If only one academic or blogger can explain to me in a language a sixth or seventh grader can understand how Thaksin and his crooked gang of TRT crooks were good for Thailand’s democracy (and no bloviating and convoluted language please), I will be obliged.
Until then I will remain steadfast that Thailand’s version of democracy was headed inevitably to an extra-constitutional resolution with Thaksin himself ready and prepared to commit the coup himself (with his last flight from Bangkok loaded with scores of luggages stuffed with billions of Baht just in case), for self-preservation, but was thwarted by the pre-emptive General Sonthi’s coup.
Was not the point of your #42 Historicus poster to portray Thaksin as poor Isan’s champion? What else the point of that poster if I may ask?
But you were deliberately lying Historicus (#30) when you said “Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown.”
But then again Historicus would horrified by my allegation that Thaksin would commit a coup a-la Marcos, sooner rather later, to protect himself from public scrutiny and judicial prosecution for his many abuses and corruption plus extrajudicial crimes, during his rule.
Col. jeru states: “Yes nganadaleeg, how do academics like Andrew Walker and the many ‘democracy’ bloggers at NM reconcile Thaksin as the champion of the poor while Thaksin himself was leading the corruption and the looting and the tax cheating?”
I suggest that you actually read some academic articles written during and since Thaksin was in power. Pasuk and Baker, McCargo, Hewison, Nelson, Ukrist, Kasian are just a few that come to mind, all of who were highly critical of the TRT and Thaksin. But, hey, you ideologues aren’t interested in this work because they are also mostly critical of the coup. Your task is to blog for the military.
Like the military junta and its puppet government, jeru and nganadeeleg have suddenly become worried that their views are not as widely held as they imagined. So they become bellicose in making claims that are not based on any analysis but on their perspectives built through a hatred of Thaksin rather than any analysis of his failings and Thaksin’s location in broader political events and structures.
jeru says my views are preposterous and that I have lied: “Historicus was of course lying when he posted his otherwise version of Thaksin’s last moments in power.” I take it that jeru is responding to: “No, Thaksin had not brought democracy to an end. The courts had intervened, perhaps not altogether legally, and had made decisions that set a course to a new election. Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown. Those protests stopped after Prem took leadership of the anti-Thaksin strategy. And what, exactly, do we know about Thaksin that we didn’t know before? That Thaksin was capable of nasty things is well-known.” So you think that a coup was necessary and a good thing because it got rid of Thaksin and you are a stalwart supporter the military, but this does not make my comments lies.
I take it that jeru agrees that Thaksin was nasty. That the street protests had stopped is a fact shown in the newspapers and other reports of the time. So it seems that the disagreement (or the lie) is in whether there were continuing constitutional processes. Given that the king set some of them in process, it seems difficult to see how they could not have been there. The point of disagreement seems to be that jeru wanted that constitutional process crushed and damaged because jeru thinks that Thaksin would have manipulated them.
That’s exactly the junta’s position. But every reader of NM has known that since September 2006. What’s new is that Thaksin support base remains, and Col jeru and his masters are deeply worried.
jeru : Please point out where, in any post to this blog, you have evidence for this outrageous statement of my contributions: “Historicus and others always amuse when they attempt to portray Thaksin Shinawatra (the skedaddler with billions stowed in luggages in flight, the multi-billion offshore asset concealer, the head of the clan of tax cheaters, and the arguably biggest Thai mafia chieftain directing the corruption spree as head of that outlawed TRT party) as Thailand’s defender of the poor Isans.”
Facts, please, not assertion and interpretation. You seldom answer questions, so let’s see.
Mathew, The Thai Royalty, including the Queen, is not above the law. Where do you think the law comes from? I always thought it was a design from the ontologically divine?!
Don’t mean to antagonize you – thanks for informing me.
You have said Thaksin is greedy. I don’t think he was so I don’t need to reconcile it. I think a lot of issues with Thaksin was party politics. I tend to look beyond party politics and look at what he delivered to the poor, which I feel he delivered a lot of good. If he achieved his election promises by merging a lot of his renegade parties into his TRT, then so be it. As long as the people benefited from it, which they did.
