This past Monday, I attended the meeting of the provincial election commission, after an absence of three weeks after the referendum. The PEC is not yet busy with the national elections. Rather, they have been preparing 27 elections of Tambon Administrative Organizations that will take place on September 30.
However, the national election did make it briefly into the meeting, though by way of an anecdotal reference to the provincial chief of the Democrat party. Khun Chalee had asked the chairperson of the PEC where he was supposed to do his campaign activities. Apparently, he was half-jokingly told, “In the entire province.”
This anecdote points to one immediate task that the ECT/PECs will have to perform urgently, namely the re-drawing of the electoral constituencies in all provinces. This follows from the new constitution that changed the single-member constituency system to a multi-member constituency system. However, the PECs/ECT might have to wait for the passing of the election law (currently in the National Legislarive Assembly, together with the party and the ECT Laws), since this provides the legal basis for demarcating the constituencies.
I don’t see where I raised the issue of whether or not Thaksin was constitutionally enabled to form a government. You are off on your own track there. This issue has nothing to do with his popularity. His popularity depends on the fact that he did things that helped the poor. To be overthrown by a popular revolt, you have to be unpopular. Is this hard for you to understand?
There are a lot of arguments about the pros and cons of senatorial non-proportionate governance. Most of them are completely irrelevant in this context, since Thailand doesn’t have that style of governance and probably never will. Every time Thailand has had strong regional representation in government, the strong regional representatives have ended up dead or fled.
I will say that Senates work best when they prevents majorities exploiting minorities. For this to be the case, there have to be clear minority groups whose rights would be threatened in a larger political unit. It’s absurd to characterise the residents of Bangkok as a threatened and powerless minority vis a vis the inhabitants of Isaan and the North. The reverse is more likely to be the case. Any suggestion that the coup government would protect minority rights is utterly absurd.
Thaksin was unpopular in the South because of his atrocities and ham-fisted policies, but in this he was following a long-standing tradition of Siamese exploitation of those they consider beneath them. The South has never been granted the kind of minority rights that a senatorial system would grant eg representation of their language, religion, culture, and possession of resources. Prem & by extension the “network monarchy” have been foremost in suppression of any such peaceful aspirations for cultural identity. If the Quebecois had been treated the way the South of thailand has been treated, Canada would be in a civil war.
Interested readers should not overlook the Democratic Voice of Burma news site, which although it does not translate all contents to English still has good coverage updated daily, with photos and video.
The Thai Chamber of Commerce was one of the leading forces behind the Foriegn Business Act and do seem to be direct, intentional beneficiaries of the junta’s protectionist economic policies. I suspect that the chamber represents a specific subset of Thai businesses that benefit from excluding competition from the economy, rather than being representative of small entrepreneurs as a whole.
First, thank you for your positive reply. After posting, I had been afraid I had been too confrontational and “divisive”. I do respect your position and think none of us know the “truth”.
This article in Prachathai seems very clear that it was the military that bought votes and influenced the election.
Unfortunately the link to the original article in Thai only goes to The Daily News main webpage. My impression is that the claims for “No” vote buying have been purely propaganda with sources such as Prasong or some general. Yes, the EC did pitch in, but the EC appears to be a wholly -owned subsidiary of the junta.
The English language translation is apparently on the homepage of the Asian Human rights Commission although I was not able to find it. May try later.
My point here is not that the TRT regime was not corrupt. It may have been more, less, or equally corrupt as other Thai regimes. None of us know and the junta has done the country a horrible disservice in not proving the case one way or the other.
I am not a Thaksin support and have no objection to him being banned from politics for what do appear to be flagrant, if fairly minor asset concealment violations.
My problem is with those who just unthinkingly buy the junta propaganda. It seems to me that Suwat and Vattana are obviously complicit in the Klong Tan Dam scandal, which is equal to or worse than anything Thaksin is accused of. Suriya should be convictable on the CTX scandal if exposing TRT corruption is the issue, but where is that case?
This is not a simple issue and simple positions, pro or anti-Thaksin will inherently be wrong. But let’s face what seems to be an obvious fact. Corruption was not the issue. It was a transfer of power to a new group.
