Sick, how do you have a democracy when people don’t know what advertisements and bonuses they’re voting for? (see recent Workchoices advertisements of the Australian Liberal Party, or Kevin07!!) Information has to come from somewhere! Now ‘somewhere’ just provides it with a financial significance. Yet democracy still continues!!! *eyes roll back into head*
Are we allowed to make statements against Grasshopper here? Since his sojourn in Pattani he has become even more insufferable that Thaksin and The King put together! 😉
re: Ian
Futue te ipsum! And the same goes for your mother as well.
Quite frankly, there is nothing more obnoxious than someone who enters into a rather emotional discussion late, sneers at the contributions with a supercilious and haughty disdain, and then claims they would contribute to the conversation if and only if his fellow interlocutors weren’t beneath him with their tawdry displays.
So, Ian, since you aren’t “uninformed” about this subject, inform us. Why don’t you be the one to provide a reasonable critique of Handley’s work? Perhaps, to wax poetic in a Behanian mode, similar to both critics and eunuchs, you are incapable of doing that which you observe daily.
In short, your lack of a decent education in the Liberal Arts, should not in any fashion inhibit the application of my knowledge. Indeed, an interesting comparision could be draw between recent events in Thai politics and the political battles between Catiline and Cicero. Unfortunately, the conversation could never go down that route due to the anti-intellectual, Tall Poppy Syndrome browbeating that seems to have infected this thread via certain posters.
That having been said, welcome to New Mandala and I look forward to your appropriate reasonable critique soon.
P.S. Forgive the conspiracy theory, but, Ian:nganadeeleg:: Vichai:Jeru?
Would a PM who waltzed around buying votes still be called a “democratically elected” PM? Wouldn’t that NOT be called “democratically elected” but instead, just simply, BOUGHT?
screwtheuselesselection, have you considered a job in the civil service?
ladyboy, maybe those examples are strong evidence of the King’s personal liberalism. Merit might just mean how close you are to the King.
If anyone were to live in a merit based nation, there would only be place for people who work quite hard. What if it is your personal, liberal autonomy to grow only into your comfortable chair? You might work quite hard at that. Merit-based nation and liberalism are totally contradictory. Lee Kuan Yew must have realised this and allowed for his liberal principles to direct Singapore into becoming a merit based nation. Which style do you prefer?
I have been reading this blog for the last hour and a half. With great respect I have to suggest that a moderator is needed. From a useful discussion about a biography the thread deteriorated into pseudo-intellectual claptrap, abuse and point scoring. Such a waste of energy and time.
Of all the participants nganadeeleg seems to be trying desperately to provide some sense of stability.
New though I am to the blog, I am not uninformed about the subject, and I would like to see the original topic dealt with appropriately, ie a reasonable critique of Mr Handley’s book.
Are we allowed to make statements against the King, the army, the police, Thaksin, political parties, royalists and boutique leftists here? I’m sick to death of the lot of them!
nganadeeleg “the king is their only hope for a merit-based nation —Liberalism through royalty,” Do you honestly think the king is going to change his spots now? Lese majeste, support for military coups, support for the Burma junta etc are not strong evidence of “liberalism” and a “merit-based nation.
You make a valid point, david, that the military is a fractured organization consisting of not only a collective greed, but also of factional ones. Yet this point, I think, fits into Republican’s analysis: that such a fragmented organization has so far acted “united” in implementing the coup and generally keeping dissent unheard of seems odd, unless, of course, the fault lines within the military were to be instantly healed, or some greater manipulation were to be at work.
You argue that the palace is at this moment by far the most powerful political actor, standing on its own without the military. But you also focus on Prem. Prem is both military and royalist, and has relied on his military connections to maintain royal power. Despite efforts toward this direction, Prem does not have his own royal barami, is not royal blood, and so by himself cannot wield royal power. He fronts royal power and only does so successfully by keeping up army ties. Those “most appointments” to the NLA and cabinet, were they to the “royal Prem” or to the “military Prem”? You cannot separate the two.