Yes nganadaleeg, how do academics like Andrew Walker and the many ‘democracy’ bloggers at NM reconcile Thaksin as the champion of the poor while Thaksin himself was leading the corruption and the looting and the tax cheating?
Explain Andrew Walker how Thaksin (the extrajudicial killer) can be the embodiment of Thai democracy when he so publicly announced that he embraces a ‘one-party political system’ and was on his way to doing just that, until he was deposed?
Explain Andrew Walker how a deeply flawed Thai Rak Thai party, who will shield its corrupt and criminally abusive leader from public or parliamentary scrutiny, represent Thai democracy at work?
And educate us Andrew Walker how you thought Thailand would have been better served had we allowed ‘nature’ to follow its course and allowed the ‘rural constitution’ to mature and be enlightened to democratically vote out Thai Rak Thai party and Thaksin?
That is all garbage. Thaksin’s democracy was a dead-end. Thaksin’s dead-end democracy was leading the Thai Kingdom to a sure disaster. Thaksin’s only option was a pro-Thaksin coup (a-la Marcos), to accelerate his one-party political ideology.
Ergo. Thaksin’s dead-end democracy was ineluctably headed towards a military coup. Either a pro-Thaksin or a pro-Thai (General Sonthi’s) coup.
General Sonthi’s coup was pro-Thai and anti-Thaksin and was therefore a godsend.
Yes Paul L I think our King should be speaking out against the coup and the actions against freedom of this military coup. Why do you think our great and wise King is not? But then our King has not in the past spoken against military juntas – usually he supports them.
I am very scared for what may become of Thailand in the next few years. I spend a lot of time in China, and I for one do not want Thai people to become a politically mindless, toothless collective.
But isn’t that the way Thaksin wanted Thailand to head – remember who said this: “Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not [my] ultimate goal. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. We can’t drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and fix people’s problems; sometimes a pickup or good off-road vehicle will do”.
It’s a well known strategy – Spread a few crumbs and people will forget about loss of human rights & freedoms.
Paul L: How do you reconcile Thaksin’s greed (tax avoidance, use of nominees & tax havens, policy corruption) with his supposed role as a champion of the poor?
Undoubtedly, Thai democracy was not working as intended under Thaksin.
Whether he was eroding vested interests influence or not, he was definitely undermining the concept of democracy. Whether he should have been removed militarily is a moot point since it happened. He was in a position where the democratic process was being removed so that he could not ever be removed from office or face realistic checks and balances. This in itself was very dangerous for the future of Thailand.
However, what we have today is to me even more dangerous and verges on an Orwellian control of the people. I am very scared for what may become of Thailand in the next few years. I spend a lot of time in China, and I for one do not want Thai people to become a politically mindless, toothless collective.
Actually I consider the Thai Royalty to border on thugs when it comes to indigenous land rights. The Thai Royalty, including the Queen, is not above the law. If the Queen doesn’t like what the thug servants do in her name, then she should get better trained thugs.
On Akha is worth all the Royalty in Thailand frankly, the Royalty Cult. Not so much different than the missionary cult, since the work together. But the fact is that the Royalty have taken the Akha land at Doi Tung and at Hooh Yoh Akha and Pah Nmm Akha and no amount of hand washing will clean the sin off them.
Erica-Irene Daes is the world formost expert on land rights, and according to her special consultive status to the UN on these matters of land rights for indigenous peoples, the land of the Akha belongs to them, not the Royalty of Thailand.
Yes, I totally agree, there is a wonderful percipitate of the most talented people in Thailand, and Thailand kicks them out. I love Thailand as much as I dislike the Royalty and the police and army of that country that gladly persecute the Akha. And lets not forget the slivers in Forestry.
Many of these experts helped our project and still do for what we are greatful.