I share the concern that Thaksin and his cronies (Newin, etc.) should not have had absolute power. But there were better ways to deal with it than just giving a different group near absolute power.
Yes, corruption and vote buying must be addressed harshly and without pause. But let’s admit that everyone does it.
The divisions in Thai society must be addressed with equal urgency. But let’s admit that Thaksin didn’t create divisions out of nothing. An era is passing and a new one must be constructed. A new deal needs to be struck between the urban elite and the poor. Yes, the poor are using the ballot box to further their own interest, but they always will everywhere.
The junta regime is collapsing. I no longer fear them. In fact, I do worry more that a resurgent TRT will just take us back to chapter one again. It is essential that Thailand deal with the underlying issues rather than go through useless circles of blame.
Who is stuck in the rut: col. jeru or srithanonchai-historicus & co.?
Are not NM bloggers like ‘monkeys who won’t hear nor see evil’ of Thaksin’s dead-end democracy that had resulted in a complete political system break-down with its checks & balances suborned, judges and senators and majority village venal voters completely bought?
NM bloggers-who-see-no-evil keep that stupid refrain that everything was all right during Thaksin . . . keep holding elections and reelections until those bought village voters will finally get fed up with Thaksin! Hah! No need for Thaksin to submit to public scrutiny nor public accountability into those many criminal allegations raised against him personally and against his criminal violations of the constitutional rule of law. Eventually . . . .
Eventually, if the NM bloggers and Thaksin’s dead-end democracy have their way, I would be dead, more like extra-judicially shot.
Restorationist: I am unable to answer your question – I have never suggested, and cannot see any good reason, for a blind eye to be turned to the manipulation of politics (by anyone).
I do not see any need for me to spend my time repeating the various criticisms of the coup and the assertions of palace involvement – there are ample commentators doing that, here at New Mandala, and elsewhere.
I prefer to spend my time pointing out the somnamna aspects of certain actions, in the hope that some academics here might take that on board.
Are you aware that UTCC does a monthly survey of consumer confidence? I don’t know if the press usually covers the results–but since the beginning of this year it has. Just about every month the index been sliding. I don’t know about August but July had the lowest score in 60 months.
I have no idea about the numbers or survey methods. Thai press stories often admit those. But it’s strange that small entrepreneurs would be so upbeat about the sufficiency economy when they must be hurting the most. The economy has bounced along so well, as everyone knows, because of the good export performance. (Now, wait a minute, that conflicts with a sufficiency economy doesn’t it? Exports and foreign buyers are nasty.)
Most of my interactions are with big business. These executives have been ticked off about mismanagement of the economy since that fiasco with reserve requirements and the stock market last December. After that, the government just never could capture their confidence.
“Sufficiency economy” doesn’t come up in conversation with business people or economists or stock analysts. I do ask NGO people. They say: “Sounds great. We’re all in favor of moderation, but could you give some concrete examples?”
re: Darling: Well, check out this English website instead: Professional Pilots Rumor Network. There are some posts from an anonymous One-Two-Go pilot that are very, very frightening.
nganadeeleg suggests that I should “worry more about the blind eye that the electorate turns to wrongdoings – if that eye was opened there would have been no chance of a coup,” and adds “Play the partisan game if you want, but I would prefer for the groundwork to be laid such that coups would no longer be considered necessary or possible.”
I repeat my question – why should we turn a blind eye to the current manipulation of politics by the palace-royalist military? If nganadeeleg thinks that this manipulation is likely to lay the groundwork so that coups don’t happen again, then nganadeeleg is, IMO, doing no more than supporting the institution of a political system that is likely to lead to further corruption and elite control. Look at the dinosaurs lining up for their turn at the national buffet.
Col. Jeru should not bother NM bloggers too much. He is stuck in a rut. The Col. rank is used by me to indicate that jeru does nothing more than present the junta’s position. So if you work for them you should have a rank. Here I use “work for” to indicate perhaps a self-appointed role. The rest of Thailand appears to me to have moved on from jeru’s position and is gearing up for the future. Only the most petulant of anti-Thaksin ideologues are stuck where jeru is located. jeru spends a deal of time making unfounded accusations, including about NM bloggers. When jeru calls for facts and and argument and gets them in return, jeru ignores them or doesn’t respond. Not a serious blogger but, as I said previously, an ideologue for the men in uniform.
