“Or are there good reasons why people want to maintain their electoral registration in their home district?”
My understanding is that voting is connected with inclusion in jot thabian baan [house register] and this is a lot more formal than just registering to vote. If your family has lived in a village for a long time and owns a house that you also have part ownership rights in, quite real rights because in Thailand as in Burma parents often divide up the inheritance well before they pass away, why would you change your registration to an apartment you are just renting temporarily in Bangkok?
House registration systems are instruments of government control and go way way back, being associated with the institution of village headman at least in Burma, one of the few continuities between the pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial periods. In Tachileik they were actually arresting, at one time, people who were not officially included on local house registers [ein-daung-sayin]. In China until fairly recently, house lists severely restricted peoples’ mobility.
[Note: I’d like to know more about house lists in general especially wrt voting. The comments made above were just made to elicit comments by people who know all the details.]
I would be interested if anyone has in their possession any maps which indicate the geographical extent of of state-sponsored upland resettlement or focal site development in Laos, or in specific provinces in Laos, over say, the past ten or fifteen years?
I have heard anecdotes of ’empty districts’ in southern Laos due to state-sponsored resettlement schemes, but have not seen much real data on this issue.
A visual, cartographic representation of resettlement in Laos could serve as a very useful basis for debate and discussion.
With all the reports of the campaigning of the various political parties we should not overlook the fact that the most experienced politician of them all, the king, has been on a campaign trail of his own. I just read a report of his speech to two groups of judges, one civil, one military, on 17th December, carried in Thai Rath [http://www.thairath.co.th/offline.php?section=hotnews&content=72128] today.
One is never quite sure how significant these speeches are, but checking out hi-thaksin [http://www.hi-thaksin.org/home.php] I notice that it is their lead story (also, check out the strategically placed graphics that accompany the story; the hi-thaksin team know their semiology). So I think it is indeed significant.
As we know, the king’s speeches are important because they have the effect of protecting certain planned royalist political interventions with the king’s barami. That is, if a particular intervention can be seen to have received the blessing of the king in his speech before the event, criticism of the intervention by those who are disadvantaged by it would amount to lèse majesté (if I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times, the only thing standing between Thailand and democracy is lèse majesté. If you abolish lèse majesté the Thai monarchy would fall within a very short time, as the full extent of its crimes, corruption and abuses of the political system became public).
The best recent example is the king’s speech to the Administrative Court judges on 24 May 2006; a week later the junta-appointed Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Thai Rak Thai was to be dissolved. Some people may remember receiving an SMS on their mobile phones (or seeing a running message at the bottom of the TV screen) from the CNS on the night of the verdict, requesting people to stay calm and abide by the king’s speech the week before.
I’m wondering if this December 17 speech is a re-run of 24 May 2006?
All the polls indicated that PPP will win the largest number of seats, and they even have a slight possibility of winning an absolute majority. Whatever the result, in a normal democracy they would be a formidable political force after 23 December. And we know that for their own survival PPP must move quickly to neutralize the forces that overthrew the TRT government on September 19. In other words if PPP take power it will be “check bin” time for the coup plotters. hi-thaksin has a nice clip which puts this in a very blunt way [http://www.hi-thaksin.org/home.php], so they’re not exactly keeping it a secret.
Of course, the royalists can not let that happen. The question is, how will they try to destroy PPP/TRT this time?
The king’s speech to the judges on 17th December may give us a hint.
Another coup would be very, very, messy, and dangerous for the royalists themselves. It would be much more difficult to avoid violence this time. If violence broke out I think it would be extremely damaging politically to the royalists. This time, as opposed to 14 October, 6 October, and May ’92, they might not recover. It would also have very serious international ramifications. So a coup would have to be a last option.