In the US we go after missionaries, the Thai government, and others who are bent on destroying the lives of the Akha. One of the most brilliant marriages, if a Devil marrying to the niece of the Devil can be a brilliant marriage, is the marriage of SIL with UNESCO. The misisonaries deleting and then deciding that what they didn’t delete will be the new Akha culture.
We shut down the SIL side event at the UN in may over this, they had to leave the room before they got worse.
Missionaries are about white global racism.
Say, anyone from Australia who would like to help us in closing down that Australian who has taken it upon himself to take away more than 400 Akha children to make himself rich.
More aboriginal lost generations.
Someone from Australia aught to stand up and expose the guy.
CGT mission.
Also if I am reading you correctly, your first paragraph does not reflect local sentiment. HMK is permanent in the hearts of the Thais. The PM will lose if he competes for that place in their hearts. N,E,S,W it is the same across the country.
An election campaign could not be run on a promise of more riches to the poor and a political stand against the monarchy. Somehow the new PM must combine the wishes of the palace with delivering his election promises to be succesful. Pity the next PM.
Let me posit another point. I don’t think the 1993 coups had palace backing, not from the exalted one anyway. I am not prepared to debate the latest one for reasons of having lese majeste thrown at me. But I tend to believe the name of HMK is hijacked in the name of restoring democracy through the gun too easily. Should he speak out more in times of crisis, yes.
Local sentiment here is post HMK, the Thais believe the military will be more adventurous, not less.
Historicus and others always amuse when they attempt to portray Thaksin Shinawatra (the skedaddler with billions stowed in luggages in flight, the multi-billion offshore asset concealer, the head of the clan of tax cheaters, and the arguably biggest Thai mafia chieftain directing the corruption spree as head of that outlawed TRT party) as Thailand’s defender of the poor Isans.
That is what I meant by Thaksin’s dead-end democracy. The leader steals and cheats on taxes, and definitely maintains Swiss and other offshore numbered accounts, while promising to the guillible that He is the Saviour, and here is the Baht 500 installment handout with more to come . . .
I generally agree with you Paul L. There is no doubt that the palace’s views can only be ignored at an elected government’s peril. The old duffers in the palace (all of them) have ensured this by having their military lads to take control.
You might be interested in this. There’s not a lot new in it, but the perspective and terms used are interesting:
ANALYSIS / Why Thaksin is favored over king in Isan
Tetsuya Tsuruhara / Yomiuri Shimbun Asian General Bureau Chief
Thailand is divided into northern, northeastern, central and southern administrative regions. The northeastern region, called Isan in the Thai language, is the least developed area among them. As farming–the only industry in the region–is slack, the region’s per capita household income is two-thirds of the national average, and a mere one-third of Bangkok’s. Many young people, both men and women, leave for the capital and physical labor-related jobs, sending money back home if they can manage.
The people of Isan are Laotians of Thai origin and speak Isan, which is extremely close to the standard language of Laos, located across the Mekong River. Until the mid-20th century, the Isan people felt they belonged to the Lao ethnic group. Isan writer Kamsingh Srinok says, “We have been looked down upon and controlled by the central government throughout our history.” They have had to get used to poverty and the fate of being ruled, trying to find temporary pleasures to distract them from their pain.
This changed in 2001, when the administration of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power.
Thaksin launched unprecedented measures to aid the poverty-stricken Isan people, including the introduction of an inexpensive medical service system that requires patients to pay only 30 baht (about 92 cents), an easy-to-borrow system of agricultural funds and promotion of a “one village, one product” campaign.
Thaksin declared in 2004 that an Isan household with a monthly income of 3,000 to 4,000 baht would see its income increase to 10,000 baht within five years.
These initiatives were motivated by populist politics to gather votes with minimal fiscal outlay. But the Isan people found “hope” instead of “fate [in the face of poverty].”
In the country’s first ever national referendum held Aug. 19 on a new Thai Constitution that shapes a post-Thaksin Thailand, 57.8 percent of voters nationwide supported the new Constitution, while 62.8 percent of the people of Isan were against it. Paijit Sriworakan, a former House of Representatives member of Thaksin’s party elected from Nakhon Phanom Province, which recorded the highest percentage of negative votes among a total of 76 provinces, said, “Such a high percentage of negative votes represents a denial of the military coup that ousted Thaksin last September and loyalty toward him.”
