Can anyone tell me where I can find maps of the new constituency boundaries? By this I mean the constituencies within each province, not the eight PR constituencies. If there is no map, a list of the districts (amphoe) within each province that make up each constituency would do, since Wikipedia has amphoe maps. Please email me at [email protected] with any advice on this. (The ECT website is as always impossible to navigate.)
Thanks Ward, yes a little too cynical I think. But these are complex issues on which people hold very diverse opinions. Can I recommend the new special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia as a useful, initial, dissection of some of the key issues.
Michael H Nelson: I could post a list of some of your (non judgmental, non moralistic) “mildly analytical-critical academic descriptions”, however at this point in time I am really not inclined substantially to respond to your defensive points.
(I may change my mind if you choose to directly answer my initial questions)
Your commentary is very helpful. But it puzzles me in one respect: you make it sound as though the election pits royalists against democrats. But what I have read about Thaksin (admittedly, not a great deal) suggests that neither he nor his party’s “elected representatives” are democrats in any true sense. Yes, they use a populist rhetoric, and they garner support with certain popular policies. But for the most part they appear to think they know what’s best for people just as much as any royalist or other oligarch does. And what’s best for people usually turns out to line these populists’ pockets. Is that too cynical a view of them? Are they better democrats than I had thought?
“It seems Republican thinks the mere use of the term SE equates to legitimizing it and bringing increased political support for the king.” >> Is this assumption wrong, given the discursive context in Thailand?
nganadeeleg: I am not sure what statements in particular you refer to. Generally speaking, it is not really my problem if you cannot distinguish mildly analytical-critical academic descriptions from a consideration of good/bad issues.
Michael: Isn’t Channel 5 just spinning from Prem? If he didn’t want to deal with specific outcomes, he could just repeat the “we must accept the rules” mantra without getting into specifics. The “Prem didn’t want to make a specific comment” spin from Channel 5 is an extremely favourable interpretation of what Prem said. It must have taken them a while to find someone to come up with that interpretation!
btw, I am not saying you accept the Channel 5 interpretation of events and my comment is in response to your comment not necessarily directed at you.
Be careful Andrew, putting royal and politic on the same column.
I would say that would definitely skirt the lese majeste law to the edge.
(the law cover incident every where, even outside Thailand, remember?)
nganadeeleg is it a combination of both which makes his argument valid.
Republican describes it as an above criticism, “pseudo-economic theory”. Then he proceeds to disagree with an academic giving his support to such a topic which cannot be publicly explored in a critical (even in an academic setting) manner in Thailand or in Thai studies, which, renders it a tool for propaganda.
It is not wrong for an academic to agree with the King, but how can such a conclusion be reached when the other side of the debate is silenced? In such a case, the said academic’s support for the policy would be tantamount to propaganda.
But where Prof Keyes ever granted his support for SE is what I am still pondering about. Or is the mere use of the word (except with the qualifying words “pseudo-economics”) wrong?
“The king’s advice must be kept firmly in mind and put it into practice.”
This is another important part for interpreting the meaning of his statements. As soon as the King had made his three statements concerning unity and national security, Thai Rath used this “advice”, in its Sunday page-three analysis, to urge voters not to vote for PPP and Samak. This was thinly vailed in the phrase, “Don’t vote for those who have divided the country.” Shortly afterwards, Siam Rath ran the headline, “Adopting the King’s advice in forming the government.”
I heard the interview on TV last night. The interpretation put on it then was that it was unusual for Prem to give doorstep interviews and to make concrete statements about politics, and so he was not going to make a statement about specific outcomes (that is he deals with generalities), thus “I would not go so far as that “; i.e. make a specific comment). Until I heard that explanation (channel 5), I would have also understand Prem to mean that he would not go so far as to accept a People’s Power Party led government.