Interestingly in a very revealing section of the speech to the military judges the king seemed to indicate that he also didn’t think a coup was a good option, and that the justice system could be used as a “weapon” just as effectively: “… р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Цр╕╖р╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕▓р╕зр╕╕р╕Ш р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕вр╕╕р╕Хр╕┤р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щ р╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕нр╕▓р╕зр╕╕р╕Шр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕З р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Бр╣Зр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕нр╕▓р╕зр╕╕р╕Шр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▒р╕Хр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕г… ”
So a “judicial coup”, that is, the engineering of a *political* victory for the royalists using the judiciary, instead of the military, may be a more a palatable option. As we know, since April 25 2006, the judiciary has been highly politicized. If one were not afraid of both lèse majesté and contempt of court one might question whether, after the military, the judiciary had become the king’s preferred political “weapon” of choice. The king basically said as much himself in the speech above.
One of the functions of the December 17 speech, like all his speeches to the judiciary, is to give a public demonstration of the king’s strong support for the judges.
Apart from demonstrating his support for them there was one interesting passage in the December 17th speech to the first group of judges: …р╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕Ыр╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Цр╕╣р╕Б р╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕Ыр╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕нр╕Др╕Хр╕┤ р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Юр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕лр╕ер╕нр╕Бр╕ер╕зр╕Зр╕Хр╕ер╕нр╕Фр╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕бр╣Бр╕Вр╣Зр╕З р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕бр╣Бр╕Вр╣Зр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Юр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕З р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕зр╣Йр╕Хр╕ер╕нр╕Фр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Х р╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Фр╕▓р╕Ыр╕Бр╕Хр╕┤ р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕лр╕Щ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╣Зр╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Юр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▓ р╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡ р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╣Др╕Ы р╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╕бр╕▓ р╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Й р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Др╕Ыр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╣Гр╕Щр╕Кр╕Щр╕Ър╕Ч р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Др╕Ы р╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Фр╕╡ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Фр╕╡р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕лр╕▓р╕вр╣Др╕Ы р╕лр╕бр╕Фр╣Др╕Ы р╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣И р╕Ир╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡р╣Др╕зр╣Й… (by the way, on a different topic, if anyone wants to know where the discourse of “khon di” comes from, well go no further; it is a royalist discourse. Moral of the story: don’t ever let your children grow up to be “good people” if you want to see democracy in Thailand in your lifetime).
Why mention the “countryside”/р╕Кр╕Щр╕Ър╕Ч ? Because that’s where the PPP/TRT voters are?
What the speech MIGHT signify is that following the election if certain “irregularities” were to be discovered in the conduct of the election campaign by certain parties who are out to “deceive” people (ie. PPP) it could lead to the annulment of certain election results, the banning of certain candidates, or even, in the extreme case, the dissolution of the PPP by the judiciary. And such actions would have already received the king’s approval and protection in this speech.
This is the “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” network monarchy style of political intervention at which the king is a master. No paper trails, no direct orders, but the communication is clear. And the rewards will follow.
It will be interesting to see how PPP react. But as I said above, I think it is significant that it is the lead story on hi-thaksin. So we see one of the big problems in Thai politics, the problem of political communication; you are being attacked by the king, but you can not tell people directly you are being attacked because of lèse majesté.
The above is just pure speculation, of course. Others on NM may have a better interpretation. But I don’t see this speech as “business as usual”. There is a war going on.
Fair point, Sri, but there do appear to be more people pursing this pragmatic option than in the past. The issue of absentee voting is an important one given the large number of rural voters who are working in Bangkok and other urban centres. Do you think the high pre-poll absentee vote is positive sign for PPP?
A relatively accessible absentee voting system is important for the full exercise of electoral rights. I have never been quite clear about exactly what the procedures involved are in Thailand (and how severe, or strictly enforced, the penalties for non-voting are). Perhaps you could cast some light on this or perhaps there are other New Mandala readers who can help.
In Australia when you move house it is easy to enrol in a new electoral district (I have changed five or six times given various relocations for study and career). I gather that it is not so easy in Thailand (forcing people to be “absentees”). Or are there good reasons why people want to maintain their electoral registration in their home district?
Maybe, the high turnout was not so much about political awareness, but practicality. Many people might simply have found it too time-consuming and costly to return to their provinces for the vote, return to their current provinces for just a few days, and then travel home again for the New Year brake.