One leading intellectual was shocked when a farmer he met in Isan said, “I revere Thaksin more than [Thai] King Bhumibol [Adulyadej]. Thaksin gave us money.”
Even King Bhumibol, who has reigned for more than 60 years and is revered like a god, is no match for Thaksin in terms of popularity among the Isan people.
The military-led Thai interim government has taken various measures to prevent the former prime minister returning to favor, including dissolving Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) party, freezing his and his family’s bank accounts, and filing criminal complaints against Thaksin and his wife. However, the national referendum that was intended as the final round of such efforts unexpectedly served to give momentum to a Thaksin resurgence.
The mainstream faction of the former Thai Rak Thai party regards the more than 10 million negative votes registered in the national referendum as the number of votes it will be able to garner in a general election scheduled for December. It calculates its candidates will be able to capture 110 seats in Isan and at least 200 seats across the country in the 480-seat lower house. If this calculation proves correct, the People Power Party–taken over by the faction–will become the largest party in the lower house. If an agreement is reached on a coalition government, the former members of the Thai Rak Thai might come back to power.
Former Bangkok Gov. Samak Sundaravej, who became leader of the People Power Party, said, “I don’t mind being called a nominee of Mr. Thaksin,” indicating his intention to use Thaksin’s name as a political magnet to strengthen his leadership.
The anti-Thaksin democratic forces in Bangkok that prompted last year’s military coup may well have thought no one could oust Thaksin through elections.
Referring to personnel changes within the Royal Thai Army scheduled for late September, Suriyasai Katasila, the leader of one of such democratic force, said it is necessary to appoint a commander who would not allow Thaksin to regain power.
A situation similar to that which prevailed before the 2006 military coup is emerging.
Democracy will not develop in Thailand unless the fundamental issue of poverty, as symbolized by the Isan region, is tackled in earnest.
(Sep. 6, 2007)
I don’t totally disagree with you. I am trying to build a picture of how things are on the ground here. I am not totally sure of everything I say either.
You will find those who voted TRT also happen to adore HMK. Thaksin is the reason why TRT is so popular. Those who voted NO in the referendum mostly came from Thaksin’s stronghold.
You can not easily draw a line and say the NO voters mean they have stopped adoring HMK. But they did vote NO against the military led government.
Let me put it another way->
Thaksin had a horrid time balancing all the interests of the country. He did believe that elements from the monarchy were destabilising to his policies. But I don’t think he even considered taking a political stand against the monarchy because that would alienate his voter base, not because he worried of a military coup, although that did happen.
Whoever the next elected PM will be must navigate the minefield of old powers, them being the usual suspects, party politics which will be back to the old pork barrel dealings with this new constitution, the military, and then trying to deliver the election promises to the public.
The attempts to disentangle the king from what happens inside his palace and the privy council are disingenuous. If one looks at the case of the declaration by the judiciary on the April 2006 election, there was a direct, daily line from the senior judges to Prem (providing him with a briefing) and then to the king. The attempt to delink the king from politics and to blame underlings just doesn’t work.
HMK has come out and said he is not above criticism. He has stressed this on a few occassions. I believe his words were “…even the King is not perfect” when addressing the nation.
But true, the lese majeste law still exists and the way it is being casually thrown around to stifle criticism is worrying. The latest episode being a website owner who allowed criticsm of the monarchy on his discussion board jailed for a couple of weeks.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Six threats and one opportunity
If only one academic or blogger can explain to me in a language a sixth or seventh grader can understand how Thaksin and his crooked gang of TRT crooks were good for Thailand’s democracy (and no bloviating and convoluted language please), I will be obliged.
