifiable as your position that Thaksin can do no wrong all because he was elected.
You seem to think it’s only ever the Royalists that manipulate the military, the courts, the police etc etc, and you pro-Thaksinites even go so far as to blame HMK for the drug war, and exonerate Thaksin from any culpability.
Why is it that the only part of any royal speech you don’t want to criticize is the one where there might be some (ambiguous) support for Thaksin?
What do you make of HMK endorsing the PPP speaker?
So much for a coup by stealth!
Yes , definitely too soft if looked at from the perspective of a military dictator – apart from the initial coup, those guys were just a democratic as Thaksin ever was, and far less bloodthirsty.
Some French people had fought with the KLNA since the early eighties. Most of them were former professional soldiers and/or right wing activist.
Some were killed in action, as Jean-Phillipe COURREGES (1985), Guillaume OILLIC (9/11/1990), Olivier THIRIAT (1989).
Gaston BESSON, who fought on the croatian side in Yugoslovia war, claims he was with the Karen guerilla in his book “Une vie en ligne de mire”.
An enjoyable spectator sport at the moment is watching the academics and their colleagues in the media and elsewhere trying to come to terms with the democratic return of Thaksin and PPP-TRT to political power. Quite a few of them have changed their tune (having helped whip the Bangkok middle class into an anti-Thaksin frenzy in 2006) and are now saying that we need to accept the verdict of the electorate. Their recent conversion to democracy is commendable, even if it is motivated purely out of the desire to save face.
But a number of them continue to “stick to their guns”. One example can be seen in Connor’s “Thailand’s coup by stealth or something else” that was published in Asia Sentinel a couple of weeks ago [http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=35].
When I saw this article my first thought was, well, the “song mai ao”s do not seem to have learnt their lesson from 2006. Then they failed to support a democratically elected government against a royalist-military attack, and now they look as though they are at it again. Connors’ article shows all the hallmarks of the “song mai ao” position: the belief that there is another possibility between the royalists and Thaksin-TRT-PPP; the view that the forces are “contending fractions of the Thai elite” and so equally “bad”; and most irritating of all, the image they have of themselves as being above politics and the evil, corrupt politicians. Their own political position is ambiguous. The fact that TRT-PPP have won strong victories in 4 elections in a row, the last one against active opposition from the royalist dictatorship, doesn’t seem to matter to the song mai ao.
I found myself disagreeing with virtually every sentence of the article, but let me just take a few of the choice ones.
The article’s argument appears to begin boldly as a refutation of the “coup by stealth” argument by questioning the portrayal of the Election Commission as a CNS “stooge”:
1. “…In news coverage and commentary, the Election Commission of Thailand has been presented as the council’s [CNS’s] stooge. The Thaksin PR machine could not have hoped for more…”
The sarcastic tone here suggests that the allegations of bias directed at the EC are merely a product of Thaksin’s “PR machine” (no mention of the obstacles placed in the way of Thaksin’s “PR machine” – to the extent it is allowed to operate at all – by the royalist regime). But the attempt at a rebuttle soon fizzles out when Connors actually contradicts himself by agreeing that PPP’s “claims of a plot against it surely have some substance…. But why should it be otherwise? In a war, one force uses the instruments open to its influence…”
2. “…Is the election commission a stooge…”
In his initial attempt to refute the coup by stealth argument Connors tries to argue that the EC is not a stooge because it was appointed during the Thaksin era, apparently by pro-Thaksin senators. There are two problems with this: (i) the point is not whether the EC is a “stooge”, but whether it is being used as a conduit for the exercise of extra-Constitutional power by the anti-Thaksin forces following the PPP’s good result in the election; and (ii) as we know, in the case of Thai politics public figures are always ready to “jump ship” when the political winds change. In Thaksin’s own party scores of members abandoned TRT after the coup when the new “power” took over. Just because they were appointed by Thaksin (at a time when politically Thaksin was extremely weak – who knows whether Thaksin in fact had the final say over these appointments?) does not mean that the commissioners could not be subject to outside influence, especially when the stakes are so high.
Apart from this there are the scandals involving the EC’s request to the deputy director of the Santibal, who was involved with the PAD demonstrations under Sondhi Limthongkul, to “help” them with their investigations into electoral violations, and the request that Sodsri’s daughter be seconded to work for Sondhi Bunyaratkalin (which makes it a little strange that Connors should take Sodsri’s words at face value).
3. “…For reasons that remain unclear, a day after the 19 September 2006 coup d’etat the military endorsed the Senate selection of the commissioners…”
After everything that happened since September 19 (the coup-makers’ attempt to destroy Thaksin, as Connors himself argues) surely there is an obvious reason: they were endorsed because the coup-makers obviously knew that this EC could be bent to their will (or, more accurately, to the will of the powers behind the coup-makers). Why else spare such an important body after everything the coup-makers had done?
4. “…One might surmise, rather generously, that the coup group acted thus because the 10 nominees forwarded to the senate by the judiciary were chosen in the shadow of the king’s appeal to judicial integrity, and thus could be expected to act with caution and impartiality…”
This statement is quite astonishing in its credulity. Connors actually takes what the King says at face value! Anyone who has studied the king’s speeches will know that they are not to be taken literally (anymore than the speeches of any other politician) but they should be read as coded message being sent to a particular target audience for a political purpose. The king can not be seen to intervene in politics (unless in a “crisis”), but as we know, he continually makes his position and desires known to the relevant people. The phraratchadamrat have the effect of giving a “royal blessing” for controversial political actions later taken by the military, judges, senior bureaucrats, which prevent criticism of that action, eg. the 25 April 2006 speech to the judges which led to the annulment of the result of the April elections; the 25 May 2007 speech a week before the dissolution of the TRT and banning of the 111 TRT executives, following which the CNS told the whole country to stay calm and abide by the phratchadamrat; and the outrageous birthday speech last December where he outlined his wishlist of military purchases. As Somsak has argued, the fact that the king is allowed to comment in public at all without his remarks having first been sent for approval by the democratically elected leader of the government is itself a big problem for democracy in Thailand.