Greetings from Seoul. I just noticed that Andrew posted my brief comments at the FCCT and that there have been some comments and questions. I am not going to answer them here, because the Journal of Contemporary Asia Special Issue (edited by Michael Connors and myself) is a rather long and complex collection, and people should really read it. The comments I made were just a 10 minute talk that set out some (not all) of the themes in the collection. I am sure that some of our authors will disagree with my selection of the themes.
I am equally sure that all of the commentators above will find the collection interesting and will have many questions and criticisms of the various papers and their arguments.
See, Sidh, this is why you are still ignorant. You assume too much based on your “context” and “relativist morality”. Here’s a little break down of where you’ve gone wrong assuming things about me (that’s just little me, how much more bollocks are you spouting regarding something like history!)
I don’t have any deep seated hatred for the monarchy, unless you have misinterpreted (which you are very good at) what I have said. I believe I have already told you that that was only an argument I had used.
Lee Kuan Yew is not my hero nor is Juan Carlos II nor PM Thaksin. They are merely comparisons. I could criticize them all day if I want, but I chose to compare their merits to those advertised merits of HMK instead.
“Absolutely” and “vehemently” were used in irony. You can never deny my points because 1) you lack sufficient knowledge and 2) you are too cowardly to accept anything BUT that HMK is deserving of absolute unconditional love and continue to find excuses. I am not surprised that you have nothing to say about my “Sidh-esque” defense of Thaksin, which, surely you can see was done to prove a point more than express any belief.
Changing one thing will not turn Thailand into a mega-economic success, sadly, too many years of backward monarchical rule cannot be switched over night. Instead, if you properly looked at the context of my words (as you always do when it comes to defending that precious ideal that exists only in your head) you would know that I was merely rejecting Dickie’s comparison.
That you continue to show the deepest love and respect means you have judged history. You can be all philosophical about how much data you need to “judge” someone, but that doesn’t change the fact that your current judgment is a crap one: its one based on faith rather than evidence. So go ahead and start a religion.
Have you ever studied statistics, btw? If you have you’ll understand why there is nothing in this world that is 100%. But there are some things that are damned close and there are lines that are drawn arbitrarily which satisfies reasonable people, like confidence intervals. I say the evidence has satisfied my confidence intervals with regards to this matter. You, on the other hand, wouldn’t believe the earth was round even if someone took you off on a spaceship and showed it to you. Maybe you’ll say its just the context and relativity of the matrix that is tricking your eyes?
So keep on repeating your argument endlessly, Sidh. Maybe one day it’ll become true.
I don’t already have pre-existing answers because I was raised to believe one thing, and that thing has been proven false. So there you go, I’ve actually listened to the arguments, I’ve gotten into numerous fights using fouler language to defend the image of HMK. So no, I do not have a preformed answer, I only have an answer which I had arrived to by evidence and by reason and definitely, certainly, not by sentiment. And let me repeat myself once again for your benefit: I do not have any deep seated hate of the monarchy.
And BTW, arguing with you is like speaking to a deaf person. So I rest my case and enjoy your bliss.
“… However, the coup may also be read as a failure of a “royal liberalism” – led by, for example, Anand Panyarachun and Prawase Wasi – associated with the 1997 Constitution.”
“Let me also quickly say what the collection doesn’t do. It doesn’t provide a detailed critique of the Thaksin period of government …”
This may be a huge missed opportunity… How can an even-handed account of the “royalist coup” be carried out without consideration of political events of the 10 years since the passage of the 1997 Constitution?
And are we really back in square one assumed here? Successful court cases (including the recent rulings on PTT) initiated by consumer advocates such as KhunRosana Tositrakul against the Thai state are clearly some aspect of the 1997 Constitution that bore positive fruits.
Srithanonchai also has an interesting point about the “poor and dispossessed”… Things are often not as simple as many are trying to make it.
“Me, I might factor in all the Vietnamese, Lao and Cambodians who died or were maimed by US bombing missions originating from Thailand.”