Until then I will remain steadfast that Thailand’s version of democracy was headed inevitably to an extra-constitutional resolution with Thaksin himself ready and prepared to commit the coup himself (with his last flight from Bangkok loaded with scores of luggages stuffed with billions of Baht just in case), for self-preservation, but was thwarted by the pre-emptive General Sonthi’s coup.
Six threats and one opportunity
Was not the point of your #42 Historicus poster to portray Thaksin as poor Isan’s champion? What else the point of that poster if I may ask?
But you were deliberately lying Historicus (#30) when you said “Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown.”
But then again Historicus would horrified by my allegation that Thaksin would commit a coup a-la Marcos, sooner rather later, to protect himself from public scrutiny and judicial prosecution for his many abuses and corruption plus extrajudicial crimes, during his rule.
Six threats and one opportunity
Col. jeru states: “Yes nganadaleeg, how do academics like Andrew Walker and the many ‘democracy’ bloggers at NM reconcile Thaksin as the champion of the poor while Thaksin himself was leading the corruption and the looting and the tax cheating?”
I suggest that you actually read some academic articles written during and since Thaksin was in power. Pasuk and Baker, McCargo, Hewison, Nelson, Ukrist, Kasian are just a few that come to mind, all of who were highly critical of the TRT and Thaksin. But, hey, you ideologues aren’t interested in this work because they are also mostly critical of the coup. Your task is to blog for the military.
Six threats and one opportunity
Like the military junta and its puppet government, jeru and nganadeeleg have suddenly become worried that their views are not as widely held as they imagined. So they become bellicose in making claims that are not based on any analysis but on their perspectives built through a hatred of Thaksin rather than any analysis of his failings and Thaksin’s location in broader political events and structures.
jeru says my views are preposterous and that I have lied: “Historicus was of course lying when he posted his otherwise version of Thaksin’s last moments in power.” I take it that jeru is responding to: “No, Thaksin had not brought democracy to an end. The courts had intervened, perhaps not altogether legally, and had made decisions that set a course to a new election. Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown. Those protests stopped after Prem took leadership of the anti-Thaksin strategy. And what, exactly, do we know about Thaksin that we didn’t know before? That Thaksin was capable of nasty things is well-known.” So you think that a coup was necessary and a good thing because it got rid of Thaksin and you are a stalwart supporter the military, but this does not make my comments lies.
I take it that jeru agrees that Thaksin was nasty. That the street protests had stopped is a fact shown in the newspapers and other reports of the time. So it seems that the disagreement (or the lie) is in whether there were continuing constitutional processes. Given that the king set some of them in process, it seems difficult to see how they could not have been there. The point of disagreement seems to be that jeru wanted that constitutional process crushed and damaged because jeru thinks that Thaksin would have manipulated them.
That’s exactly the junta’s position. But every reader of NM has known that since September 2006. What’s new is that Thaksin support base remains, and Col jeru and his masters are deeply worried.
Six threats and one opportunity
jeru : Please point out where, in any post to this blog, you have evidence for this outrageous statement of my contributions: “Historicus and others always amuse when they attempt to portray Thaksin Shinawatra (the skedaddler with billions stowed in luggages in flight, the multi-billion offshore asset concealer, the head of the clan of tax cheaters, and the arguably biggest Thai mafia chieftain directing the corruption spree as head of that outlawed TRT party) as Thailand’s defender of the poor Isans.”
Facts, please, not assertion and interpretation. You seldom answer questions, so let’s see.
McDaniel’s new wheels
Mathew, The Thai Royalty, including the Queen, is not above the law. Where do you think the law comes from? I always thought it was a design from the ontologically divine?!
Don’t mean to antagonize you – thanks for informing me.
Six threats and one opportunity
Nganadeeleg,
You have said Thaksin is greedy. I don’t think he was so I don’t need to reconcile it. I think a lot of issues with Thaksin was party politics. I tend to look beyond party politics and look at what he delivered to the poor, which I feel he delivered a lot of good. If he achieved his election promises by merging a lot of his renegade parties into his TRT, then so be it. As long as the people benefited from it, which they did.