What that really means is that the generals have their own power, including a certain amount leverage over the throne. For instance, the throne cannot implement the ISA, that takes the military. You yourself pointed out the weakness of the throne in this regard: “Basically you have a situation where the king is promising riches to the military” to keep them on side.
With that one phrase you really undermine your arguments that the military is weakened. Just remove that one key element — Prem — and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, nothing changes.
Ngarn I think its infinitely more likely to come from rogue elements in the military than a vengeful relative. Certainly more likely to be successful too. I’m sure Thaksin has beefed up his own security in recent weeks.
Even though PPP clearly won the election, I am wondering do you really think Samak is a suitable person for PM ?
It depends on what you mean by “suitable”. Given the options available to PPP then he is the most suitable person available to be PPP. Is he my favourite or first choice? Not really. I have neutral feelings about Samak. Chaturon would be my preferred PPP person, but well he is one of the 111 so no can do.
PPP don’t really have anyone else who is that experienced. Mingkwan looks good on paper, but he is untested and has no political experience. Samak is no political fool. Thaksin knows that from the time they didn’t see eye-to-eye in the mid 90s. PPP need some experience so Samak is a suitable person to lead in the circumstances.
They are hardly going to go with Banharn (even that recent poll with Abhisit leading in popularity stakes 51% vs 40% for Samak had Banharn at only 9%) and Suvit was a possibility, but ain’t an option now. Gen. Chetta has health problems. And well Snoh is Snoh. change. Samak will not be a one man show either. You and I both know he won’t dominate policy. As an oratorial figurehead he is ok. Samak will have to tone down his rhetoric to survive. If he doesn’t PPP he will go. So it depends on whether he wants it enough to be civil.
BTW, which party were Prem & Surayud standing for in the election?
Reply to David W: The issue is, who is “in control”, not whether the the military has “collective self-interest”. Of course the military has collective self-interest. I never said it didn’t. It (or rather, certain elements within the military) pursues that self-interest by allying itself with the monarchy, which is untouchable. This alliance augments the powers of the military.
But that does not mean the military itself is “in control”.
Evidence?
The mastermind behind the coup – chairman of the Privy Council. The PM – a privy counsellor.
Look at the Cabinet – most appointments were based on connections NOT to the military but to the monarchy.
Look at the NLA. Military appointments made up only a small proportion of the membership.
Look at the instruments used to destroy the TRT – the Constitutional Tribunal, the AEC, and the other “independent bodies” – these are not military.
The new Constitution is designed to keep political parties weak to ensure the survival of the network monarchy system of governance – the best description that I can think of for something quite complex – much more than it is to enhance the power of the military.
This is why I regard the military an instrument of the royalist alliance – an important instrument to be sure, but not “in control”, as you seem to think.
Re. the ISA, it suits the royalists very well to have a powerful Internal Security Act – this will help them defend themselves from any democratic-based challenge like TRT-PPP. Having a strong ISA doesn’t mean that the military are in control in Thailand, any more than it does with the ISA in Malaysia or Singapore. Note that this Act was passed not by the decree of a military dictator but by a vote of the NLA which is overwhelmingly not military but royalist.
The reason this is an important point to make is that if we keep dwelling on the military, saying that the military is ultimately “in control”, it diverts attention from the monarchy, which is the real obstacle to Thailand’s democratization. This suits the monarchy very well. It preserves the pretence that it is “above” politics. What we need to be saying in academic discourse and in the media is that the monarchy is in fact constantly interfering in politics to defend itself and its royalist allies. Academics and journalists should continually be trying to reveal its manipulations, especially when lese majeste means that Thais can not do so without great risk to themselves.
I will say for the 1000th time, I can understand in Thailand why people can not mention the monarchy, but I am continually astounded why people beyond the reach of lese majeste can not or choose not to point out the monarchy’s continual anti-democratic manipulation of Thai politics.