I never thought of that. Good point. I guess these are all included in some moral balance sheet in the sky, perhaps. But Thailand cut a deal with the US and look where they are now. Look where Burma is, with its too proud to cut a deal: Burmese Way to Socialism. Non-aligned from even the non-aligned movement. Acting strategically has always been part of ensuring the long-term survival of states, and the Thais certainly have that down.
Teth, thanks for the complement, you are a ‘dodger’ par excellence yourself.
Anyway, you have revealed your heroes – King Juan Carlos and Lee Kuan Yew (and PMThaksin, to a certain extent, as a follower of LKY) – so I know, more or less, where you are coming from. And thanks for finally agreeing with me on this – the fundamental rationale for my arguments – in your post #34:
“Like I said previously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on one person, and it is hard to prove the intent of a person as well…”
Which makes me wonder what’s the point of playing this ‘black’ and ‘white’; ‘you are either with us or against us’; ‘Bush Vs Osama’ game with you:
“…It seems you all have conveniently forgotten to absolutely and vehemently deny my points…”
So no, I will never “absolutely” and “vehemently” deny your points. I will add more context to it for all our consideration like I did with a plausible comparison between King Prajadhipok and King Juan Carlos; like I did with the regional/global arms race; like I did with the fall of Saigon and 1976; like I did with ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ power; like I did with speculated ‘alternative histories’ – the possible scenarios Thailand can historically become a republic and what could happen (you seem to think we’d become a mega (economic) success like Singapore overnight)…etc…etc… Unlike you, I consider myself unqualified to “judge” history the way you do – and I will probably never will how ever much I read and research…
And so I maintain that what has transpired between us was (and can only be) different and selective interpretations of facts/events – and nothing more (unless your ego says otherwise!). This is framed by our different mindsets: your generally pessimistic view of backward Thailand and extreme hatred of the monarchy; and my generally optimistic view of the country and Thai society and my deepest respect and love for HMK. In this context, I can never ‘answer’ your questions to your satisfaction and neither can you respond to mine. We each have our own ‘answers’ already which satisfies us…
I can’t resist responding one more time. It is amusing that Khamtham has called me a “prude”. I am wondering if he or she even knows the meaning of the word. I suspect not. Khamtham simply wants to lash out at me. The Oxford dictionary defines it as,
“a person who is or claims to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity.”
Khamtham is revealing his or her ignorance of the words he or she uses. Is there any reason to think I am easily shocked by matters related to sex or nudity? I think not. Khamtham’s comments really are laughable.
Clearly, the careful use of words is important, even if Khamtham seems to think otherwise. Khamtham, thanks for making my point for me.
I don’t think Thais should look at Cambodia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma, then declare themselves a great success. This country has so much going for it and I pray that its people have greater dreams.
Neither do I think that the lack of evidence of public disoredr means much. I am sure that if you walked the streets of Kuala Lumpur today, you would see little signs of strife. But only because a repressive security operation is disallowing it.
Yes, getting up the next step on the economic ladder seems to be a big challenge – but I don’t see how going backwards is helping.
Any of us may be right or wrong, but the country will only benefit by being able to discuss it all. Do you think it is a good idea for the military to own almost of the television networks? To me it seems perverse and backwards.
Great detailed description. Multiple that hundreds, if not thousands of times throughout Thailand.
I’ve always wondered what the uniforms and decorations mean. Chaturon Chaisaeng is wearing one even though he is not an elected official anymore, so it must be associated with some other ranking that he has in Thai society. Even though with TRT these uniforms disappeared from campaign posters, they are obviously still de rigueur for a host of other occasions.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Table 46
Further to #3, hi-thaksin appears to have been blocked.
Table 46
“Or are there good reasons why people want to maintain their electoral registration in their home district?”
My understanding is that voting is connected with inclusion in jot thabian baan [house register] and this is a lot more formal than just registering to vote. If your family has lived in a village for a long time and owns a house that you also have part ownership rights in, quite real rights because in Thailand as in Burma parents often divide up the inheritance well before they pass away, why would you change your registration to an apartment you are just renting temporarily in Bangkok?