Six threats and one opportunity
Yes nganadaleeg, how do academics like Andrew Walker and the many ‘democracy’ bloggers at NM reconcile Thaksin as the champion of the poor while Thaksin himself was leading the corruption and the looting and the tax cheating?
Explain Andrew Walker how Thaksin (the extrajudicial killer) can be the embodiment of Thai democracy when he so publicly announced that he embraces a ‘one-party political system’ and was on his way to doing just that, until he was deposed?
Explain Andrew Walker how a deeply flawed Thai Rak Thai party, who will shield its corrupt and criminally abusive leader from public or parliamentary scrutiny, represent Thai democracy at work?
And educate us Andrew Walker how you thought Thailand would have been better served had we allowed ‘nature’ to follow its course and allowed the ‘rural constitution’ to mature and be enlightened to democratically vote out Thai Rak Thai party and Thaksin?
That is all garbage. Thaksin’s democracy was a dead-end. Thaksin’s dead-end democracy was leading the Thai Kingdom to a sure disaster. Thaksin’s only option was a pro-Thaksin coup (a-la Marcos), to accelerate his one-party political ideology.
Ergo. Thaksin’s dead-end democracy was ineluctably headed towards a military coup. Either a pro-Thaksin or a pro-Thai (General Sonthi’s) coup.
General Sonthi’s coup was pro-Thai and anti-Thaksin and was therefore a godsend.
Six threats and one opportunity
Yes Paul L I think our King should be speaking out against the coup and the actions against freedom of this military coup. Why do you think our great and wise King is not? But then our King has not in the past spoken against military juntas – usually he supports them.
Six threats and one opportunity
I am very scared for what may become of Thailand in the next few years. I spend a lot of time in China, and I for one do not want Thai people to become a politically mindless, toothless collective.
But isn’t that the way Thaksin wanted Thailand to head – remember who said this: “Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not [my] ultimate goal. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. We can’t drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and fix people’s problems; sometimes a pickup or good off-road vehicle will do”.
It’s a well known strategy – Spread a few crumbs and people will forget about loss of human rights & freedoms.
Paul L: How do you reconcile Thaksin’s greed (tax avoidance, use of nominees & tax havens, policy corruption) with his supposed role as a champion of the poor?
Six threats and one opportunity
Undoubtedly, Thai democracy was not working as intended under Thaksin.
Whether he was eroding vested interests influence or not, he was definitely undermining the concept of democracy. Whether he should have been removed militarily is a moot point since it happened. He was in a position where the democratic process was being removed so that he could not ever be removed from office or face realistic checks and balances. This in itself was very dangerous for the future of Thailand.
However, what we have today is to me even more dangerous and verges on an Orwellian control of the people. I am very scared for what may become of Thailand in the next few years. I spend a lot of time in China, and I for one do not want Thai people to become a politically mindless, toothless collective.
McDaniel’s new wheels
Actually I consider the Thai Royalty to border on thugs when it comes to indigenous land rights. The Thai Royalty, including the Queen, is not above the law. If the Queen doesn’t like what the thug servants do in her name, then she should get better trained thugs.
On Akha is worth all the Royalty in Thailand frankly, the Royalty Cult. Not so much different than the missionary cult, since the work together. But the fact is that the Royalty have taken the Akha land at Doi Tung and at Hooh Yoh Akha and Pah Nmm Akha and no amount of hand washing will clean the sin off them.
Erica-Irene Daes is the world formost expert on land rights, and according to her special consultive status to the UN on these matters of land rights for indigenous peoples, the land of the Akha belongs to them, not the Royalty of Thailand.
Yes, I totally agree, there is a wonderful percipitate of the most talented people in Thailand, and Thailand kicks them out. I love Thailand as much as I dislike the Royalty and the police and army of that country that gladly persecute the Akha. And lets not forget the slivers in Forestry.
Many of these experts helped our project and still do for what we are greatful.
In the US we go after missionaries, the Thai government, and others who are bent on destroying the lives of the Akha. One of the most brilliant marriages, if a Devil marrying to the niece of the Devil can be a brilliant marriage, is the marriage of SIL with UNESCO. The misisonaries deleting and then deciding that what they didn’t delete will be the new Akha culture.