No sympathy from me — the author makes a big “what’s the problem?” story out of what really is not a common thing to do even in Western society, and he attempts to suggest it is even acceptable in Laos, just with certain exceptions. Nonsense.
Naming your cat after someone prominent, or after your neighbor, would not wash in Thailand or Cambodia, or in China, just to name a few. In the US if a foreigner named his dog after George Bush it would be considered an attempt to be offensive — even though a lot of people would support it.
The author has no excuse for trying to be cute or ignorant in a foreign milieu, especially one as backwards as Lao PDR. Pali studies evdiently didn’t teach him how real people are.
Col. Jeru: Man – you really have problems… Has your girlfriend left you, are you on a diet to lose weight, or have you been trying to stop smoking, or what is it that troubles you?
“How would have the 2006 crisis played out if there was no coup? Well, Jeru, there would have been an election held in October 2006.” >> The “real question” here is what would have happened if the Democrat and Chart Thai parties had not boycotted the elections.
Has the Democrat party ever made public a word-by-word transcript of their most decisive debate leading up to that decision, which threw the country into turmoil?
Then I am therefore provoked to elucidate further to make Srithanonchai & co. vomit even more.
Thaksin’s dead-end democracy could not rely on ‘populist’ policies alone to keep him afloat. Because we have to remember Thaksinomics was nothing more than the Shinawatras grand enterprise to enrich themselves obscenely, tax-free of course, by every corrupt means within their orbit in addition to that AmpleRich-WinMark-Shin-Temasek $1.8 share sale deal. Populist policies, without vote-buying, would only get Thaksin elected, but NOT re-elected because the criminal scandals would surely hang him. It was imperative therefore to get the village masses complicit to the Thaksin criminal corruptions . . . and that could only be done with massive vote-buying.
A BOUGHT buyer could not protest, much less cry foul, against the Thaksin-TRT corruptions, could they?? Hey those village venal voters have already been bought lock stock and barrel . . . Thaksin already owned their souls.
That is what I meant by Thaksin’s dead-end democracy. It was a criminal enterprise disguised as democracy and Thaksin’s democracy depended on bought elections and re-elections over and over again . . . or a Thaksin-authored coup eventually sometime in the near horizon. That Thaksin’s dead-end democracy ended with an anti-Thaksin coup still to me stays without a doubt a godsend.
I actually share your opinion, nganadeeleg: If Thaksin had acted differently, a coup would not have happened. Right until the Shin Corp sale, he was in largely safe waters. Only this sale started the process of providing not so much the reasons for the coup, but the excuses for the engaged groups that they had to give themselves to allow them do what they knew (or should have known) was wrong from a democratic perspective.
As for the 111 TRT board members: Who should have been punished is a mute question, because the Political Party Law only allowed for dissolution and collective punishment (this was not a criminal case). Still, the decision was unlawful. Not because it retroactively applied a coup group announcement, but because the circumstances of the case could never be subsumed under the articles of the law (destruction of democracy, endangering of national security).
The dissolution decision was the fourth instance of using the law as a political tool (1: Thaksin’s acquittal in 2001); 2) nullification of the election of April 2006; 3) getting rid of the old ECT and appointing a new ECT).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
New Mandala’s election watch
This past Monday, I attended the meeting of the provincial election commission, after an absence of three weeks after the referendum. The PEC is not yet busy with the national elections. Rather, they have been preparing 27 elections of Tambon Administrative Organizations that will take place on September 30.
However, the national election did make it briefly into the meeting, though by way of an anecdotal reference to the provincial chief of the Democrat party. Khun Chalee had asked the chairperson of the PEC where he was supposed to do his campaign activities. Apparently, he was half-jokingly told, “In the entire province.”