5. “…Whatever one thinks of the PPP and its claim to represent the democratic will of the people…”
What does this mean? That the PPP does NOT represent the democratic will of the Thai people? So Connors does not accept the election results? He does not think that the PPP represents the democratic will of the Thai people?
6. “…The acute state of Thai politics at this present time has little to do with democracy…”
What an extraordinary statement – which shows how faithful Connors is to the “song mai ao” credo. Democratic elections appear to mean nothing to him. They are just another way by which one section of the “elite” manipulates the population, who are too stupid to be able to vote for the parties which the “song mai ao” academics would like.
7. “…they have yet to elaborate any genuinely ideological position…”
The implication (very common of the elitist stance of the “song mai ao”) is that the PPP-TRT is purely a political vehicle for Thaksin to manipulate the electorate (because the villagers are too stupid and uneducated) so it doesn’t need any ideological stance. Well, given that the party was only formed 6 months ago, during a royalist-military dictatorship which controlled the media and made it extremely difficult for the PPP to get its message out at all, one might think that Connors might have sympathized with the party’s difficulty in pursuing its public relations. But given that the PPP is publicly recognized as essentially the resurrection of the TRT, one would think that people already have a pretty good idea of the “ideological position” of the party. Maybe that is even why so many people voted for them.
8. “…Enlightened Thaksin forces want a bourgeois revolution …They are also hostile to liberal forms of democracy…”
Huh? No evidence is given to back up this vague statement. Who are these “enlightened” forces? Who pronounces them “enlightened”? (this is another feature of the song mai ao academics: they see themselves as morally and politically superior to the appalling politicians). How are the enlightened Thaksin forces “hostile” to liberal democracy? Which party has utilized the discourse of liberal democracy (especially the importance of elections, following the Constitution) more than the TRT-PPP? In one paragraph Connors is saying, sarcastically again, that “They [the pro-Thaksin forces] have been unrelenting in their claim of Thaksin’s democratic mandate” and then in another he says that they are hostile to liberal democracy. The logic that makes this contradiction work for Connors is that he obviously considers TRT-PPP’s rhetoric about democracy a sham. In fact, they are just right wing, authoritarian chauvinists, ie. as bad as the royalists. It’s just that the villagers are too stupid to understand this and are being duped. So we need the far-sighted, selfless academics to lead the “people’s sector” instead. Classic ” song mai ao” discourse.
9. “…Enlightened Thaksin forces … mobilise forces under a banner of right wing populism, including Buddhist chauvinism…”
Oh, a beauty this one. So the support that TRT gained was because they “mobilized forces” (ie. got people to vote for them) based on populism (ie. the wicked practice of the TRT by which they promised and delivered upon policies that addressed the needs of their constituents). How is this “right wing”? Don’t right wing political movements eschew the sort of welfare programs that TRT was delivering to the poor? As for Buddhist chauvinism, who are more chauvinist than the royalists and the military when it comes to Buddhism! (This is the whole problem with Buddhism today: it has been strangled by the royalists for the best part of the last 50 years).
10. “…it is indeed surprising that not more has been done to eliminate the Thaksin threat….”
What an extraordinary statement. For Connors, everything that has happened since September 19 2006 is not enough: the overthrow of the TRT government by tanks and guns in a royalist-military coup; the arrest of its members and the flight of others into exile; the exile of its leader; the year-long use of martial law in half the country (which continues in many provinces); the blanket censorship of any news about Thaksin; the dissolution of the TRT; the political banning of 111 executives; the seizure of Thaksin’s assets; the drafting of a constitution by royalist-appointed members specifically designed to prevent Thaksin from returning to power; the beefing up of the powers of the military under the new security act; the obvious intimidation and obstruction of PPP campaigning, etc. etc. But all this is not enough for Connors. It is a “surprise” that not more has been done to get rid of Thaksin (since, according to Connors, he is a “historical calamity”). So the regime has been too soft on him?!
11. “…They have been unrelenting in their claim of Thaksin’s democratic mandate, willing to ignore that democracy means so much more than a mark on a ballot paper…”
Well, here we go. The hoary old “song mai ao” disparagement of elections. This is possibly the most offensive statement of the article. Connors can’t seem to understand the fundamental problem of Thai politics: the failure to cement the principle of popular sovereignty because of the restoration of the political fortunes of the royalists after 1947, and the subsequent indoctrination of the population through the organs of the state with the ideals and values of absolute monarchy. The only mechanism by which the people can have real leverage over politics (however flawed and open to abuse that leverage might be) in the face of the royalist manipulation of the Thai politics is elections. Everything follows from elections. And that is why the royalist attack on elections has been so violent and determined (apart from the coup itself) – from the rhetoric that the people are too stupid to understand what’s good for them, that they sell their votes, that they vote in “bad” people, that they are victims of “populism”, etc. etc., through to the rigging of the constitution, the ridiculously strict limitations on campaigning, the threat of red and yellow cards, etc. The reason why elections in Thailand at this moment are SO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT is that they are the only means by which the legitimacy of the royalist hold on the Thai political system can be challenged. The attack on elections (“democracy means more than elections”) is a royalist ruse and Connors supports it.
