I would like to cite another site of interest; if you want to read analysis, by some knowledgable people, of what could have caused the accident, I would recommend lurking in the forums of Thai Flight Simulator. (See these two threads: Thread One and Thread Two.)
What’s that again James H: ” anti-corruption measures often work better from the bottom up than the top down”? Why bottom up than top down? That I would like to get more elaboration from James H.
Because common sense suggest anti-corruption that proceeds from top down demonstrates both strong will and good prioritizing . . . with rule of law to be seen as undiscriminating with no one above, and punishing those found to have abused the highest/higher elected/appointed office then working down seems the best way to do it. When it is seen that those holding the highest office carries no ‘immunity’ from prosecution or arrest or jail term for abuses, minor graft below would significantly diminish because it can no longer be said that it is “the Thai way of getting things done”.
Vichai raises some good points here about the corruptive influence of money politics.
It’s worth remembering that the democratic systems of most western countries were plagued by corruption, vote buying, pork barrel politics, etcetera for most of their history (and some still are); reform tends to be a gradual process as electorates become more educated, and anti-corruption measures often work better from the bottom up than the top down, which I take to be the process indicated by the Transparency International figures previously discussed.
For Beth, Restorationist & Andrew: My post in the other thread might get more attention here:
In case you haven’t noticed, the king is old and won’t be around forever, and it is unlikely that the next monarch will be as universally respected as the present king.
At some time in the future I think the powers of the monarch should be more clearly defined to basically exclude the monarch from doing anything apart from preside at ceremonies and rubber stamp parliamentary decisions etc.
However, IMO now is not the time to do it because the situation is too volatile with all the competing interests (military, old & new elites, rural masses etc) and an **unsophisticated electorate that can be easily manipulated.
There are many views about why the electorate is still so unsophisticated and I can accept that HMK needs to share some of the blame for being an over protective ‘parent’ for too long, but IMO it is more complex than that and the poor behavior of politicians also cannot be discounted, nor can the way the electorate turns a blind eye to wrongdoings.
As you enter the political fray, I think you would be better served taking off your historian hat for a while, and instead concentrate on ways to encourage the people with real power (the masses) to be more discerning and responsible, and less able to be manipulated.
**Andrew Walker might not concede that the electorate is unsophisticated, but IMO any objective analysis of the actions, beliefs & superstitions of a large portion of the electorate could not fail to reach that conclusion.
If I understand Andrew’s argument it goes something like this:
– The rural poor never got anything from the old elites, and because Thaksin promised & delivered some benefits, he got and retains their support.
That is understandable, but I don’t regard such self interest as particularly sophisticated.
IMO a more sophisticated line would be:
– Thank you Thaksin for delivering, but we are worried about your policy corruption, tax evasion, extra-judicial killing etc etc – We cannot turn a blind eye to those wrongdoings – Please amend your ways or we will have to find someone else to support.
It seems that nganadeeleg is all too prepared to turn a blind eye to the current manipulations of the palace-directed elite while looking to the past. Surely the future is where nganadeeleg should be looking if nganadeeleg really wants a better political system? If the palace-directed elite simply continues to manipulate the new system and use military bully-boys to get its way, then the “unsophisticated rural masses” who are allegedly a problem for real democratic development in Thailand, will remain unsophisticated and a problem. Back to 1980. Thailand will not have groundhog day but groundhog decades.
re: Olim> You make an excellent point; however, before anything can be debated in an academic manner, it needs to be defined. The problem is that no one has yet to propose a definition of sufficiency economy that we can all agree on.
Speaking as a Lao, I can say that is is certainly true that we do not name animals after people, at least not particular people. The problem in this case is that powerful people in Lao take things personally, you can’t know in advance what such people will think, so you are always taking a chance when you work in Lao. You just have to learn as much about the culture as possible, and this includes how to show respect for social status – something you can’t necessarily get just by discussion with your close colleagues. Of course it is very silly, but it is real, as our friend discovered.
Rather to provide an analysis of the structural reasons behind the current economic problems by incorporating available information into a logical framework.
Has anything further been reported in Australia on this topic? I am perplexed by the extremely derisive tone of the article; even the title is defamatory. There is speculation that Ven. Yanatharo was possibly growing marijuana for the benefit of the HIV/AIDS patients he is supposedly working with, though disregarding drug laws nonetheless.