This anecdote points to one immediate task that the ECT/PECs will have to perform urgently, namely the re-drawing of the electoral constituencies in all provinces. This follows from the new constitution that changed the single-member constituency system to a multi-member constituency system. However, the PECs/ECT might have to wait for the passing of the election law (currently in the National Legislarive Assembly, together with the party and the ECT Laws), since this provides the legal basis for demarcating the constituencies.
Sovereign Myth
And in this case “the state” is “the Crown”.
I don’t see where I raised the issue of whether or not Thaksin was constitutionally enabled to form a government. You are off on your own track there. This issue has nothing to do with his popularity. His popularity depends on the fact that he did things that helped the poor. To be overthrown by a popular revolt, you have to be unpopular. Is this hard for you to understand?
There are a lot of arguments about the pros and cons of senatorial non-proportionate governance. Most of them are completely irrelevant in this context, since Thailand doesn’t have that style of governance and probably never will. Every time Thailand has had strong regional representation in government, the strong regional representatives have ended up dead or fled.
I will say that Senates work best when they prevents majorities exploiting minorities. For this to be the case, there have to be clear minority groups whose rights would be threatened in a larger political unit. It’s absurd to characterise the residents of Bangkok as a threatened and powerless minority vis a vis the inhabitants of Isaan and the North. The reverse is more likely to be the case. Any suggestion that the coup government would protect minority rights is utterly absurd.
Thaksin was unpopular in the South because of his atrocities and ham-fisted policies, but in this he was following a long-standing tradition of Siamese exploitation of those they consider beneath them. The South has never been granted the kind of minority rights that a senatorial system would grant eg representation of their language, religion, culture, and possession of resources. Prem & by extension the “network monarchy” have been foremost in suppression of any such peaceful aspirations for cultural identity. If the Quebecois had been treated the way the South of thailand has been treated, Canada would be in a civil war.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Jeru: I don’t mind your political opinions at all. But can’t you be less obnoxious, more intelligent, and less repetitive, in your comments?
Monastic protests in Burma
Interested readers should not overlook the Democratic Voice of Burma news site, which although it does not translate all contents to English still has good coverage updated daily, with photos and video.
Opinion is sufficiently positive for the Thai junta
Kulap,
The Thai Chamber of Commerce was one of the leading forces behind the Foriegn Business Act and do seem to be direct, intentional beneficiaries of the junta’s protectionist economic policies. I suspect that the chamber represents a specific subset of Thai businesses that benefit from excluding competition from the economy, rather than being representative of small entrepreneurs as a whole.
Grasshopper,
No pom pem : )
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Nganadeeleg,
First, thank you for your positive reply. After posting, I had been afraid I had been too confrontational and “divisive”. I do respect your position and think none of us know the “truth”.
This article in Prachathai seems very clear that it was the military that bought votes and influenced the election.
PNET: obvious military intervention in the referendum
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=161
Unfortunately the link to the original article in Thai only goes to The Daily News main webpage. My impression is that the claims for “No” vote buying have been purely propaganda with sources such as Prasong or some general. Yes, the EC did pitch in, but the EC appears to be a wholly -owned subsidiary of the junta.
The English language translation is apparently on the homepage of the Asian Human rights Commission although I was not able to find it. May try later.
My point here is not that the TRT regime was not corrupt. It may have been more, less, or equally corrupt as other Thai regimes. None of us know and the junta has done the country a horrible disservice in not proving the case one way or the other.
I am not a Thaksin support and have no objection to him being banned from politics for what do appear to be flagrant, if fairly minor asset concealment violations.
My problem is with those who just unthinkingly buy the junta propaganda. It seems to me that Suwat and Vattana are obviously complicit in the Klong Tan Dam scandal, which is equal to or worse than anything Thaksin is accused of. Suriya should be convictable on the CTX scandal if exposing TRT corruption is the issue, but where is that case?
This is not a simple issue and simple positions, pro or anti-Thaksin will inherently be wrong. But let’s face what seems to be an obvious fact. Corruption was not the issue. It was a transfer of power to a new group.
I share the concern that Thaksin and his cronies (Newin, etc.) should not have had absolute power. But there were better ways to deal with it than just giving a different group near absolute power.