And finally:
12. “…Thailand’s chance of returning to some form of liberal democracy are slim…”
If it’s a “return” then this obviously rules out any government that has been or will be dominated by TRT-PPP, because Connors has already declared that these people are “hostile” to liberal forms of democracy.
If it’s a “return” then I guess that must mean the Democrats?!!!!
“What Thailand needs more than anything is more people with basic ethics” – I read that as virtuous people. On the other hand you urged me to put things in the perspective of complex SE Asian politics, which I do understand, but not sympathize with. Again, that BTW addition to my reply to you was only a minor point, and certainly not a misrepresentation as the word “seem” renders it accurate while the lack of quotation marks makes it a paraphrase, not a misquote. You did seem to be excusing in my eyes, mentioning SEA politics in a discussion about the Thai monarchy. . .
So, it seems obvious that this is a good place for ordinary people to start doing something that will begin a process of change. To sit back & blame the big players, while waiting for a squeaky-clean hero to come along & save the situation won’t do anything. There’s been ample evidence that this merely perpetuates the situation.
I agree with you on this point, but I am not simply sitting back and doing nothing, sir. Plus, regardless of what I decide to “start doing”, is my argument still valid?
So bad we cannot force the Thais to speak English properly like we did to Malaysia, South African and Australia. So bad they still hold on their culture and beliefs. Any way, there are some Thais who think like us. It won’t be long befor the other Thais to follow. Then we can conquer the country with out any war. Bravo!!!
re-read his post till you get the sarcasm laden words he used.
I have a hint on how you might just get the sarcastic wit and humor.
Get off your moral high horse! Mariner’s final quote was the confirmation of sarcasm: how can any project not have consequences?
ahaaa
maybe too blind by your perception, you don’t read things with an open mind and take it for what it is, rather for what you would prefer it to be, so you can claim the moral high ground and score points.
don’t be a poster like Republican or Somsak….
have they (or you) even gone so far as congratulating Thongchai on this historic ICT where they *gasp* debated the role of HMK, and the discussion, while not open, was a step forward in the direction of debating Royal roles in public discourse.
Teth, you say, ‘ you decry the lack of virtuous Thais but seem to excuse the Machiavellian politics of the King.’
Nowhere did I use the term ‘virtuous.’ My point was simply that democracy is a process that requires a ‘hands-on’ participatory approach from a significant number of people in a society. In Thailand it is obvious that entrenched corruption of many kinds is a very major factor in preventing the development of democracy. So, it seems obvious that this is a good place for ordinary people to start doing something that will begin a process of change. To sit back & blame the big players, while waiting for a squeaky-clean hero to come along & save the situation won’t do anything. There’s been ample evidence that this merely perpetuates the situation.
‘…excuse the Machiavellian polititics of the King…’ is a blatant misquote. I don’t infer that I excuse anyone for anything, nor do I refer to ‘politics of the king.’ I talk about politics of S.E.Asia, & of Thailand, & suggest that you should get away from blaming one person, because it’s a complicated, intricate, duplicitous, cunning(Machiavellian) situation, where we know very little about what’s really going on.
I’ve read TKNS, & participated in discussing it. I think it’s great. Haven’t read McCargo, though. Where can I find it?
I have just came upon your website where some individual made mention of a book that has come out recently about the Karen National Liberation Army, written by an American who joined their fight. that individual is me, Thomas Bleming and I am the author of”War in Karen Country” as well as “Panama -Echoes from a Revolution”. Both books can be seen on Amazon.com or by going to “Bleming Books” on the Google and /or Yahoo search to see the many hundreds of web sites on these.
Those of you who wish to look on the web for information using my name can do so as well.
I hope that those interested in the Karen national Liberation Army and their fight will purchase my book and they will have inside knowledge of their fight for freedom.
This news first came out a few weeks ago. At the time the comments attached to ScandAsia’s article seemed to be mainly from the overseas Lao community. The general tone was, “the Lao government deserves this loss of aid and diplomatic relations because of its corruption and mismanagement.” A few commentators who seem to be based in Laos shot back, but not many.
In related news, the Laos-based website Mahasan (www.mahasan.com), which seems to be government connected, actually does allow readers to post comments to articles. I’ve seen a few heated discussions occur among the otherwise innocuous comments. I wonder if the Lao government has opened a pandora’s box by allowing online discussion in the Lao language to happen in a “public” setting such as the Web?
To connect this back to ICTS–I would love to hear whether there were any panels dealing with Thailand’s neighbors, especially in terms of their cultural or historical connections with Thailand.
Reply to “an observer” (#29): “…in my opinion, distrust, biases, negetivity are rampant on the anti-roylaist webboards…”
“…Why can’t we credit whom and where deserve credits…”
What a strange outburst. Well, if it’s so unpleasant for you here perhaps it might be more comfortable for you at the royalist webboards or the royalist newspapers. There maybe you can get the “credit” you seek.
BTW, I find it odd that on one hand you decry the lack of virtuous Thais but seem to excuse the Machiavellian politics of the King. You say you’re not royalist, but I sense that you’ve absorbed quite a bit of the belief that the King is essentially a good man. Once again, I urge you to abandon that belief and study it based on the evidence and reconclude.
I couldn’t agree more. I knew nothing of the king before I came to Thailand. Since then I have read the bangkok Post and Nation newspapers everyday and not once have I ever come across any criticism of a royally funded project. You have to be amazed at the planning and attention to detail that surely goes into theses schemes. Ask yourself this: How many western agencies can boast initiatives which neither harm the environment not have any human costs?