House registration systems are instruments of government control and go way way back, being associated with the institution of village headman at least in Burma, one of the few continuities between the pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial periods. In Tachileik they were actually arresting, at one time, people who were not officially included on local house registers [ein-daung-sayin]. In China until fairly recently, house lists severely restricted peoples’ mobility.
[Note: I’d like to know more about house lists in general especially wrt voting. The comments made above were just made to elicit comments by people who know all the details.]
The Lao resettlement controversy
Hi:
I would be interested if anyone has in their possession any maps which indicate the geographical extent of of state-sponsored upland resettlement or focal site development in Laos, or in specific provinces in Laos, over say, the past ten or fifteen years?
I have heard anecdotes of ’empty districts’ in southern Laos due to state-sponsored resettlement schemes, but have not seen much real data on this issue.
A visual, cartographic representation of resettlement in Laos could serve as a very useful basis for debate and discussion.
Keith Barney
Table 46
[…] New Mandla blog has a first person account of voting in the ongoing Thai elections. Share […]
Table 46
With all the reports of the campaigning of the various political parties we should not overlook the fact that the most experienced politician of them all, the king, has been on a campaign trail of his own. I just read a report of his speech to two groups of judges, one civil, one military, on 17th December, carried in Thai Rath [http://www.thairath.co.th/offline.php?section=hotnews&content=72128] today.
One is never quite sure how significant these speeches are, but checking out hi-thaksin [http://www.hi-thaksin.org/home.php] I notice that it is their lead story (also, check out the strategically placed graphics that accompany the story; the hi-thaksin team know their semiology). So I think it is indeed significant.
As we know, the king’s speeches are important because they have the effect of protecting certain planned royalist political interventions with the king’s barami. That is, if a particular intervention can be seen to have received the blessing of the king in his speech before the event, criticism of the intervention by those who are disadvantaged by it would amount to lèse majesté (if I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times, the only thing standing between Thailand and democracy is lèse majesté. If you abolish lèse majesté the Thai monarchy would fall within a very short time, as the full extent of its crimes, corruption and abuses of the political system became public).
The best recent example is the king’s speech to the Administrative Court judges on 24 May 2006; a week later the junta-appointed Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Thai Rak Thai was to be dissolved. Some people may remember receiving an SMS on their mobile phones (or seeing a running message at the bottom of the TV screen) from the CNS on the night of the verdict, requesting people to stay calm and abide by the king’s speech the week before.
I’m wondering if this December 17 speech is a re-run of 24 May 2006?
All the polls indicated that PPP will win the largest number of seats, and they even have a slight possibility of winning an absolute majority. Whatever the result, in a normal democracy they would be a formidable political force after 23 December. And we know that for their own survival PPP must move quickly to neutralize the forces that overthrew the TRT government on September 19. In other words if PPP take power it will be “check bin” time for the coup plotters. hi-thaksin has a nice clip which puts this in a very blunt way [http://www.hi-thaksin.org/home.php], so they’re not exactly keeping it a secret.
Of course, the royalists can not let that happen. The question is, how will they try to destroy PPP/TRT this time?
The king’s speech to the judges on 17th December may give us a hint.
Another coup would be very, very, messy, and dangerous for the royalists themselves. It would be much more difficult to avoid violence this time. If violence broke out I think it would be extremely damaging politically to the royalists. This time, as opposed to 14 October, 6 October, and May ’92, they might not recover. It would also have very serious international ramifications. So a coup would have to be a last option.
Interestingly in a very revealing section of the speech to the military judges the king seemed to indicate that he also didn’t think a coup was a good option, and that the justice system could be used as a “weapon” just as effectively: “… р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Цр╕╖р╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕▓р╕зр╕╕р╕Ш р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕вр╕╕р╕Хр╕┤р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щ р╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕нр╕▓р╕зр╕╕р╕Шр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕З р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Бр╣Зр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕нр╕▓р╕зр╕╕р╕Шр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▒р╕Хр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕г… ”
So a “judicial coup”, that is, the engineering of a *political* victory for the royalists using the judiciary, instead of the military, may be a more a palatable option. As we know, since April 25 2006, the judiciary has been highly politicized. If one were not afraid of both lèse majesté and contempt of court one might question whether, after the military, the judiciary had become the king’s preferred political “weapon” of choice. The king basically said as much himself in the speech above.