Furthermore, the article claims that Ven. Yanatharo is “self-proclaimed.” Why? Was he not officially ordained?
get the knowledge before criticised any theory, use the wisdom, not the emotion. I don’t see any academically argument here. What is “rational” or self-interest really mean in the economic. Does it make sense for your living in this planet. Every theory has it owns argument, so please argue with the knowledge.
“Under a one person/one vote system, it is the masses who have the real power, so that is why I keep stressing the importance of the masses being more discerning and responsible – they have the power to change things.” >> Yes, and until they are not “discerning and resp0nsible”, the “real power” will remain with the two Sonthis and their backers, and it will be them who “have the power to change things”… As for the “masses”: somnamna!
I’m sure ‘that small group of people’ would like to use the system proposed by Srithanonchai if they could. Now, the masses and their power. Let me give the example scenario from the recent referendum poll. We have four eligible voters in my immediate family. Despite the heavy ‘guidance’ from the power, Number one went to vote and never said anything to anyone. Number two went to vote and announced the NO vote to friends and family. Number three was openly pissed off at the whole thing, went to observe the poll booth but did not vote. Number four did not bother to travel back to hometown to vote.
An article from Prachathai, based on an interview in Sankamphang, cited that the like of Number One (who might have voted yes) voted yes because they would like to have general election soon, afterwhich they hope their Mr Thaksin would return and be pardoned.
I might say the voice is probably heard, hence the ‘highly regarded’ martial law and all the ‘fortresses’. I feel that the gun and tank power and their supporters will go on shamelessly insisting their love and sacrifice for the nation for a long time. But we know better, don’t we…
It is a shame that a notable lawyer and scholar like Ajarn Borwornsak should pretend that HMK acts within his constitutional limitations when the historical evidence demonstrates the exact opposite, as Ajarn Somsak has pointed out. Plus, there are more examples than the ones he has briefly cited.
I kindly suggest that Ajarn Bowornsak’s duty, as a lawyer and scholar, is to tell the truth.
Khun Somsak: In case you haven’t noticed, the king is old and won’t be around forever, and it is unlikely that the next monarch will be as universally respected as the present king.
At some time in the future I think the powers of the monarch should be more clearly defined to basically exclude the monarch from doing anything apart from preside at ceremonies and rubber stamp parliamentary decisions etc.
However, IMO now is not the time to do it because the situation is too volatile with all the competing interests (military, old & new elites, rural masses etc) and an **unsophisticated electorate that can be easily manipulated.
There are many views about why the electorate is still so unsophisticated and I can accept that HMK needs to share some of the blame for being an over protective ‘parent’ for too long, but IMO it is more complex than that and the poor behavior of politicians also cannot be discounted, nor can the way the electorate turns a blind eye to wrongdoings.
As you enter the political fray, I think you would be better served taking off your historian hat for a while, and instead concentrate on ways to encourage the people with real power (the masses) to be more discerning and responsible, and less able to be manipulated.
**Andrew Walker might not concede that the electorate is unsophisticated, but IMO any objective analysis of the actions, beliefs & superstitions of a large portion of the electorate could not fail to reach that conclusion.
If I understand Andrew’s argument it goes something like this:
– The rural poor never got anything from the old elites, and because Thaksin promised & delivered some benefits, he got and retains their support.
That is understandable, but I don’t regard such self interest as particularly sophisticated.
IMO a more sophisticated line would be:
– Thank you Thaksin for delivering, but we are worried about your policy corruption, tax evasion, extra-judicial killing etc etc – We cannot turn a blind eye to those wrongdoings – Please amend your ways or we will have to find someone else to support.
Srithanonchai: The system you propose does not exist, and we will just have to put up with one person/one vote.
Restorationist: We all know no-one is perfect, including the Bangkok elite, the military or the palace.
Under a one person/one vote system, it is the masses who have the real power, so that is why I keep stressing the importance of the masses being more discerning and responsible – they have the power to change things.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Aviation safety
I would like to cite another site of interest; if you want to read analysis, by some knowledgable people, of what could have caused the accident, I would recommend lurking in the forums of Thai Flight Simulator. (See these two threads: Thread One and Thread Two.)
Sovereign Myth
The fear that is whispered about: “After HMK Bhumibhol, will Thailand implode because there will be no more ‘unifying’ father symbol?”
The security state
What’s that again James H: ” anti-corruption measures often work better from the bottom up than the top down”? Why bottom up than top down? That I would like to get more elaboration from James H.