As for your claim that the ISA enables the military to “clarify and reinforce their ability to unilaterally and definitively control, regulate and shape both the bureaucratic state and civil society in the pursuit of their own collective self-interest”, well, that is as laughable as it is prolix. Unilaterally? You are saying they don’t need the king’s approval?!!!
Chumporn: I agree with Bangkok Pundit’s post and would add that since a goodly slice of the Dems’ natural constituency would share Samak’s apparent contempt for the poor and preference for military solutions to political problems, bringing up those items in his resume would possibly have sent some of them running into the arms of the PPP. More a backfire than a weapon, then. Not to mention the near-certainty of another libel action.
Grasshopper: I guess that makes me a “cheap cosmopolitan” too. I am unaccountably happy about the outcome(s) of this election… so far. This, in spite of the fact that, as a western liberal, I don’t really see myself “supporting” anyone in a Thai election. I responded to Adam Carr’s original post because I’m interested in the problematics of my having “western liberal eyes”, albeit focussed quite differently from Mr Carr’s, and therefore in need of corrective lenses to see well in the Thailand that I live in.
The proportion of constituency MPs and proportionate MPs is interesting, to say the least. The Dems grab 132 constituency seats and 33 proportionate seats, while PPP got 198 constituency seats and 34 proportionate seats.
Have people been voting for PPP constituency MPs while ticking for Dems proportionate MPs? A strange two way voter we have got.
Have the advance voting score really be siphon from PPP to the Dems, or vice versa? The question is what will PPP do about it? Or what will the Dems do?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Using wisdom to see reality
Sick, how do you have a democracy when people don’t know what advertisements and bonuses they’re voting for? (see recent Workchoices advertisements of the Australian Liberal Party, or Kevin07!!) Information has to come from somewhere! Now ‘somewhere’ just provides it with a financial significance. Yet democracy still continues!!! *eyes roll back into head*
Using wisdom to see reality
Are we allowed to make statements against Grasshopper here? Since his sojourn in Pattani he has become even more insufferable that Thaksin and The King put together! 😉
The King Never Smiles?
re: Ian
Futue te ipsum! And the same goes for your mother as well.
Quite frankly, there is nothing more obnoxious than someone who enters into a rather emotional discussion late, sneers at the contributions with a supercilious and haughty disdain, and then claims they would contribute to the conversation if and only if his fellow interlocutors weren’t beneath him with their tawdry displays.
So, Ian, since you aren’t “uninformed” about this subject, inform us. Why don’t you be the one to provide a reasonable critique of Handley’s work? Perhaps, to wax poetic in a Behanian mode, similar to both critics and eunuchs, you are incapable of doing that which you observe daily.
In short, your lack of a decent education in the Liberal Arts, should not in any fashion inhibit the application of my knowledge. Indeed, an interesting comparision could be draw between recent events in Thai politics and the political battles between Catiline and Cicero. Unfortunately, the conversation could never go down that route due to the anti-intellectual, Tall Poppy Syndrome browbeating that seems to have infected this thread via certain posters.
That having been said, welcome to New Mandala and I look forward to your appropriate reasonable critique soon.
P.S. Forgive the conspiracy theory, but, Ian:nganadeeleg:: Vichai:Jeru?
The King Never Smiles?
Well, I have to agree that the use of latin did stimulate similar thoughts in me!
The King Never Smiles?
Thanks, Ian – presumably you were not referring to my comment #87
🙂
Using wisdom to see reality
Would a PM who waltzed around buying votes still be called a “democratically elected” PM? Wouldn’t that NOT be called “democratically elected” but instead, just simply, BOUGHT?
Using wisdom to see reality
screwtheuselesselection, have you considered a job in the civil service?
ladyboy, maybe those examples are strong evidence of the King’s personal liberalism. Merit might just mean how close you are to the King.
If anyone were to live in a merit based nation, there would only be place for people who work quite hard. What if it is your personal, liberal autonomy to grow only into your comfortable chair? You might work quite hard at that. Merit-based nation and liberalism are totally contradictory. Lee Kuan Yew must have realised this and allowed for his liberal principles to direct Singapore into becoming a merit based nation. Which style do you prefer?