One of the functions of the December 17 speech, like all his speeches to the judiciary, is to give a public demonstration of the king’s strong support for the judges.
Apart from demonstrating his support for them there was one interesting passage in the December 17th speech to the first group of judges: …р╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕Ыр╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Цр╕╣р╕Б р╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕Ыр╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕нр╕Др╕Хр╕┤ р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Юр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕лр╕ер╕нр╕Бр╕ер╕зр╕Зр╕Хр╕ер╕нр╕Фр╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕бр╣Бр╕Вр╣Зр╕З р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕бр╣Бр╕Вр╣Зр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Юр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕З р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕зр╣Йр╕Хр╕ер╕нр╕Фр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Х р╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Фр╕▓р╕Ыр╕Бр╕Хр╕┤ р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕лр╕Щ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╣Зр╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Юр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▓ р╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡ р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╣Др╕Ы р╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╕бр╕▓ р╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Й р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Др╕Ыр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╣Гр╕Щр╕Кр╕Щр╕Ър╕Ч р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Др╕Ы р╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Фр╕╡ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Фр╕╡р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕лр╕▓р╕вр╣Др╕Ы р╕лр╕бр╕Фр╣Др╕Ы р╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣И р╕Ир╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Фр╕╡р╣Др╕зр╣Й… (by the way, on a different topic, if anyone wants to know where the discourse of “khon di” comes from, well go no further; it is a royalist discourse. Moral of the story: don’t ever let your children grow up to be “good people” if you want to see democracy in Thailand in your lifetime).
Why mention the “countryside”/р╕Кр╕Щр╕Ър╕Ч ? Because that’s where the PPP/TRT voters are?
What the speech MIGHT signify is that following the election if certain “irregularities” were to be discovered in the conduct of the election campaign by certain parties who are out to “deceive” people (ie. PPP) it could lead to the annulment of certain election results, the banning of certain candidates, or even, in the extreme case, the dissolution of the PPP by the judiciary. And such actions would have already received the king’s approval and protection in this speech.
This is the “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” network monarchy style of political intervention at which the king is a master. No paper trails, no direct orders, but the communication is clear. And the rewards will follow.
It will be interesting to see how PPP react. But as I said above, I think it is significant that it is the lead story on hi-thaksin. So we see one of the big problems in Thai politics, the problem of political communication; you are being attacked by the king, but you can not tell people directly you are being attacked because of lèse majesté.
The above is just pure speculation, of course. Others on NM may have a better interpretation. But I don’t see this speech as “business as usual”. There is a war going on.
Table 46
Fair point, Sri, but there do appear to be more people pursing this pragmatic option than in the past. The issue of absentee voting is an important one given the large number of rural voters who are working in Bangkok and other urban centres. Do you think the high pre-poll absentee vote is positive sign for PPP?
A relatively accessible absentee voting system is important for the full exercise of electoral rights. I have never been quite clear about exactly what the procedures involved are in Thailand (and how severe, or strictly enforced, the penalties for non-voting are). Perhaps you could cast some light on this or perhaps there are other New Mandala readers who can help.
In Australia when you move house it is easy to enrol in a new electoral district (I have changed five or six times given various relocations for study and career). I gather that it is not so easy in Thailand (forcing people to be “absentees”). Or are there good reasons why people want to maintain their electoral registration in their home district?
Table 46
Maybe, the high turnout was not so much about political awareness, but practicality. Many people might simply have found it too time-consuming and costly to return to their provinces for the vote, return to their current provinces for just a few days, and then travel home again for the New Year brake.
Interview with Professor Kevin Hewison – Part Two
[…] Kevin Hewison (University of North […]
The heart of political struggle
[…] more: The heart of political struggle (New […]
The heart of political struggle
Greetings from Seoul. I just noticed that Andrew posted my brief comments at the FCCT and that there have been some comments and questions. I am not going to answer them here, because the Journal of Contemporary Asia Special Issue (edited by Michael Connors and myself) is a rather long and complex collection, and people should really read it. The comments I made were just a 10 minute talk that set out some (not all) of the themes in the collection. I am sure that some of our authors will disagree with my selection of the themes.