Because common sense suggest anti-corruption that proceeds from top down demonstrates both strong will and good prioritizing . . . with rule of law to be seen as undiscriminating with no one above, and punishing those found to have abused the highest/higher elected/appointed office then working down seems the best way to do it. When it is seen that those holding the highest office carries no ‘immunity’ from prosecution or arrest or jail term for abuses, minor graft below would significantly diminish because it can no longer be said that it is “the Thai way of getting things done”.
The security state
Vichai raises some good points here about the corruptive influence of money politics.
It’s worth remembering that the democratic systems of most western countries were plagued by corruption, vote buying, pork barrel politics, etcetera for most of their history (and some still are); reform tends to be a gradual process as electorates become more educated, and anti-corruption measures often work better from the bottom up than the top down, which I take to be the process indicated by the Transparency International figures previously discussed.
Observing an electoral fiction
For Beth, Restorationist & Andrew: My post in the other thread might get more attention here:
In case you haven’t noticed, the king is old and won’t be around forever, and it is unlikely that the next monarch will be as universally respected as the present king.
At some time in the future I think the powers of the monarch should be more clearly defined to basically exclude the monarch from doing anything apart from preside at ceremonies and rubber stamp parliamentary decisions etc.
However, IMO now is not the time to do it because the situation is too volatile with all the competing interests (military, old & new elites, rural masses etc) and an **unsophisticated electorate that can be easily manipulated.
There are many views about why the electorate is still so unsophisticated and I can accept that HMK needs to share some of the blame for being an over protective ‘parent’ for too long, but IMO it is more complex than that and the poor behavior of politicians also cannot be discounted, nor can the way the electorate turns a blind eye to wrongdoings.
As you enter the political fray, I think you would be better served taking off your historian hat for a while, and instead concentrate on ways to encourage the people with real power (the masses) to be more discerning and responsible, and less able to be manipulated.
**Andrew Walker might not concede that the electorate is unsophisticated, but IMO any objective analysis of the actions, beliefs & superstitions of a large portion of the electorate could not fail to reach that conclusion.
If I understand Andrew’s argument it goes something like this:
– The rural poor never got anything from the old elites, and because Thaksin promised & delivered some benefits, he got and retains their support.
That is understandable, but I don’t regard such self interest as particularly sophisticated.
IMO a more sophisticated line would be:
– Thank you Thaksin for delivering, but we are worried about your policy corruption, tax evasion, extra-judicial killing etc etc – We cannot turn a blind eye to those wrongdoings – Please amend your ways or we will have to find someone else to support.
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/09/14/sovereign-myth/#comment-162616
Observing an electoral fiction
It seems that nganadeeleg is all too prepared to turn a blind eye to the current manipulations of the palace-directed elite while looking to the past. Surely the future is where nganadeeleg should be looking if nganadeeleg really wants a better political system? If the palace-directed elite simply continues to manipulate the new system and use military bully-boys to get its way, then the “unsophisticated rural masses” who are allegedly a problem for real democratic development in Thailand, will remain unsophisticated and a problem. Back to 1980. Thailand will not have groundhog day but groundhog decades.
Observing an electoral fiction
somnamna?!!! That’s a shame!
The sufficiency fig leaf
re: Olim> You make an excellent point; however, before anything can be debated in an academic manner, it needs to be defined. The problem is that no one has yet to propose a definition of sufficiency economy that we can all agree on.
Ajarn Jose in the paper
Thanks Lotus in the Hills,
I can’t find any other reports in the Australian media on Ajarn Jose. If I do come across any further material I will post it to New Mandala.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Strange but true in Laos
Speaking as a Lao, I can say that is is certainly true that we do not name animals after people, at least not particular people. The problem in this case is that powerful people in Lao take things personally, you can’t know in advance what such people will think, so you are always taking a chance when you work in Lao. You just have to learn as much about the culture as possible, and this includes how to show respect for social status – something you can’t necessarily get just by discussion with your close colleagues. Of course it is very silly, but it is real, as our friend discovered.
Kyi May Kaung on Burma’s predicament
I was not trying to “provide new information.”
Rather to provide an analysis of the structural reasons behind the current economic problems by incorporating available information into a logical framework.
I am not a reporter but an analyst.
An earlier article is available on my blog site
http://kyimaykaung.blogspot.com
Ajarn Jose in the paper
Has anything further been reported in Australia on this topic? I am perplexed by the extremely derisive tone of the article; even the title is defamatory. There is speculation that Ven. Yanatharo was possibly growing marijuana for the benefit of the HIV/AIDS patients he is supposedly working with, though disregarding drug laws nonetheless.