The King Never Smiles?
Gentlepersons,
I have been reading this blog for the last hour and a half. With great respect I have to suggest that a moderator is needed. From a useful discussion about a biography the thread deteriorated into pseudo-intellectual claptrap, abuse and point scoring. Such a waste of energy and time.
Of all the participants nganadeeleg seems to be trying desperately to provide some sense of stability.
New though I am to the blog, I am not uninformed about the subject, and I would like to see the original topic dealt with appropriately, ie a reasonable critique of Mr Handley’s book.
Using wisdom to see reality
Are we allowed to make statements against the King, the army, the police, Thaksin, political parties, royalists and boutique leftists here? I’m sick to death of the lot of them!
Using wisdom to see reality
nganadeeleg “the king is their only hope for a merit-based nation —Liberalism through royalty,” Do you honestly think the king is going to change his spots now? Lese majeste, support for military coups, support for the Burma junta etc are not strong evidence of “liberalism” and a “merit-based nation.
Using wisdom to see reality
Here’s another one:
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Columns/2119833/Article/index_html
(no doubt some New Mandala readers will take exception to this piece)
The King Never Smiles?
You make a valid point, david, that the military is a fractured organization consisting of not only a collective greed, but also of factional ones. Yet this point, I think, fits into Republican’s analysis: that such a fragmented organization has so far acted “united” in implementing the coup and generally keeping dissent unheard of seems odd, unless, of course, the fault lines within the military were to be instantly healed, or some greater manipulation were to be at work.
The King Never Smiles?
If Thaksin does make a comeback, it is reassuring to at least know a royalist will be at the helm:)
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30060559
🙂
The King Never Smiles?
Republican:
You argue that the palace is at this moment by far the most powerful political actor, standing on its own without the military. But you also focus on Prem. Prem is both military and royalist, and has relied on his military connections to maintain royal power. Despite efforts toward this direction, Prem does not have his own royal barami, is not royal blood, and so by himself cannot wield royal power. He fronts royal power and only does so successfully by keeping up army ties. Those “most appointments” to the NLA and cabinet, were they to the “royal Prem” or to the “military Prem”? You cannot separate the two.
What that really means is that the generals have their own power, including a certain amount leverage over the throne. For instance, the throne cannot implement the ISA, that takes the military. You yourself pointed out the weakness of the throne in this regard: “Basically you have a situation where the king is promising riches to the military” to keep them on side.
With that one phrase you really undermine your arguments that the military is weakened. Just remove that one key element — Prem — and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, nothing changes.
The King Never Smiles?
Ngarn I think its infinitely more likely to come from rogue elements in the military than a vengeful relative. Certainly more likely to be successful too. I’m sure Thaksin has beefed up his own security in recent weeks.
Analysis
Nganadeeleg:
Even though PPP clearly won the election, I am wondering do you really think Samak is a suitable person for PM ?
It depends on what you mean by “suitable”. Given the options available to PPP then he is the most suitable person available to be PPP. Is he my favourite or first choice? Not really. I have neutral feelings about Samak. Chaturon would be my preferred PPP person, but well he is one of the 111 so no can do.
PPP don’t really have anyone else who is that experienced. Mingkwan looks good on paper, but he is untested and has no political experience. Samak is no political fool. Thaksin knows that from the time they didn’t see eye-to-eye in the mid 90s. PPP need some experience so Samak is a suitable person to lead in the circumstances.
They are hardly going to go with Banharn (even that recent poll with Abhisit leading in popularity stakes 51% vs 40% for Samak had Banharn at only 9%) and Suvit was a possibility, but ain’t an option now. Gen. Chetta has health problems. And well Snoh is Snoh. change. Samak will not be a one man show either. You and I both know he won’t dominate policy. As an oratorial figurehead he is ok. Samak will have to tone down his rhetoric to survive. If he doesn’t PPP he will go. So it depends on whether he wants it enough to be civil.
BTW, which party were Prem & Surayud standing for in the election?
Which party was Thaksin standing?
