Yala-based Centre for Muslim Lawyers coordinator Adilan Al Ishak said the arrests and subsequent forced-training were creating chaos among affected families while resentment from the local community towards the government was rising.
“This is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the people,” he said.
Adilan said the military operation aimed at winning the south started in Bannang Satar district on June 18 and so far, more than 500 people had been arrested in four provinces.
“First, they were held for seven days under the martial law and another 30 days under the emergency law. But instead of charging them in court or releasing the villagers, the authorities are sending them for training which is against the law and a violation of human rights,” he said.
Adilan said that from accounts given by detained villages, the detainees were given only two choices, either go for job training or risk being charged in court for involvement in the ongoing violence.
He said that though family members were allowed to see the detainees, many could not afford to go as the training centres are located in other provinces.
“But why is the military sending the villagers to undergo handicraft skill or vehicle repair training when they have steady jobs? We are not even sure now if they will be released after four months,” he said.
A social worker, Lamai Manalearn, said a 74-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy were arrested from a village in Nongchik, Patani.
“This was the first time people from the village were arrested. The old man told me he was asked to sign a paper before he can be released but instead of going home, he was sent for job training in Surat Thani,” she said.
Thai army spokesman Colonel Akara Tiproj, however, denied that the villagers were being forced to attend the job training, saying instead that it was for enhancing their labour skill and proper teaching of religion.
“We didn’t force them but explained the need for them to attend the training. But we have released several under-age detainees as we don’t want to be criticised by human rights groups,” he said.
Remember Thianwan and his fate … I think that the “song mai ao” gang ought to consider whether there is not really one just fundamental issue here. It relates to Republican’s point concerning what was *really* going on but was never openly analyzed–let alone criticized–between the announcement of the Temasek deal and 19 September. That point must be addressed seriously by anyone–above all “academics” who would have us take them seriously– participating in this debate. Or so it seems to me, at least.
Awzar
I agree that the report doesn’t provide much direction for the future – its recommendations are useless but it does identify the Islamic presence in the beheadings, killings of teachers etc. This needs to be confronted by the mainstream Islamic community and perhaps then progress can be made. Unfortunately you are still avoiding this issue in your post.
It is obvious the military dictatorship has no plans on dealing with the violence. Instead of protecting the citizens of the country, the soldiers are playing at politics and working to get their fingers in the pies created by private Thai companies.
Sonthi and his gang have apparently decided to let the Buddhists in the South to their fate. Without a change in policy, the extremists will achieve their goals of driving out all Buddhists from the areas of terror and Thailand’s claim to the area will obviously be weakened.
Direct military confrontation with the extremists surely isn’t a perfect strategy, but the current strategy and appeasement and apathy has resulted in the deaths of far more civilians than the previous strategy of confrontation (but the military is much safer working in government house in Bangkok rather than where they are needed in the South).
These reports are a waste of paper; the extremists will not change a strategy that is working just because some papers gets shuffled in Western countries.
On the other, if there was as much outrage within the Thai and international community over the beheadings and torture as there has been over Thaksin playing fast and loose with the tax laws, there might be enough pressure to force a change in policy.
Frustrated: Thanks for your remarks. I made no comments about Islamic ideology or otherwise because the subject of my observations was not the conflict in the south but the HRW report. The question is, what can this report achieve? The answer is nothing: first, because it is addresses the actions of persons who cannot be held accountable or subjected to pressure for change through methods available to HRW or any other rights group, and secondly, because it fails to offer any sort of really useful in-depth analysis through which suggestions can be made for changes to institutions designed to address the conflict in the south. This is manifest in the facile recommendations described in the original post.
It is also for this reason that, as Serf points out, ” 1,oo1 such reports on Burma/Myanmar have achieved absolutely nothing”.
Human rights advocates must begin from a place where it is possible to achieve something through their efforts. Otherwise, what is the point?
Reply to Pasuk: thanks for the response and clarification.
Personally I am not a fan of multiple choice questions because the answer has already been determined by the teacher who has set the exam. But I will resist writing another diatribe and try to reply briefly.
I have to admit I’m a bit surprised that you would think that I would argue that an academic should be censored from criticizing a “new” government that “murders lots of people”, “aims to be president for life” and “has my Dad shot”. (Also, I know this is a reference to the Thaksin, which I reject, but I will let it go here in the interests of brevity).