Mariner, ask yourself if you would feel the same about Kim Jong Il or Kim Il Sung. After all, if you were to live in North Korea, read the North Korean press, and talk to North Korean barbers, I’m sure you would think the same about the Kims. Oh wait, lese majeste isn’t the same as censorship then?
Snarls, what I find repugnant about the King is a combination of his image and how far it is from the truth. The propaganda is over the top while those who subscribe to it are devout and zealous enough to threaten violence whenever anything bad is said about the King. What’s more, they’re willing to turn a blind eye to reason simply to continue living in their delusional, spoonfed beliefs. I say this in a general sense because if you ask most Thais, they will not even know that the King has only one usable eye, because the fact is not publicized on television. I stress this because there is nothing wrong with loving the King, but that most King-worshippers are ignorant and just plainly brainwashed. A smaller minority know their facts but excuse him with shifty morals while there are possibly those extreme rightists who simply love monarchy and mob violence.
In anycase, I was simply attacking that wide gulf between image and reality by trying to show the logical inconsistencies in them. Obviously I am aware that one man could not be expected to change an entire country over 60 years or do everything right, but isn’t that what the telly is saying about him? Again, when I was growing up I used to ask why we didn’t return to absolute monarchy when we had such a great King, or why the King did not participate in politics since he was universally loved and was perfectly virtous: he would’ve gotten a stable parliamentary majority plus no corruption. That nobody around me, to this day, could give me an answer goes to show why the propaganda is ridiculous.
To get back to the point you were making, it seems to me that you’ve been living in Thailand for quite a while, and I agree with your long middle paragraph about what Thailand needs. I would like to add, however, that the King and all the associated feudal practices is exactly what you are moaning about. Why the deference to unelected, hereditary Kings who sits atop the “hi-so”/patronage/elders/feudal system. That age or money or heredity should supercede merit as the gauge for respect is the fetters of our modern day feudalism. The denial, hypocrisy, and inability to critically listen to what other people has to say also arises from this feudal “do you know who I am?” mentality as well. The recent case of the Canadian shot by the police also reeks of this. “Do you not know that I’m a police officer. Die.”
The West is not immune to this either as evidenced in the stiff upper lip of the upper classes, police brutality, ridiculous court cases (resulting from an ill-proportioned sense of entitlement), racism, etc. But as we all know the West is doing much more about it than Thailand is.
P.S. Should you wonder about the King’s meddling in politics and involvement with the military, find some of the excellent academic articles (McCargo, Network Monarchy), Paul Handley’s the King Never Smiles for a start, or if you would like first hand historical information, check out the newspaper archives for first hand images of the King visiting Thanom published in the papers, read his speeches at that time, or simply look at what organizations have “royal patronage” and were involved in events such as the 6 Oct massacre. Alternatively, search for the “Young Turk rebellion” against Prem in the mid-1980 and how Prem had to run off to stay with the King in order to stay in power or even more recently, see the flowing words of praise he had for the Surayud cabinet (and their subsequent idiocy).
What you won’t find, though, is the King condemning a military coup or demanding the military abstain from politics, except, of course, when those military men were not in his pocket (Pibulsonggram’s first premiership).
ySince there seem to be little interest in commenting on the ITSC, can somebody perhaps throw some more light on the news piece below? According to it, Sweden will withdraw its development cooperation from Laos.
“Sweden upset over slow reform in Laos
Sweden’s decision to shut its embassy in Laos this year was primarily due to a redirection of Swedish development aid towards Africa but was also influenced by the slow pace of political reforms in the communist state, media reports revealed Tuesday.
“The process of political reforms in Laos has been rather slow in comparison with other reforms in the country. This has not been the only reason but could be one of the factors affecting the final decision,” said Swedish Charge d’Affairs to Vientiane AnnLis Aberg in an interview with ScandAsia, a news portal on Southeast Asia.
Sweden has decided to close its embassy in Vientiane on August 15, this year, as a result of a refocusing of the its Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
Of the 70 countries that currently receive bilateral aid from Sweden only 33 will remain.
Aberg said that the “guiding principle” in the cuts is that the Swedish government has decided to give more priority to Africa than to Asia.
“Laos is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Personally I would have preferred if we could have continued for a few more years. We have been here for more than 30 years,” Aberg told ScandAsia.
SIDA’s projects in Laos have concentrated on education, infrastructure, good governance, and natural resources.
While Laos has made progress in pushing through economic reforms in recent years it remains under a one-party political regime controlled by the communist party.
After the closure of its embassy in Vientiane, all consular cases will be handled by the Swedish embassy in Bangkok.
Sweden is also ending development cooperation with Vietnam and the Philippines, while it plans to open new embassies in Belarus, Sudan and Afghanistan. (dpa)” (BP, 22 Jan. 08)
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Manau festival in Myitkyina
Did you find that the festival was more militaristic this year than in previous years?
Time for academic frankness
fall: Thanks for the link. Worachet probably is the sharpest mind in the area of public and constitutional law in Thailand right now. Much different from of his legal-political Srithanchai colleagues at Thammasat, such as Somkhit or Suraphol. Hope, Worachet will stay this way…
Thailand’s coup by stealth
xLet’s see what “instruments” Michael will use in this “war” against his mightly “enemy” Republican. He has given him quite a number of things to chew on. Fortunately enough, this is only a war of words and ideas, not of tanks.
“If it’s a ‘return’ then I guess that must mean the Democrats?!!!!” >> Had the Constitution Drafting Assembly adopted the suggestions concerning the introduction of a proportional voting system, then we would now have exactly this–the Democrats, led by Abhisit as prime minister, joined by CTP and Phuea Phaendin. In that case, Michael probably would have seen more than just a “slim” chance for democracy.