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to David W: The issue is, who is “in control”, not whether the the military has “collective self-interest”. Of course the military has collective self-interest. I never said it didn’t. It (or rather, certain elements within the military) pursues that self-interest by allying itself with the monarchy, which is untouchable. This alliance augments the powers of the military.
But that does not mean the military itself is “in control”.
Evidence?
The mastermind behind the coup – chairman of the Privy Council. The PM – a privy counsellor.
Look at the Cabinet – most appointments were based on connections NOT to the military but to the monarchy.
Look at the NLA. Military appointments made up only a small proportion of the membership.
Look at the instruments used to destroy the TRT – the Constitutional Tribunal, the AEC, and the other “independent bodies” – these are not military.
The new Constitution is designed to keep political parties weak to ensure the survival of the network monarchy system of governance – the best description that I can think of for something quite complex – much more than it is to enhance the power of the military.
This is why I regard the military an instrument of the royalist alliance – an important instrument to be sure, but not “in control”, as you seem to think.
Re. the ISA, it suits the royalists very well to have a powerful Internal Security Act – this will help them defend themselves from any democratic-based challenge like TRT-PPP. Having a strong ISA doesn’t mean that the military are in control in Thailand, any more than it does with the ISA in Malaysia or Singapore. Note that this Act was passed not by the decree of a military dictator but by a vote of the NLA which is overwhelmingly not military but royalist.
The reason this is an important point to make is that if we keep dwelling on the military, saying that the military is ultimately “in control”, it diverts attention from the monarchy, which is the real obstacle to Thailand’s democratization. This suits the monarchy very well. It preserves the pretence that it is “above” politics. What we need to be saying in academic discourse and in the media is that the monarchy is in fact constantly interfering in politics to defend itself and its royalist allies. Academics and journalists should continually be trying to reveal its manipulations, especially when lese majeste means that Thais can not do so without great risk to themselves.
I will say for the 1000th time, I can understand in Thailand why people can not mention the monarchy, but I am continually astounded why people beyond the reach of lese majeste can not or choose not to point out the monarchy’s continual anti-democratic manipulation of Thai politics.
As for your claim that the ISA enables the military to “clarify and reinforce their ability to unilaterally and definitively control, regulate and shape both the bureaucratic state and civil society in the pursuit of their own collective self-interest”, well, that is as laughable as it is prolix. Unilaterally? You are saying they don’t need the king’s approval?!!!
Analysis
Chumporn: I agree with Bangkok Pundit’s post and would add that since a goodly slice of the Dems’ natural constituency would share Samak’s apparent contempt for the poor and preference for military solutions to political problems, bringing up those items in his resume would possibly have sent some of them running into the arms of the PPP. More a backfire than a weapon, then. Not to mention the near-certainty of another libel action.
Grasshopper: I guess that makes me a “cheap cosmopolitan” too. I am unaccountably happy about the outcome(s) of this election… so far. This, in spite of the fact that, as a western liberal, I don’t really see myself “supporting” anyone in a Thai election. I responded to Adam Carr’s original post because I’m interested in the problematics of my having “western liberal eyes”, albeit focussed quite differently from Mr Carr’s, and therefore in need of corrective lenses to see well in the Thailand that I live in.
Mapping the result
IMHO Mapping like that with a threshhold point at 50% doesn’t show how divided things actually were.
As I remember the election returns there were often like 45%-55% or 40%-60%.
Only gradations of shading in the mapping could probably show this.
Calling anti-PPP a “minority” as I’ve seen doesn’t really capture the divided reality of things.
Mapping the result
The proportion of constituency MPs and proportionate MPs is interesting, to say the least. The Dems grab 132 constituency seats and 33 proportionate seats, while PPP got 198 constituency seats and 34 proportionate seats.
Have people been voting for PPP constituency MPs while ticking for Dems proportionate MPs? A strange two way voter we have got.
Have the advance voting score really be siphon from PPP to the Dems, or vice versa? The question is what will PPP do about it? Or what will the Dems do?