But this is a distortion of the argument. Let me put a number of questions to you:
Was it ethical (or wise, in a tactical sense) for academics to criticize in the media the leader of a democratically-elected government so strongly when before September 19 he was clearly under attack by the anti-democratic forces of the “network” led by the “phu mi barami” who controls the media and is protected from criticism by lese majeste?
Do you accept that such criticisms (“demonizations” in many cases, as you yourself pointed out), which Thaksin could hardly respond to because of lese majeste, were among the factors that paved the way for the coup (in the sense of softening up the Bangkok middle class to accept a coup)?
Is it not then hypocritical for those academics who did play major roles in demonizing Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai to now trumpet their democratic virtues?
Is it ethical for academics to continue to criticize the former leader of a democratically-elected government by writing columns in an anti-Thaksin, pro-coup, pro-CNS newspaper like The Nation when Thaksin has no right of reply in Thailand because he has been censored from the media by the junta, which has dissolved his party and continues to intimidate his supporters, many of whom still live under martial law?
If you are being honest to your profession, to balance your criticisms of Thaksin why do you not criticize the King in the mass media? Why do you not point out in a newspaper column the King’s constant undermining of Thaksin’s democratically-elected government – after the election in April 2006 when Thaksin announced he would “take a break” from politics; his speech to the three courts on 25 April 2006 following which the elections were annulled; his endorsement of the September 19 coup and strong support for the junta; his strong backing for the junta-appointed cabinet in his birthday speech; his speech to the Administrative Court on 24 May 2007 re. the party dissolution case, etc. And these are only the incidents that we actually know about in the last year and a half.
You are a very high profile academic and are much respected in political, academic and media circles. If you were to make such public criticisms it would truly be of value to the development of democracy in Thailand and Republican would be the first one to support you (on NM).
PS. re. “…Don’t think this is all heaven has to offer…”: this is a perfect example of the “song mai ao” position: your alternatives are “made in heaven” but can not exist in the real world. In the real world we have Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai and the electorate that voted for them.
(By the way, I hope you meant “heaven” in the farang saying, not in the Thai sense).
There is much else I would like to say in response but I fear that I have already gone on to long.
“Democracy is the weakest form of government. It transfers power to the people. It requires great courage from great people to defend it and uphold its principles.”
With power comes responsibilities – that’s the missing link.
I agree with Paul L, we need great people with great courage to defend democracy and its principles but not from the Thai ‘small fishes’, but rather from the ‘big fishes’, the so called great Western democracies who bomb Iraq to impose democracy and freedom. We also need people to explain to aspiring democracies why Thailand, implementing plans to return to a form of democracy (however imperfect), is viewed with contempt by the US, while Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia for that matter) which has been a truer military dictatorship for more than half a decade now is highly praised. Concerning Western concepts of democracy, there are broader systemic hypocrisies that needs to be addressed first and foremost. As long as democracy (and even personal freedoms and basic rights in the West I must add) is cheaply traded for oil and ‘war on terror’ – democracy would be a very hard sell – not just in Thailand, but anywhere. From the rhetoric I am hearing, I expect many heroes ready to take the fight to the Big Boys in Washington DC, London and Canberra – Bangkok is only an apprentice in democracy, you only need to give her time…
Srithanonchai – thanks for raising the point about the
multiplicity and complexity of Thai worldviews.
This reinforces my point about the critical
Westerner’s ‘real world’, ‘reality’, ‘realist’ –
and the notion of one truth and objectivity. It is
very modernist, very dualistic us VS them (and more
often than not, very dangerous). Since you accept that
there’s multiple ‘Thaines’ and a wide spectrum of
Thai societal grey areas – can we not approach the
subject as such and refrain from simplistic
reductivisms. Your ‘hypocritical’, ‘songmaiao’ Thai
academics ‘living in fantasy world’ have the uneviable
task of addressing this multiplicity and complexity on
the ground…
As for my views, they are wholly my own and is merely
one of 65 million Thais. It is a Bangkok middle-class
voice, male, dislikes corruption, advocates
non-violent reforms, mitigation of the excesses of
globalization/economic rationalization amongst others.
It is not necessary ‘consistent’ and it tries not to
be hate-filled. It is not necessarily altruistic – not
‘good’ or ‘evil’, tries to be empathic but not
necessary successful. While I can’t claim to be ‘on
ground’ (more an armchair commentator) as I am not
living inThailand, I can only hope my views are ‘pragmatic’ and ‘appropriate’.