I am equally sure that all of the commentators above will find the collection interesting and will have many questions and criticisms of the various papers and their arguments.
Military sufficiency
Footnote: apologies to deaf people. No offense intended, just an analogy.
Military sufficiency
See, Sidh, this is why you are still ignorant. You assume too much based on your “context” and “relativist morality”. Here’s a little break down of where you’ve gone wrong assuming things about me (that’s just little me, how much more bollocks are you spouting regarding something like history!)
I don’t have any deep seated hatred for the monarchy, unless you have misinterpreted (which you are very good at) what I have said. I believe I have already told you that that was only an argument I had used.
Lee Kuan Yew is not my hero nor is Juan Carlos II nor PM Thaksin. They are merely comparisons. I could criticize them all day if I want, but I chose to compare their merits to those advertised merits of HMK instead.
“Absolutely” and “vehemently” were used in irony. You can never deny my points because 1) you lack sufficient knowledge and 2) you are too cowardly to accept anything BUT that HMK is deserving of absolute unconditional love and continue to find excuses. I am not surprised that you have nothing to say about my “Sidh-esque” defense of Thaksin, which, surely you can see was done to prove a point more than express any belief.
Changing one thing will not turn Thailand into a mega-economic success, sadly, too many years of backward monarchical rule cannot be switched over night. Instead, if you properly looked at the context of my words (as you always do when it comes to defending that precious ideal that exists only in your head) you would know that I was merely rejecting Dickie’s comparison.
That you continue to show the deepest love and respect means you have judged history. You can be all philosophical about how much data you need to “judge” someone, but that doesn’t change the fact that your current judgment is a crap one: its one based on faith rather than evidence. So go ahead and start a religion.
Have you ever studied statistics, btw? If you have you’ll understand why there is nothing in this world that is 100%. But there are some things that are damned close and there are lines that are drawn arbitrarily which satisfies reasonable people, like confidence intervals. I say the evidence has satisfied my confidence intervals with regards to this matter. You, on the other hand, wouldn’t believe the earth was round even if someone took you off on a spaceship and showed it to you. Maybe you’ll say its just the context and relativity of the matrix that is tricking your eyes?
So keep on repeating your argument endlessly, Sidh. Maybe one day it’ll become true.
I don’t already have pre-existing answers because I was raised to believe one thing, and that thing has been proven false. So there you go, I’ve actually listened to the arguments, I’ve gotten into numerous fights using fouler language to defend the image of HMK. So no, I do not have a preformed answer, I only have an answer which I had arrived to by evidence and by reason and definitely, certainly, not by sentiment. And let me repeat myself once again for your benefit: I do not have any deep seated hate of the monarchy.
And BTW, arguing with you is like speaking to a deaf person. So I rest my case and enjoy your bliss.
The heart of political struggle
“… However, the coup may also be read as a failure of a “royal liberalism” – led by, for example, Anand Panyarachun and Prawase Wasi – associated with the 1997 Constitution.”
“Let me also quickly say what the collection doesn’t do. It doesn’t provide a detailed critique of the Thaksin period of government …”
This may be a huge missed opportunity… How can an even-handed account of the “royalist coup” be carried out without consideration of political events of the 10 years since the passage of the 1997 Constitution?
And are we really back in square one assumed here? Successful court cases (including the recent rulings on PTT) initiated by consumer advocates such as KhunRosana Tositrakul against the Thai state are clearly some aspect of the 1997 Constitution that bore positive fruits.
Srithanonchai also has an interesting point about the “poor and dispossessed”… Things are often not as simple as many are trying to make it.
The heart of political struggle
“Me, I might factor in all the Vietnamese, Lao and Cambodians who died or were maimed by US bombing missions originating from Thailand.”