Furthermore, the article claims that Ven. Yanatharo is “self-proclaimed.” Why? Was he not officially ordained?
The sufficiency fig leaf
get the knowledge before criticised any theory, use the wisdom, not the emotion. I don’t see any academically argument here. What is “rational” or self-interest really mean in the economic. Does it make sense for your living in this planet. Every theory has it owns argument, so please argue with the knowledge.
Sovereign Myth
“but I am already frightened to my bone just to say the above” >> One good thing with democracy is that citizens do not need to have such worries.
Observing an electoral fiction
“Under a one person/one vote system, it is the masses who have the real power, so that is why I keep stressing the importance of the masses being more discerning and responsible – they have the power to change things.” >> Yes, and until they are not “discerning and resp0nsible”, the “real power” will remain with the two Sonthis and their backers, and it will be them who “have the power to change things”… As for the “masses”: somnamna!
Observing an electoral fiction
I’m sure ‘that small group of people’ would like to use the system proposed by Srithanonchai if they could. Now, the masses and their power. Let me give the example scenario from the recent referendum poll. We have four eligible voters in my immediate family. Despite the heavy ‘guidance’ from the power, Number one went to vote and never said anything to anyone. Number two went to vote and announced the NO vote to friends and family. Number three was openly pissed off at the whole thing, went to observe the poll booth but did not vote. Number four did not bother to travel back to hometown to vote.
An article from Prachathai, based on an interview in Sankamphang, cited that the like of Number One (who might have voted yes) voted yes because they would like to have general election soon, afterwhich they hope their Mr Thaksin would return and be pardoned.
I might say the voice is probably heard, hence the ‘highly regarded’ martial law and all the ‘fortresses’. I feel that the gun and tank power and their supporters will go on shamelessly insisting their love and sacrifice for the nation for a long time. But we know better, don’t we…
Sovereign Myth
It is a shame that a notable lawyer and scholar like Ajarn Borwornsak should pretend that HMK acts within his constitutional limitations when the historical evidence demonstrates the exact opposite, as Ajarn Somsak has pointed out. Plus, there are more examples than the ones he has briefly cited.
I kindly suggest that Ajarn Bowornsak’s duty, as a lawyer and scholar, is to tell the truth.
Cambodia’s oil curse?
I’d say try to follow the Norwegian example to avoid ‘Dutch disease’, but anyone got any suggestions how to avoid the Nauru example?
Sovereign Myth
Khun Somsak: In case you haven’t noticed, the king is old and won’t be around forever, and it is unlikely that the next monarch will be as universally respected as the present king.
At some time in the future I think the powers of the monarch should be more clearly defined to basically exclude the monarch from doing anything apart from preside at ceremonies and rubber stamp parliamentary decisions etc.
However, IMO now is not the time to do it because the situation is too volatile with all the competing interests (military, old & new elites, rural masses etc) and an **unsophisticated electorate that can be easily manipulated.
There are many views about why the electorate is still so unsophisticated and I can accept that HMK needs to share some of the blame for being an over protective ‘parent’ for too long, but IMO it is more complex than that and the poor behavior of politicians also cannot be discounted, nor can the way the electorate turns a blind eye to wrongdoings.
As you enter the political fray, I think you would be better served taking off your historian hat for a while, and instead concentrate on ways to encourage the people with real power (the masses) to be more discerning and responsible, and less able to be manipulated.
**Andrew Walker might not concede that the electorate is unsophisticated, but IMO any objective analysis of the actions, beliefs & superstitions of a large portion of the electorate could not fail to reach that conclusion.
If I understand Andrew’s argument it goes something like this:
– The rural poor never got anything from the old elites, and because Thaksin promised & delivered some benefits, he got and retains their support.
That is understandable, but I don’t regard such self interest as particularly sophisticated.
IMO a more sophisticated line would be:
– Thank you Thaksin for delivering, but we are worried about your policy corruption, tax evasion, extra-judicial killing etc etc – We cannot turn a blind eye to those wrongdoings – Please amend your ways or we will have to find someone else to support.
Observing an electoral fiction
Srithanonchai: The system you propose does not exist, and we will just have to put up with one person/one vote.
Restorationist: We all know no-one is perfect, including the Bangkok elite, the military or the palace.
Under a one person/one vote system, it is the masses who have the real power, so that is why I keep stressing the importance of the masses being more discerning and responsible – they have the power to change things.