Now, let’s lean back and watch the battle…
Thailand’s coup by stealth
“Song mai ao” is bad, but I suppose in Republican’s warped view there’s nothing art all wrong with financing an election campaign with drug money.
It’s lucky for Pranee Khlangpha that Thaksin is not yet fully back in power, or she might not have lived to tell her story.
Thailand’s coup by stealth
Republican, the “song mai ao” position is as justifiable as your position that Thaksin can do no wrong all because he was elected.
You seem to think it’s only ever the Royalists that manipulate the military, the courts, the police etc etc, and you pro-Thaksinites even go so far as to blame HMK for the drug war, and exonerate Thaksin from any culpability.
Why is it that the only part of any royal speech you don’t want to criticize is the one where there might be some (ambiguous) support for Thaksin?
What do you make of HMK endorsing the PPP speaker?
So much for a coup by stealth!
Thailand’s coup by stealth
So the regime has been too soft on him?
Yes , definitely too soft if looked at from the perspective of a military dictator – apart from the initial coup, those guys were just a democratic as Thaksin ever was, and far less bloodthirsty.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Some French people had fought with the KLNA since the early eighties. Most of them were former professional soldiers and/or right wing activist.
Some were killed in action, as Jean-Phillipe COURREGES (1985), Guillaume OILLIC (9/11/1990), Olivier THIRIAT (1989).
Gaston BESSON, who fought on the croatian side in Yugoslovia war, claims he was with the Karen guerilla in his book “Une vie en ligne de mire”.
Time for academic frankness
A little off topic, but I found this interview article (Thai).
Very good to read whole.
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/10967
Thailand’s coup by stealth
An enjoyable spectator sport at the moment is watching the academics and their colleagues in the media and elsewhere trying to come to terms with the democratic return of Thaksin and PPP-TRT to political power. Quite a few of them have changed their tune (having helped whip the Bangkok middle class into an anti-Thaksin frenzy in 2006) and are now saying that we need to accept the verdict of the electorate. Their recent conversion to democracy is commendable, even if it is motivated purely out of the desire to save face.
But a number of them continue to “stick to their guns”. One example can be seen in Connor’s “Thailand’s coup by stealth or something else” that was published in Asia Sentinel a couple of weeks ago [http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=35].
When I saw this article my first thought was, well, the “song mai ao”s do not seem to have learnt their lesson from 2006. Then they failed to support a democratically elected government against a royalist-military attack, and now they look as though they are at it again. Connors’ article shows all the hallmarks of the “song mai ao” position: the belief that there is another possibility between the royalists and Thaksin-TRT-PPP; the view that the forces are “contending fractions of the Thai elite” and so equally “bad”; and most irritating of all, the image they have of themselves as being above politics and the evil, corrupt politicians. Their own political position is ambiguous. The fact that TRT-PPP have won strong victories in 4 elections in a row, the last one against active opposition from the royalist dictatorship, doesn’t seem to matter to the song mai ao.
I found myself disagreeing with virtually every sentence of the article, but let me just take a few of the choice ones.
The article’s argument appears to begin boldly as a refutation of the “coup by stealth” argument by questioning the portrayal of the Election Commission as a CNS “stooge”:
1. “…In news coverage and commentary, the Election Commission of Thailand has been presented as the council’s [CNS’s] stooge. The Thaksin PR machine could not have hoped for more…”
The sarcastic tone here suggests that the allegations of bias directed at the EC are merely a product of Thaksin’s “PR machine” (no mention of the obstacles placed in the way of Thaksin’s “PR machine” – to the extent it is allowed to operate at all – by the royalist regime). But the attempt at a rebuttle soon fizzles out when Connors actually contradicts himself by agreeing that PPP’s “claims of a plot against it surely have some substance…. But why should it be otherwise? In a war, one force uses the instruments open to its influence…”
2. “…Is the election commission a stooge…”
In his initial attempt to refute the coup by stealth argument Connors tries to argue that the EC is not a stooge because it was appointed during the Thaksin era, apparently by pro-Thaksin senators. There are two problems with this: (i) the point is not whether the EC is a “stooge”, but whether it is being used as a conduit for the exercise of extra-Constitutional power by the anti-Thaksin forces following the PPP’s good result in the election; and (ii) as we know, in the case of Thai politics public figures are always ready to “jump ship” when the political winds change. In Thaksin’s own party scores of members abandoned TRT after the coup when the new “power” took over. Just because they were appointed by Thaksin (at a time when politically Thaksin was extremely weak – who knows whether Thaksin in fact had the final say over these appointments?) does not mean that the commissioners could not be subject to outside influence, especially when the stakes are so high.
Apart from this there are the scandals involving the EC’s request to the deputy director of the Santibal, who was involved with the PAD demonstrations under Sondhi Limthongkul, to “help” them with their investigations into electoral violations, and the request that Sodsri’s daughter be seconded to work for Sondhi Bunyaratkalin (which makes it a little strange that Connors should take Sodsri’s words at face value).
3. “…For reasons that remain unclear, a day after the 19 September 2006 coup d’etat the military endorsed the Senate selection of the commissioners…”
After everything that happened since September 19 (the coup-makers’ attempt to destroy Thaksin, as Connors himself argues) surely there is an obvious reason: they were endorsed because the coup-makers obviously knew that this EC could be bent to their will (or, more accurately, to the will of the powers behind the coup-makers). Why else spare such an important body after everything the coup-makers had done?