Now given Prem’s involvement in the events of 2006 it would not be hard to go for an interpretation that has him opposing the formation of a People’s Power government, but I doubt he would make such a statement in public.
nganadeeleg: “nor am I sure of what his capacity is in observing the electoral processes in that province.” >> First, I really am at a loss of what this issue has to do with my observations. Second, I can help you knowing my “capacity” better. The first post in this series stated the following: “Michael H. Nelson is a visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, and a senior research associate in Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Passau, Germany.” And: ” As had been the case with the constitution referendum, I have moved to Chachoengsao to observe the election as part of a project covering 14 provinces conducted by King Prajadhipok’s Institute (KPI).” I guess that you are sure now, right? Are my observations now more valid/invalid in your view? Third, I am really not inclined substantially to respond to your defensive points. Suffice to say that the country were I come from is a republic, and students are not normally used by state agencies in the instrumental way described in my post. Fourth, re vote-buying, I am not interested in a moralistic discussion. As for state agencies, be it the ministry of the interior or the ECT, vote-buying has been positive, because they could claim the money-induced higher turnout as their achievement. Since the elections of 2001, compulsory voting had its part, but it also made the work of hua khanaen more convenient.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
New Mandala in the press
If my memory served me well, it was June 2006 not December that Thais celebrated his 60 years on throne, right?
Who will be Thaksin’s Valentine?
Can anyone tell me where I can find maps of the new constituency boundaries? By this I mean the constituencies within each province, not the eight PR constituencies. If there is no map, a list of the districts (amphoe) within each province that make up each constituency would do, since Wikipedia has amphoe maps. Please email me at [email protected] with any advice on this. (The ECT website is as always impossible to navigate.)
Who will be Thaksin’s Valentine?
Another Thai celebrity who wears his brains between his legs. They are such a bunch of self-serving pansies!
New Mandala in the press
Thanks Ward, yes a little too cynical I think. But these are complex issues on which people hold very diverse opinions. Can I recommend the new special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia as a useful, initial, dissection of some of the key issues.
Chachoengsao: Provincial election commission advertises the election
Michael H Nelson: I could post a list of some of your (non judgmental, non moralistic) “mildly analytical-critical academic descriptions”, however at this point in time I am really not inclined substantially to respond to your defensive points.
(I may change my mind if you choose to directly answer my initial questions)
New Mandala in the press
Your commentary is very helpful. But it puzzles me in one respect: you make it sound as though the election pits royalists against democrats. But what I have read about Thaksin (admittedly, not a great deal) suggests that neither he nor his party’s “elected representatives” are democrats in any true sense. Yes, they use a populist rhetoric, and they garner support with certain popular policies. But for the most part they appear to think they know what’s best for people just as much as any royalist or other oligarch does. And what’s best for people usually turns out to line these populists’ pockets. Is that too cynical a view of them? Are they better democrats than I had thought?
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
“It seems Republican thinks the mere use of the term SE equates to legitimizing it and bringing increased political support for the king.” >> Is this assumption wrong, given the discursive context in Thailand?
Chachoengsao: Provincial election commission advertises the election
nganadeeleg: I am not sure what statements in particular you refer to. Generally speaking, it is not really my problem if you cannot distinguish mildly analytical-critical academic descriptions from a consideration of good/bad issues.
Accepting the result?
“Don’t vote for those who have divided the country.”
That describes Samak perfectly.
Divide and obliterate every time the mouth is open.
Samak the flame thrower, perfect tool for postelection
democratic reconciliation.
Also made it personal with Prem.
No one’s completely certain whether Samak called Prem:
1. White hair closet gay, or…
2. White haired man in the closet
(Source: Bangkok Pundit)
Phil Thornton on the Thai election
“All hope that the results of the election restores democracy, and turns the country off a path towards further political confrontation and turmoil.”
What? Like making Samak Prime Minister is going to make everyone feel nice and cozy?
Don’t earn enough to pay to read the rest of this apparently superficial and misinformed journalism.
Accepting the result?
Michael: Isn’t Channel 5 just spinning from Prem? If he didn’t want to deal with specific outcomes, he could just repeat the “we must accept the rules” mantra without getting into specifics. The “Prem didn’t want to make a specific comment” spin from Channel 5 is an extremely favourable interpretation of what Prem said. It must have taken them a while to find someone to come up with that interpretation!
btw, I am not saying you accept the Channel 5 interpretation of events and my comment is in response to your comment not necessarily directed at you.
