Comments

Has anyone seen an integrated, substantive economic analysis of the pro-poor impact of TRT’s ‘populist’ programmes? It’s curious that post-coup, these programmes are now being exalted. When TRT was in power, they did not receive much academic attention.

Put simply, Paul L, democracy in the West was a long time in the making. American democracy, for instance, has its origins in the English Revolution of the mid 1600’s, the Putney Debates and the movements of the Levellers and even the Diggers (Not those “diggers”, Australia hadn’t even been discovered by then!). Other ideas which may be associated with democratic institutions date back even earlier – trial by jury for instance originated in the reign of Henry II in the 12th century BC; Magna Carta was signed finally signed nearly 800 years ago; the first recognisable parliament (by no means a “democratic” institution) met in England nearly 750 years ago. These institutions and the rights that went with them were fought for long, hard and bloodily and, as a result, they have become deeply imbued in the people’s political consciousness. I am often struck by the apparent pride and satisfaction that many Thai people take in the last “bloodless coup”. Indeed most coups in Thailand have been comparatively bloodless and none has resulted in bloody civil war as in America, England, France and most European countries. The result is a part of our national heritages and I cannot imagine for a minute that I or my fellow countrymen would allow a group of self-important generals to take over the government of my country without there being a very great deal of blood spilled!

Perhaps equally important was the period of intellectual and scientific “Enlightenment” of the 18th centyry BC. One classic quote of the period (and which I believe he may not have actually said, but it remains a truism) is Voltaire’s “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Can you imagine your average Bangkokian saying that to a rural Thakksinite denizen of Isaan?!

The fact is that democracy is not simply a set of political ideas that can be simply be imported. It has to be a part of personal experience and, most of all, it has to be something that there is an implacable will to defend.

Of course there is far more to Thailand’s democratic problems than just that. Not least is the obsessive and often unhealthy respect for “authority” (particularly when it is dressed up in a white sailor-suit!) that so many Thais almost automatically evince.

I didn’t know that Prof. Pasuk’s father was shot “as a drug dealer” – or was that a purely metaphorical allusion? Either way the point is valid and anyone who suffered loss at the seemingly indescriminate killings that were carried out under the drugs war has my deepest sympathy.

I notice that there is now a move to prosecute Thaksin on the grounds of his prosecution of the drugs war. I feel certain that any such attempt will run into the sands. And it will do so for very good reasons.

Thaksin is commonly and rightly portrayed as a populist leader; the drugs war, and the manner in which it was conducted, was the most populist of all Thaksin’s populist policies. It had the overwhelming support of the great majority of Thai people from the most humble to the very highest in the land. Endemic corruption in the police and the general feebleness of the writ of law enforcement throughout Thailand meant that this was a problem that was could never be effectively tackled by ordinary means. The Thai people in general were happy to find someone with the will to tackle the most difficult and damaging social problem of the time by whatever means, however unscrupulous they might be.

So there can be little doubt that the overwhelming majority supported the action at the time. Certainly HM The King appeared to call for it in his birthday speech in 2002 and a year later he apparently endorsed the results when he said: ““Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drug trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll.”

It seems to me clear that the responsibility for this lies with the Thai nation as a whole. It is pointless (and cowardly!) to try to pin the blame on Thaksin. He was merely the people’s instrument.

Re: Mitchell>
As for the future of Thailand, what will happen is whatever China will want to happen. As the Westphalian system of nation-states is slowly becoming irrelevant, Chinese forgein policy is returning to a tianxia, “Mandate of Heaven” Sinocentric system of tribute-trade relationships with the “barbarians”. (Updated for a post-industrial world.)

While the United States currently has the potential to combat Chinese hegemony of S.E. Asia, if the U.S. is recluctant to challenge the Chinese over Taiwan, they sure as hell aren’t going to do battle over Thailand.

So, you want to know the future of Thailand? Search for it in the face of Hu Jintao.

He came into politics because of his business interests and he was never able to separate the two. He thought he could act like a typical Thai tao-kae CEO and push everybody else around, and in the end that meant he was a very bad politician who failed to understand the political environment properly. Back in 2000, I did not see that he was also flawed in other ways which emerged in the violent way he approached the drug problem and the southern problem. Many people, including me, would like to see him being put on trial on these issues.

This, to my mind, comes a lot closer to the real issue many Thais had with Thaksin than the manufactured accusations of the junta. However, it alone is a weak rationale for the overthrow of a democratic regime.

Thaksin did seem willing to push the limits to enhance and preserve his power. I would guess that his close association with Newin Chitchob did more to turn Bangkok against him than corruption or violence. It did me.

However, it is far from clear that Thaksin’s government was more corrupt than that of Banharn or Chavalit. The violence against drug dealers was apparently endorsed wholeheartedly by the King (who in the quote I have seen even cited the number of dead approvingly). Accusing Thaksin of being brutal in the South seems silly in light of the militaries record over several decades and their leading role in the worst episode. Finally, I am skeptical that Thaksin promoted his own business at the expense of the country. Maybe he did, but the argument as presented so far is without substantiation. The loan to Burma seems trivial when one looks at what portion could actually have hit his own pocket.

I don’t think one can avoid the conclusion that the military acted for reasons of their own interest to a much greater extent than they claim.

The reason for my post, however, is to explore a bit more carefully your desire for a trial. I’d love to get answers to these questions from Ajarn Pasuk or any others:
1) What are the specific crimes you would like to see Thaksin on trial for?
2) Why do you think these are being ignored by the junta, who are pursuing crimes that seems much less serious and, perhaps, harder to convict.
3) Why is the junta only pursuing a few very minor cases? We have heard so much about the airport and CTX scanners, why are these now being ignored?
4) Why are Thaksin’s foes not angry with the junta for either botching the investigations? Why is no one that Newin, Suriya and others seems to be walking away clean, much like the last round of “unusually wealthy” 15 years ago?
5) Do you think the lack of progress is because Thaksin cleverly covered everything up, because the investigators are incompetent, because the junta has cut deals with everyone, or because their side was equally involved and the only crimes that Thaksin was involved in that their crony’s weren’t were his own personal dealings (Ratchada house, asset concealment)?

I am not a Thaksin fan or a Thaksin apologist, but everyday, it seems more obvious that the junta is far guiltier of “pushing people around” and not being able to separate their own interest from that of the country. Where is the outrage?

Hehehe!
Now it’s the ‘Thai-Thai’ Vs ‘Sino-Thai’ (whatever those are!) – I rest my case Srithanonchai (so does that make it Thai-Muslim Sonthi Vs Thai-Chinese Thaksin Vs Thai-Chinese-Mon-Malay-etc monarchy too???).

Pasuk wites:
Thank you Republican. I think that was ‘Yes’, meaning a gag order. Am I right?

I cannot remember the last time (or the first) Pasuk makes criticism of the monarchy the way she makes of Thaksin and other politicians.

Is that a ‘gag order’? A lack of courage?

It’s rudicrous indeed for those, like Pasuk, who claim ‘right to criticize Thaksin (and other politicians), but remained forever silence of the role of the Palace.

By the way, could her imaginary scenario ““aims to be president for life” be more laughable? PRESIDENT? Can anyone even suggest that in this country, let alone “aim”?

I am interested in comments on what people see as the future of Thailand after the Thai King, who is 80 years old and has serious health problems, passes from the scene in the next few years. Will there be a period of instability and social upheavel? Economic collapse?