4. “…One might surmise, rather generously, that the coup group acted thus because the 10 nominees forwarded to the senate by the judiciary were chosen in the shadow of the king’s appeal to judicial integrity, and thus could be expected to act with caution and impartiality…”
This statement is quite astonishing in its credulity. Connors actually takes what the King says at face value! Anyone who has studied the king’s speeches will know that they are not to be taken literally (anymore than the speeches of any other politician) but they should be read as coded message being sent to a particular target audience for a political purpose. The king can not be seen to intervene in politics (unless in a “crisis”), but as we know, he continually makes his position and desires known to the relevant people. The phraratchadamrat have the effect of giving a “royal blessing” for controversial political actions later taken by the military, judges, senior bureaucrats, which prevent criticism of that action, eg. the 25 April 2006 speech to the judges which led to the annulment of the result of the April elections; the 25 May 2007 speech a week before the dissolution of the TRT and banning of the 111 TRT executives, following which the CNS told the whole country to stay calm and abide by the phratchadamrat; and the outrageous birthday speech last December where he outlined his wishlist of military purchases. As Somsak has argued, the fact that the king is allowed to comment in public at all without his remarks having first been sent for approval by the democratically elected leader of the government is itself a big problem for democracy in Thailand.
5. “…Whatever one thinks of the PPP and its claim to represent the democratic will of the people…”
What does this mean? That the PPP does NOT represent the democratic will of the Thai people? So Connors does not accept the election results? He does not think that the PPP represents the democratic will of the Thai people?
6. “…The acute state of Thai politics at this present time has little to do with democracy…”
What an extraordinary statement – which shows how faithful Connors is to the “song mai ao” credo. Democratic elections appear to mean nothing to him. They are just another way by which one section of the “elite” manipulates the population, who are too stupid to be able to vote for the parties which the “song mai ao” academics would like.
7. “…they have yet to elaborate any genuinely ideological position…”
The implication (very common of the elitist stance of the “song mai ao”) is that the PPP-TRT is purely a political vehicle for Thaksin to manipulate the electorate (because the villagers are too stupid and uneducated) so it doesn’t need any ideological stance. Well, given that the party was only formed 6 months ago, during a royalist-military dictatorship which controlled the media and made it extremely difficult for the PPP to get its message out at all, one might think that Connors might have sympathized with the party’s difficulty in pursuing its public relations. But given that the PPP is publicly recognized as essentially the resurrection of the TRT, one would think that people already have a pretty good idea of the “ideological position” of the party. Maybe that is even why so many people voted for them.
8. “…Enlightened Thaksin forces want a bourgeois revolution …They are also hostile to liberal forms of democracy…”
Huh? No evidence is given to back up this vague statement. Who are these “enlightened” forces? Who pronounces them “enlightened”? (this is another feature of the song mai ao academics: they see themselves as morally and politically superior to the appalling politicians). How are the enlightened Thaksin forces “hostile” to liberal democracy? Which party has utilized the discourse of liberal democracy (especially the importance of elections, following the Constitution) more than the TRT-PPP? In one paragraph Connors is saying, sarcastically again, that “They [the pro-Thaksin forces] have been unrelenting in their claim of Thaksin’s democratic mandate” and then in another he says that they are hostile to liberal democracy. The logic that makes this contradiction work for Connors is that he obviously considers TRT-PPP’s rhetoric about democracy a sham. In fact, they are just right wing, authoritarian chauvinists, ie. as bad as the royalists. It’s just that the villagers are too stupid to understand this and are being duped. So we need the far-sighted, selfless academics to lead the “people’s sector” instead. Classic ” song mai ao” discourse.
9. “…Enlightened Thaksin forces … mobilise forces under a banner of right wing populism, including Buddhist chauvinism…”
Oh, a beauty this one. So the support that TRT gained was because they “mobilized forces” (ie. got people to vote for them) based on populism (ie. the wicked practice of the TRT by which they promised and delivered upon policies that addressed the needs of their constituents). How is this “right wing”? Don’t right wing political movements eschew the sort of welfare programs that TRT was delivering to the poor? As for Buddhist chauvinism, who are more chauvinist than the royalists and the military when it comes to Buddhism! (This is the whole problem with Buddhism today: it has been strangled by the royalists for the best part of the last 50 years).
10. “…it is indeed surprising that not more has been done to eliminate the Thaksin threat….”
What an extraordinary statement. For Connors, everything that has happened since September 19 2006 is not enough: the overthrow of the TRT government by tanks and guns in a royalist-military coup; the arrest of its members and the flight of others into exile; the exile of its leader; the year-long use of martial law in half the country (which continues in many provinces); the blanket censorship of any news about Thaksin; the dissolution of the TRT; the political banning of 111 executives; the seizure of Thaksin’s assets; the drafting of a constitution by royalist-appointed members specifically designed to prevent Thaksin from returning to power; the beefing up of the powers of the military under the new security act; the obvious intimidation and obstruction of PPP campaigning, etc. etc. But all this is not enough for Connors. It is a “surprise” that not more has been done to get rid of Thaksin (since, according to Connors, he is a “historical calamity”). So the regime has been too soft on him?!
11. “…They have been unrelenting in their claim of Thaksin’s democratic mandate, willing to ignore that democracy means so much more than a mark on a ballot paper…”
Well, here we go. The hoary old “song mai ao” disparagement of elections. This is possibly the most offensive statement of the article. Connors can’t seem to understand the fundamental problem of Thai politics: the failure to cement the principle of popular sovereignty because of the restoration of the political fortunes of the royalists after 1947, and the subsequent indoctrination of the population through the organs of the state with the ideals and values of absolute monarchy. The only mechanism by which the people can have real leverage over politics (however flawed and open to abuse that leverage might be) in the face of the royalist manipulation of the Thai politics is elections. Everything follows from elections. And that is why the royalist attack on elections has been so violent and determined (apart from the coup itself) – from the rhetoric that the people are too stupid to understand what’s good for them, that they sell their votes, that they vote in “bad” people, that they are victims of “populism”, etc. etc., through to the rigging of the constitution, the ridiculously strict limitations on campaigning, the threat of red and yellow cards, etc. The reason why elections in Thailand at this moment are SO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT is that they are the only means by which the legitimacy of the royalist hold on the Thai political system can be challenged. The attack on elections (“democracy means more than elections”) is a royalist ruse and Connors supports it.