Yes, corruption and vote buying must be addressed harshly and without pause. But let’s admit that everyone does it.
The divisions in Thai society must be addressed with equal urgency. But let’s admit that Thaksin didn’t create divisions out of nothing. An era is passing and a new one must be constructed. A new deal needs to be struck between the urban elite and the poor. Yes, the poor are using the ballot box to further their own interest, but they always will everywhere.
The junta regime is collapsing. I no longer fear them. In fact, I do worry more that a resurgent TRT will just take us back to chapter one again. It is essential that Thailand deal with the underlying issues rather than go through useless circles of blame.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Who is stuck in the rut: col. jeru or srithanonchai-historicus & co.?
Are not NM bloggers like ‘monkeys who won’t hear nor see evil’ of Thaksin’s dead-end democracy that had resulted in a complete political system break-down with its checks & balances suborned, judges and senators and majority village venal voters completely bought?
NM bloggers-who-see-no-evil keep that stupid refrain that everything was all right during Thaksin . . . keep holding elections and reelections until those bought village voters will finally get fed up with Thaksin! Hah! No need for Thaksin to submit to public scrutiny nor public accountability into those many criminal allegations raised against him personally and against his criminal violations of the constitutional rule of law. Eventually . . . .
Eventually, if the NM bloggers and Thaksin’s dead-end democracy have their way, I would be dead, more like extra-judicially shot.
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
Who are you gonna call to restrain the Saprangs of this world after HMK is gone?
Who are you gonna call to restrain the Thaksins of this world after HMK is gone?
IMO, Saprang & Thaksin have a lot in common, although I will concede that Thaksin might be smarter (more devious).
Observing an electoral fiction
Restorationist: I am unable to answer your question – I have never suggested, and cannot see any good reason, for a blind eye to be turned to the manipulation of politics (by anyone).
I do not see any need for me to spend my time repeating the various criticisms of the coup and the assertions of palace involvement – there are ample commentators doing that, here at New Mandala, and elsewhere.
I prefer to spend my time pointing out the somnamna aspects of certain actions, in the hope that some academics here might take that on board.
Commentary on Ajarn Jose
Thanks for this, Nich. It clears up quite a bit. Like I said before, what a sideshow…
Opinion is sufficiently positive for the Thai junta
Andrew–
Are you aware that UTCC does a monthly survey of consumer confidence? I don’t know if the press usually covers the results–but since the beginning of this year it has. Just about every month the index been sliding. I don’t know about August but July had the lowest score in 60 months.
I have no idea about the numbers or survey methods. Thai press stories often admit those. But it’s strange that small entrepreneurs would be so upbeat about the sufficiency economy when they must be hurting the most. The economy has bounced along so well, as everyone knows, because of the good export performance. (Now, wait a minute, that conflicts with a sufficiency economy doesn’t it? Exports and foreign buyers are nasty.)
Most of my interactions are with big business. These executives have been ticked off about mismanagement of the economy since that fiasco with reserve requirements and the stock market last December. After that, the government just never could capture their confidence.
“Sufficiency economy” doesn’t come up in conversation with business people or economists or stock analysts. I do ask NGO people. They say: “Sounds great. We’re all in favor of moderation, but could you give some concrete examples?”
Aviation safety
re: Darling: Well, check out this English website instead: Professional Pilots Rumor Network. There are some posts from an anonymous One-Two-Go pilot that are very, very frightening.
Observing an electoral fiction
nganadeeleg suggests that I should “worry more about the blind eye that the electorate turns to wrongdoings – if that eye was opened there would have been no chance of a coup,” and adds “Play the partisan game if you want, but I would prefer for the groundwork to be laid such that coups would no longer be considered necessary or possible.”