We shut down the SIL side event at the UN in may over this, they had to leave the room before they got worse.
Missionaries are about white global racism.
Say, anyone from Australia who would like to help us in closing down that Australian who has taken it upon himself to take away more than 400 Akha children to make himself rich.
More aboriginal lost generations.
Someone from Australia aught to stand up and expose the guy.
CGT mission.
Matthew McDaniel
Six threats and one opportunity
Historicus,
Also if I am reading you correctly, your first paragraph does not reflect local sentiment. HMK is permanent in the hearts of the Thais. The PM will lose if he competes for that place in their hearts. N,E,S,W it is the same across the country.
Six threats and one opportunity
Historicus,
An election campaign could not be run on a promise of more riches to the poor and a political stand against the monarchy. Somehow the new PM must combine the wishes of the palace with delivering his election promises to be succesful. Pity the next PM.
Let me posit another point. I don’t think the 1993 coups had palace backing, not from the exalted one anyway. I am not prepared to debate the latest one for reasons of having lese majeste thrown at me. But I tend to believe the name of HMK is hijacked in the name of restoring democracy through the gun too easily. Should he speak out more in times of crisis, yes.
Local sentiment here is post HMK, the Thais believe the military will be more adventurous, not less.
Six threats and one opportunity
Historicus and others always amuse when they attempt to portray Thaksin Shinawatra (the skedaddler with billions stowed in luggages in flight, the multi-billion offshore asset concealer, the head of the clan of tax cheaters, and the arguably biggest Thai mafia chieftain directing the corruption spree as head of that outlawed TRT party) as Thailand’s defender of the poor Isans.
That is what I meant by Thaksin’s dead-end democracy. The leader steals and cheats on taxes, and definitely maintains Swiss and other offshore numbered accounts, while promising to the guillible that He is the Saviour, and here is the Baht 500 installment handout with more to come . . .
Historicus as usual is preposterous.
Six threats and one opportunity
I generally agree with you Paul L. There is no doubt that the palace’s views can only be ignored at an elected government’s peril. The old duffers in the palace (all of them) have ensured this by having their military lads to take control.
You might be interested in this. There’s not a lot new in it, but the perspective and terms used are interesting:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/20070906TDY05005.htm
ANALYSIS / Why Thaksin is favored over king in Isan
Tetsuya Tsuruhara / Yomiuri Shimbun Asian General Bureau Chief
Thailand is divided into northern, northeastern, central and southern administrative regions. The northeastern region, called Isan in the Thai language, is the least developed area among them. As farming–the only industry in the region–is slack, the region’s per capita household income is two-thirds of the national average, and a mere one-third of Bangkok’s. Many young people, both men and women, leave for the capital and physical labor-related jobs, sending money back home if they can manage.
The people of Isan are Laotians of Thai origin and speak Isan, which is extremely close to the standard language of Laos, located across the Mekong River. Until the mid-20th century, the Isan people felt they belonged to the Lao ethnic group. Isan writer Kamsingh Srinok says, “We have been looked down upon and controlled by the central government throughout our history.” They have had to get used to poverty and the fate of being ruled, trying to find temporary pleasures to distract them from their pain.
This changed in 2001, when the administration of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power.
Thaksin launched unprecedented measures to aid the poverty-stricken Isan people, including the introduction of an inexpensive medical service system that requires patients to pay only 30 baht (about 92 cents), an easy-to-borrow system of agricultural funds and promotion of a “one village, one product” campaign.
Thaksin declared in 2004 that an Isan household with a monthly income of 3,000 to 4,000 baht would see its income increase to 10,000 baht within five years.
These initiatives were motivated by populist politics to gather votes with minimal fiscal outlay. But the Isan people found “hope” instead of “fate [in the face of poverty].”