And finally:
12. “…Thailand’s chance of returning to some form of liberal democracy are slim…”
If it’s a “return” then this obviously rules out any government that has been or will be dominated by TRT-PPP, because Connors has already declared that these people are “hostile” to liberal forms of democracy.
If it’s a “return” then I guess that must mean the Democrats?!!!!
There you have it: “song mai ao” lives on.
Thai studies conference underway
“What Thailand needs more than anything is more people with basic ethics” – I read that as virtuous people. On the other hand you urged me to put things in the perspective of complex SE Asian politics, which I do understand, but not sympathize with. Again, that BTW addition to my reply to you was only a minor point, and certainly not a misrepresentation as the word “seem” renders it accurate while the lack of quotation marks makes it a paraphrase, not a misquote. You did seem to be excusing in my eyes, mentioning SEA politics in a discussion about the Thai monarchy. . .
I agree with you on this point, but I am not simply sitting back and doing nothing, sir. Plus, regardless of what I decide to “start doing”, is my argument still valid?
Thai studies conference open forum
So bad we cannot force the Thais to speak English properly like we did to Malaysia, South African and Australia. So bad they still hold on their culture and beliefs. Any way, there are some Thais who think like us. It won’t be long befor the other Thais to follow. Then we can conquer the country with out any war. Bravo!!!
Thai studies conference underway
Teth,
RE: Your criticism of Mariner’s post.
re-read his post till you get the sarcasm laden words he used.
I have a hint on how you might just get the sarcastic wit and humor.
Get off your moral high horse! Mariner’s final quote was the confirmation of sarcasm: how can any project not have consequences?
ahaaa
maybe too blind by your perception, you don’t read things with an open mind and take it for what it is, rather for what you would prefer it to be, so you can claim the moral high ground and score points.
don’t be a poster like Republican or Somsak….
have they (or you) even gone so far as congratulating Thongchai on this historic ICT where they *gasp* debated the role of HMK, and the discussion, while not open, was a step forward in the direction of debating Royal roles in public discourse.
Thai studies conference underway
Teth, you say, ‘ you decry the lack of virtuous Thais but seem to excuse the Machiavellian politics of the King.’
Nowhere did I use the term ‘virtuous.’ My point was simply that democracy is a process that requires a ‘hands-on’ participatory approach from a significant number of people in a society. In Thailand it is obvious that entrenched corruption of many kinds is a very major factor in preventing the development of democracy. So, it seems obvious that this is a good place for ordinary people to start doing something that will begin a process of change. To sit back & blame the big players, while waiting for a squeaky-clean hero to come along & save the situation won’t do anything. There’s been ample evidence that this merely perpetuates the situation.
‘…excuse the Machiavellian polititics of the King…’ is a blatant misquote. I don’t infer that I excuse anyone for anything, nor do I refer to ‘politics of the king.’ I talk about politics of S.E.Asia, & of Thailand, & suggest that you should get away from blaming one person, because it’s a complicated, intricate, duplicitous, cunning(Machiavellian) situation, where we know very little about what’s really going on.
I’ve read TKNS, & participated in discussing it. I think it’s great. Haven’t read McCargo, though. Where can I find it?
Volunteering to fight in Burma
I have just came upon your website where some individual made mention of a book that has come out recently about the Karen National Liberation Army, written by an American who joined their fight. that individual is me, Thomas Bleming and I am the author of”War in Karen Country” as well as “Panama -Echoes from a Revolution”. Both books can be seen on Amazon.com or by going to “Bleming Books” on the Google and /or Yahoo search to see the many hundreds of web sites on these.
Those of you who wish to look on the web for information using my name can do so as well.
I hope that those interested in the Karen national Liberation Army and their fight will purchase my book and they will have inside knowledge of their fight for freedom.
Thai studies conference open forum
This is a response to Srithanonchai at #36 above.
This news first came out a few weeks ago. At the time the comments attached to ScandAsia’s article seemed to be mainly from the overseas Lao community. The general tone was, “the Lao government deserves this loss of aid and diplomatic relations because of its corruption and mismanagement.” A few commentators who seem to be based in Laos shot back, but not many.
In related news, the Laos-based website Mahasan (www.mahasan.com), which seems to be government connected, actually does allow readers to post comments to articles. I’ve seen a few heated discussions occur among the otherwise innocuous comments. I wonder if the Lao government has opened a pandora’s box by allowing online discussion in the Lao language to happen in a “public” setting such as the Web?
To connect this back to ICTS–I would love to hear whether there were any panels dealing with Thailand’s neighbors, especially in terms of their cultural or historical connections with Thailand.
Thai studies conference open forum
Reply to “an observer” (#29): “…in my opinion, distrust, biases, negetivity are rampant on the anti-roylaist webboards…”
“…Why can’t we credit whom and where deserve credits…”
What a strange outburst. Well, if it’s so unpleasant for you here perhaps it might be more comfortable for you at the royalist webboards or the royalist newspapers. There maybe you can get the “credit” you seek.