I never thought of that. Good point. I guess these are all included in some moral balance sheet in the sky, perhaps. But Thailand cut a deal with the US and look where they are now. Look where Burma is, with its too proud to cut a deal: Burmese Way to Socialism. Non-aligned from even the non-aligned movement. Acting strategically has always been part of ensuring the long-term survival of states, and the Thais certainly have that down.
Military sufficiency
Teth, thanks for the complement, you are a ‘dodger’ par excellence yourself.
Anyway, you have revealed your heroes – King Juan Carlos and Lee Kuan Yew (and PMThaksin, to a certain extent, as a follower of LKY) – so I know, more or less, where you are coming from. And thanks for finally agreeing with me on this – the fundamental rationale for my arguments – in your post #34:
“Like I said previously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on one person, and it is hard to prove the intent of a person as well…”
Which makes me wonder what’s the point of playing this ‘black’ and ‘white’; ‘you are either with us or against us’; ‘Bush Vs Osama’ game with you:
“…It seems you all have conveniently forgotten to absolutely and vehemently deny my points…”
So no, I will never “absolutely” and “vehemently” deny your points. I will add more context to it for all our consideration like I did with a plausible comparison between King Prajadhipok and King Juan Carlos; like I did with the regional/global arms race; like I did with the fall of Saigon and 1976; like I did with ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ power; like I did with speculated ‘alternative histories’ – the possible scenarios Thailand can historically become a republic and what could happen (you seem to think we’d become a mega (economic) success like Singapore overnight)…etc…etc… Unlike you, I consider myself unqualified to “judge” history the way you do – and I will probably never will how ever much I read and research…
And so I maintain that what has transpired between us was (and can only be) different and selective interpretations of facts/events – and nothing more (unless your ego says otherwise!). This is framed by our different mindsets: your generally pessimistic view of backward Thailand and extreme hatred of the monarchy; and my generally optimistic view of the country and Thai society and my deepest respect and love for HMK. In this context, I can never ‘answer’ your questions to your satisfaction and neither can you respond to mine. We each have our own ‘answers’ already which satisfies us…
The heart of political struggle
Cold War body count?
That’s a nicely pragmatic way of looking at things.
Me, I might factor in all the Vietnamese, Lao and Cambodians who died or were maimed by US bombing missions originating from Thailand.
But I’m just an old bleeding-heart liberal, I guess.
The Lao resettlement controversy
I can’t resist responding one more time. It is amusing that Khamtham has called me a “prude”. I am wondering if he or she even knows the meaning of the word. I suspect not. Khamtham simply wants to lash out at me. The Oxford dictionary defines it as,
“a person who is or claims to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity.”
Khamtham is revealing his or her ignorance of the words he or she uses. Is there any reason to think I am easily shocked by matters related to sex or nudity? I think not. Khamtham’s comments really are laughable.
Clearly, the careful use of words is important, even if Khamtham seems to think otherwise. Khamtham, thanks for making my point for me.
The heart of political struggle
I don’t think Thais should look at Cambodia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma, then declare themselves a great success. This country has so much going for it and I pray that its people have greater dreams.
Neither do I think that the lack of evidence of public disoredr means much. I am sure that if you walked the streets of Kuala Lumpur today, you would see little signs of strife. But only because a repressive security operation is disallowing it.
Yes, getting up the next step on the economic ladder seems to be a big challenge – but I don’t see how going backwards is helping.
Any of us may be right or wrong, but the country will only benefit by being able to discuss it all. Do you think it is a good idea for the military to own almost of the television networks? To me it seems perverse and backwards.
The loveable Lue
Dear Sir,
I have more interested the Book of Lue of Sipsongpanna,please let me know where can i get it? Is there the selling in Thailand?
Rgds,
Noppadon.
Chachoengsao: Celebrating the King’s 80th Birthday
Great detailed description. Multiple that hundreds, if not thousands of times throughout Thailand.
I’ve always wondered what the uniforms and decorations mean. Chaturon Chaisaeng is wearing one even though he is not an elected official anymore, so it must be associated with some other ranking that he has in Thai society. Even though with TRT these uniforms disappeared from campaign posters, they are obviously still de rigueur for a host of other occasions.