In the country’s first ever national referendum held Aug. 19 on a new Thai Constitution that shapes a post-Thaksin Thailand, 57.8 percent of voters nationwide supported the new Constitution, while 62.8 percent of the people of Isan were against it. Paijit Sriworakan, a former House of Representatives member of Thaksin’s party elected from Nakhon Phanom Province, which recorded the highest percentage of negative votes among a total of 76 provinces, said, “Such a high percentage of negative votes represents a denial of the military coup that ousted Thaksin last September and loyalty toward him.”
One leading intellectual was shocked when a farmer he met in Isan said, “I revere Thaksin more than [Thai] King Bhumibol [Adulyadej]. Thaksin gave us money.”
Even King Bhumibol, who has reigned for more than 60 years and is revered like a god, is no match for Thaksin in terms of popularity among the Isan people.
The military-led Thai interim government has taken various measures to prevent the former prime minister returning to favor, including dissolving Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) party, freezing his and his family’s bank accounts, and filing criminal complaints against Thaksin and his wife. However, the national referendum that was intended as the final round of such efforts unexpectedly served to give momentum to a Thaksin resurgence.
The mainstream faction of the former Thai Rak Thai party regards the more than 10 million negative votes registered in the national referendum as the number of votes it will be able to garner in a general election scheduled for December. It calculates its candidates will be able to capture 110 seats in Isan and at least 200 seats across the country in the 480-seat lower house. If this calculation proves correct, the People Power Party–taken over by the faction–will become the largest party in the lower house. If an agreement is reached on a coalition government, the former members of the Thai Rak Thai might come back to power.
Former Bangkok Gov. Samak Sundaravej, who became leader of the People Power Party, said, “I don’t mind being called a nominee of Mr. Thaksin,” indicating his intention to use Thaksin’s name as a political magnet to strengthen his leadership.
The anti-Thaksin democratic forces in Bangkok that prompted last year’s military coup may well have thought no one could oust Thaksin through elections.
Referring to personnel changes within the Royal Thai Army scheduled for late September, Suriyasai Katasila, the leader of one of such democratic force, said it is necessary to appoint a commander who would not allow Thaksin to regain power.
A situation similar to that which prevailed before the 2006 military coup is emerging.
Democracy will not develop in Thailand unless the fundamental issue of poverty, as symbolized by the Isan region, is tackled in earnest.
(Sep. 6, 2007)
Six threats and one opportunity
Correction. I meant to say Thaksin would alienate himself from his voter base.
Six threats and one opportunity
Historicus,
I don’t totally disagree with you. I am trying to build a picture of how things are on the ground here. I am not totally sure of everything I say either.
You will find those who voted TRT also happen to adore HMK. Thaksin is the reason why TRT is so popular. Those who voted NO in the referendum mostly came from Thaksin’s stronghold.
You can not easily draw a line and say the NO voters mean they have stopped adoring HMK. But they did vote NO against the military led government.
Let me put it another way->
Thaksin had a horrid time balancing all the interests of the country. He did believe that elements from the monarchy were destabilising to his policies. But I don’t think he even considered taking a political stand against the monarchy because that would alienate his voter base, not because he worried of a military coup, although that did happen.
Whoever the next elected PM will be must navigate the minefield of old powers, them being the usual suspects, party politics which will be back to the old pork barrel dealings with this new constitution, the military, and then trying to deliver the election promises to the public.
Six threats and one opportunity
The attempts to disentangle the king from what happens inside his palace and the privy council are disingenuous. If one looks at the case of the declaration by the judiciary on the April 2006 election, there was a direct, daily line from the senior judges to Prem (providing him with a briefing) and then to the king. The attempt to delink the king from politics and to blame underlings just doesn’t work.
Six threats and one opportunity
Andrew,
HMK has come out and said he is not above criticism. He has stressed this on a few occassions. I believe his words were “…even the King is not perfect” when addressing the nation.
But true, the lese majeste law still exists and the way it is being casually thrown around to stifle criticism is worrying. The latest episode being a website owner who allowed criticsm of the monarchy on his discussion board jailed for a couple of weeks.