Thai studies conference underway
BTW, I find it odd that on one hand you decry the lack of virtuous Thais but seem to excuse the Machiavellian politics of the King. You say you’re not royalist, but I sense that you’ve absorbed quite a bit of the belief that the King is essentially a good man. Once again, I urge you to abandon that belief and study it based on the evidence and reconclude.
Thai studies conference underway
I couldn’t agree more. I knew nothing of the king before I came to Thailand. Since then I have read the bangkok Post and Nation newspapers everyday and not once have I ever come across any criticism of a royally funded project. You have to be amazed at the planning and attention to detail that surely goes into theses schemes. Ask yourself this: How many western agencies can boast initiatives which neither harm the environment not have any human costs?
Mariner, ask yourself if you would feel the same about Kim Jong Il or Kim Il Sung. After all, if you were to live in North Korea, read the North Korean press, and talk to North Korean barbers, I’m sure you would think the same about the Kims. Oh wait, lese majeste isn’t the same as censorship then?
Snarls, what I find repugnant about the King is a combination of his image and how far it is from the truth. The propaganda is over the top while those who subscribe to it are devout and zealous enough to threaten violence whenever anything bad is said about the King. What’s more, they’re willing to turn a blind eye to reason simply to continue living in their delusional, spoonfed beliefs. I say this in a general sense because if you ask most Thais, they will not even know that the King has only one usable eye, because the fact is not publicized on television. I stress this because there is nothing wrong with loving the King, but that most King-worshippers are ignorant and just plainly brainwashed. A smaller minority know their facts but excuse him with shifty morals while there are possibly those extreme rightists who simply love monarchy and mob violence.
In anycase, I was simply attacking that wide gulf between image and reality by trying to show the logical inconsistencies in them. Obviously I am aware that one man could not be expected to change an entire country over 60 years or do everything right, but isn’t that what the telly is saying about him? Again, when I was growing up I used to ask why we didn’t return to absolute monarchy when we had such a great King, or why the King did not participate in politics since he was universally loved and was perfectly virtous: he would’ve gotten a stable parliamentary majority plus no corruption. That nobody around me, to this day, could give me an answer goes to show why the propaganda is ridiculous.
To get back to the point you were making, it seems to me that you’ve been living in Thailand for quite a while, and I agree with your long middle paragraph about what Thailand needs. I would like to add, however, that the King and all the associated feudal practices is exactly what you are moaning about. Why the deference to unelected, hereditary Kings who sits atop the “hi-so”/patronage/elders/feudal system. That age or money or heredity should supercede merit as the gauge for respect is the fetters of our modern day feudalism. The denial, hypocrisy, and inability to critically listen to what other people has to say also arises from this feudal “do you know who I am?” mentality as well. The recent case of the Canadian shot by the police also reeks of this. “Do you not know that I’m a police officer. Die.”
The West is not immune to this either as evidenced in the stiff upper lip of the upper classes, police brutality, ridiculous court cases (resulting from an ill-proportioned sense of entitlement), racism, etc. But as we all know the West is doing much more about it than Thailand is.
P.S. Should you wonder about the King’s meddling in politics and involvement with the military, find some of the excellent academic articles (McCargo, Network Monarchy), Paul Handley’s the King Never Smiles for a start, or if you would like first hand historical information, check out the newspaper archives for first hand images of the King visiting Thanom published in the papers, read his speeches at that time, or simply look at what organizations have “royal patronage” and were involved in events such as the 6 Oct massacre. Alternatively, search for the “Young Turk rebellion” against Prem in the mid-1980 and how Prem had to run off to stay with the King in order to stay in power or even more recently, see the flowing words of praise he had for the Surayud cabinet (and their subsequent idiocy).
What you won’t find, though, is the King condemning a military coup or demanding the military abstain from politics, except, of course, when those military men were not in his pocket (Pibulsonggram’s first premiership).
Thai studies conference underway
z”You have to be amazed at the planning and attention to detail that surely goes into theses schemes. ” >> And into their favorable reporting…
Thai studies conference open forum
ySince there seem to be little interest in commenting on the ITSC, can somebody perhaps throw some more light on the news piece below? According to it, Sweden will withdraw its development cooperation from Laos.
“Sweden upset over slow reform in Laos
Sweden’s decision to shut its embassy in Laos this year was primarily due to a redirection of Swedish development aid towards Africa but was also influenced by the slow pace of political reforms in the communist state, media reports revealed Tuesday.
“The process of political reforms in Laos has been rather slow in comparison with other reforms in the country. This has not been the only reason but could be one of the factors affecting the final decision,” said Swedish Charge d’Affairs to Vientiane AnnLis Aberg in an interview with ScandAsia, a news portal on Southeast Asia.
Sweden has decided to close its embassy in Vientiane on August 15, this year, as a result of a refocusing of the its Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
Of the 70 countries that currently receive bilateral aid from Sweden only 33 will remain.
Aberg said that the “guiding principle” in the cuts is that the Swedish government has decided to give more priority to Africa than to Asia.
“Laos is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Personally I would have preferred if we could have continued for a few more years. We have been here for more than 30 years,” Aberg told ScandAsia.
SIDA’s projects in Laos have concentrated on education, infrastructure, good governance, and natural resources.
While Laos has made progress in pushing through economic reforms in recent years it remains under a one-party political regime controlled by the communist party.
After the closure of its embassy in Vientiane, all consular cases will be handled by the Swedish embassy in Bangkok.
Sweden is also ending development cooperation with Vietnam and the Philippines, while it plans to open new embassies in Belarus, Sudan and Afghanistan. (dpa)” (BP, 22 Jan. 08)