New Mandala in the press
I reckon he will get a pardon.
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
Or is the mere use of the word (except with the qualifying words “pseudo-economics”) wrong?
It seems Republican thinks the mere use of the term SE equates to legitimizing it and bringing increased political support for the king.
He’s making quite a fuss about a theory of how reasonableness & moderation can provide some immunity.
New Mandala in the press
Be careful Andrew, putting royal and politic on the same column.
I would say that would definitely skirt the lese majeste law to the edge.
(the law cover incident every where, even outside Thailand, remember?)
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
nganadeeleg is it a combination of both which makes his argument valid.
Republican describes it as an above criticism, “pseudo-economic theory”. Then he proceeds to disagree with an academic giving his support to such a topic which cannot be publicly explored in a critical (even in an academic setting) manner in Thailand or in Thai studies, which, renders it a tool for propaganda.
It is not wrong for an academic to agree with the King, but how can such a conclusion be reached when the other side of the debate is silenced? In such a case, the said academic’s support for the policy would be tantamount to propaganda.
But where Prof Keyes ever granted his support for SE is what I am still pondering about. Or is the mere use of the word (except with the qualifying words “pseudo-economics”) wrong?
Accepting the result?
“The king’s advice must be kept firmly in mind and put it into practice.”
This is another important part for interpreting the meaning of his statements. As soon as the King had made his three statements concerning unity and national security, Thai Rath used this “advice”, in its Sunday page-three analysis, to urge voters not to vote for PPP and Samak. This was thinly vailed in the phrase, “Don’t vote for those who have divided the country.” Shortly afterwards, Siam Rath ran the headline, “Adopting the King’s advice in forming the government.”
Chachoengsao: Provincial election commission advertises the election
“….I am not interested in a moralistic discussion”
That’s not the impression I get from your reports.
Accepting the result?
Hi
I heard the interview on TV last night. The interpretation put on it then was that it was unusual for Prem to give doorstep interviews and to make concrete statements about politics, and so he was not going to make a statement about specific outcomes (that is he deals with generalities), thus “I would not go so far as that “; i.e. make a specific comment). Until I heard that explanation (channel 5), I would have also understand Prem to mean that he would not go so far as to accept a People’s Power Party led government.
Now given Prem’s involvement in the events of 2006 it would not be hard to go for an interpretation that has him opposing the formation of a People’s Power government, but I doubt he would make such a statement in public.
Chachoengsao: Provincial election commission advertises the election
nganadeeleg: “nor am I sure of what his capacity is in observing the electoral processes in that province.” >> First, I really am at a loss of what this issue has to do with my observations. Second, I can help you knowing my “capacity” better. The first post in this series stated the following: “Michael H. Nelson is a visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, and a senior research associate in Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Passau, Germany.” And: ” As had been the case with the constitution referendum, I have moved to Chachoengsao to observe the election as part of a project covering 14 provinces conducted by King Prajadhipok’s Institute (KPI).” I guess that you are sure now, right? Are my observations now more valid/invalid in your view? Third, I am really not inclined substantially to respond to your defensive points. Suffice to say that the country were I come from is a republic, and students are not normally used by state agencies in the instrumental way described in my post. Fourth, re vote-buying, I am not interested in a moralistic discussion. As for state agencies, be it the ministry of the interior or the ECT, vote-buying has been positive, because they could claim the money-induced higher turnout as their achievement. Since the elections of 2001, compulsory voting had its part, but it also made the work of hua khanaen more convenient.
Accepting the result?
“р╕Ьр╕б…р╕Ьр╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕Бр╕ер╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Вр╕Щр╕▓р╕Фр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕Бр╕ер╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Вр╕Щр╕▓р╕Фр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ”
The snippet is part of a lengthy interview. Link is here
Bkk Post somehow reduced it to this meaningless footnote