I repeat my question – why should we turn a blind eye to the current manipulation of politics by the palace-royalist military? If nganadeeleg thinks that this manipulation is likely to lay the groundwork so that coups don’t happen again, then nganadeeleg is, IMO, doing no more than supporting the institution of a political system that is likely to lead to further corruption and elite control. Look at the dinosaurs lining up for their turn at the national buffet.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Col. Jeru should not bother NM bloggers too much. He is stuck in a rut. The Col. rank is used by me to indicate that jeru does nothing more than present the junta’s position. So if you work for them you should have a rank. Here I use “work for” to indicate perhaps a self-appointed role. The rest of Thailand appears to me to have moved on from jeru’s position and is gearing up for the future. Only the most petulant of anti-Thaksin ideologues are stuck where jeru is located. jeru spends a deal of time making unfounded accusations, including about NM bloggers. When jeru calls for facts and and argument and gets them in return, jeru ignores them or doesn’t respond. Not a serious blogger but, as I said previously, an ideologue for the men in uniform.
Strange but true in Laos
No sympathy from me — the author makes a big “what’s the problem?” story out of what really is not a common thing to do even in Western society, and he attempts to suggest it is even acceptable in Laos, just with certain exceptions. Nonsense.
Naming your cat after someone prominent, or after your neighbor, would not wash in Thailand or Cambodia, or in China, just to name a few. In the US if a foreigner named his dog after George Bush it would be considered an attempt to be offensive — even though a lot of people would support it.
The author has no excuse for trying to be cute or ignorant in a foreign milieu, especially one as backwards as Lao PDR. Pali studies evdiently didn’t teach him how real people are.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Col. Jeru: Man – you really have problems… Has your girlfriend left you, are you on a diet to lose weight, or have you been trying to stop smoking, or what is it that troubles you?
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
“How would have the 2006 crisis played out if there was no coup? Well, Jeru, there would have been an election held in October 2006.” >> The “real question” here is what would have happened if the Democrat and Chart Thai parties had not boycotted the elections.
Has the Democrat party ever made public a word-by-word transcript of their most decisive debate leading up to that decision, which threw the country into turmoil?
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Still not clear Srithanonchai??
Then I am therefore provoked to elucidate further to make Srithanonchai & co. vomit even more.
Thaksin’s dead-end democracy could not rely on ‘populist’ policies alone to keep him afloat. Because we have to remember Thaksinomics was nothing more than the Shinawatras grand enterprise to enrich themselves obscenely, tax-free of course, by every corrupt means within their orbit in addition to that AmpleRich-WinMark-Shin-Temasek $1.8 share sale deal. Populist policies, without vote-buying, would only get Thaksin elected, but NOT re-elected because the criminal scandals would surely hang him. It was imperative therefore to get the village masses complicit to the Thaksin criminal corruptions . . . and that could only be done with massive vote-buying.
A BOUGHT buyer could not protest, much less cry foul, against the Thaksin-TRT corruptions, could they?? Hey those village venal voters have already been bought lock stock and barrel . . . Thaksin already owned their souls.
That is what I meant by Thaksin’s dead-end democracy. It was a criminal enterprise disguised as democracy and Thaksin’s democracy depended on bought elections and re-elections over and over again . . . or a Thaksin-authored coup eventually sometime in the near horizon. That Thaksin’s dead-end democracy ended with an anti-Thaksin coup still to me stays without a doubt a godsend.
Observing an electoral fiction
I actually share your opinion, nganadeeleg: If Thaksin had acted differently, a coup would not have happened. Right until the Shin Corp sale, he was in largely safe waters. Only this sale started the process of providing not so much the reasons for the coup, but the excuses for the engaged groups that they had to give themselves to allow them do what they knew (or should have known) was wrong from a democratic perspective.
As for the 111 TRT board members: Who should have been punished is a mute question, because the Political Party Law only allowed for dissolution and collective punishment (this was not a criminal case). Still, the decision was unlawful. Not because it retroactively applied a coup group announcement, but because the circumstances of the case could never be subsumed under the articles of the law (destruction of democracy, endangering of national security).
The dissolution decision was the fourth instance of using the law as a political tool (1: Thaksin’s acquittal in 2001); 2) nullification of the election of April 2006; 3) getting rid of the old ECT and appointing a new ECT).
Opinion is sufficiently positive for the Thai junta
Upon re-reading this, I have completely mis-judged the tone of what you were writing Observer! Apologies :-S