I don’t think there is any gain in trying to answer your points. You talk fiction as though Samak has already gone out and committed crimes against humanity. They are your own personal fears, not the electorate at large.
All your concerns can be addressed simply by allowing the electorate to decide their future at the polls. If certain sections of society don’t like the choice of the electorate, then criticise. But to forcefully remove the elected government is not democracy in any form or function. Democracy is the weakest form of government. It transfers power to the people. It requires great courage from great people to defend it and uphold its principles.
I agree with #2 comments that “anything that could be considered disturbing about Islam is quickly thrown down the memory hole.” And I feel that #1 comments is further evidence of this. Sure the state’s role in this conflict is not following human rights obligations but does this mean you cannot identify the presence of an abherrant Islamic ideology or Al Quaeda presence causing much violence. Where Awzar Thi is your discussion of this ?
I’ve been busy so I’ve only just been told about this. As Republican’s post started such a good thread, we must say thank you to him. It’s hard to respond because I tend to agree with him and I don’t recognize my writing as he represents it. I don’t criticize Thaksin’s populism, I haven’t demonized him, I don’t put an elected government on par with a coup regime, I don’t avoid saying monarchy when I mean monarchy, I made clear that the coup received a ‘warm welcome’ within a limited space, etc, etc. Republican seems to be spluttering against some imaginary enemy in his head.
The only substantive point is over the Double No position, which I certainly do hold. Don’t like Thaksin. Don’t like coup even more. Don’t think this is all heaven has to offer. Believe it’s my right and duty to critique both Thaksin and this lousy junta. But the debate between the Double-No and the Black-White positions can be outlined in a couple of sentences. Republican has been going on and on and on and on about this for months and it seems a waste of his considerable talent and energy.
I have one question. If we get a new elected government (say one headed by someone like Samak), and he murders lots of people (e.g., left-wing activists), squashes the media, openly aims to be president-for-life of a one-party state, cuddles up to Bush and Burma in the pursuit of profit, and has my Dad shot as a drug dealer, must I withhold all criticism on grounds that would only encourage another military coup?
Republican, please answer like a multiple-choice exam question, not a long diatribe. This is a very simple question. And I need guidance.
I don’t understand Prof. Askew’s objection to this HRW report. Given Prof. Askew’s evident disdain for armchair academics and terrorism deniers, one would think that he would welcome a report that puts the victims of terrorism at the center of the story and is clear and exact about the identity and aims of those responsible for terrorist violence. Certainly, the recommendations are not likely to effect changes in militant behavior. Then again, four years of fitful suppressive measures by the police, army and marines haven’t had much effect on their behavior, either, so what are we going to demand of a human-rights report?
The substance of the report, meanwhile, would appear to favor Prof. Askew’s own assertion that “there is a new style of full-scale ‘total war’ going on here in Thailand’s south”. To that extent, the report should be helpful in correcting a skeptical discourse that Prof. Askew finds dismaying.
I think Prof. Askew minimizes the significance of the interviews with BRN-C militants. I am not aware of any other reports or studies that make use of interviews with militants not in custody. (I’d be grateful if other readers could direct me to any.) These interviews are significant precisely because they can’t be dismissed as military or government reporting, and because these militants are presumably still active. The reticence of BRN-C to proclaim the aims of their violence (in a form other than leaflets and graffiti, which can be produced by anyone for any number of reasons) has made it easier for some skeptics to avoid acknowledging the nature of the conflict.
Prof. Askew wants people to accept the fact that “Islamic people’s war” is underway in the deep South. Given that the HRW report is based in part on interviews with active militants that make this point quite forcefully, and otherwise emphasizes the human cost of the violence, it’s not clear why he is so anxious to discount it.
Thailand, its history, and its culture will always be an impediment, or at most a non-catalyst, to democracy in this region. I can understand Republican’s frustrations. Western observers wanted Thailand to succeed as a model of western style democracy, and saw Thaksin as the torchbearer for spreading of a more accountable and a more open form of democracy in South East Asia. But we can see that Thailand, at least those who still hold power i.e. those who have influence over the military, do not want to take on that responsibility. They see it as a threat to the old patronage system that has served them so well in the past. Let me put it in simple terms if you cannot understand what that means: the military will not be accountable to parliament. But it is exactly this ageing and creaking system that has created the great disparity between the rich and poor. I hear and read downright awful things in leading newspapers everyday to explain such things as good for the betterment of democracy in Thailand, such as democracy is only for the educated, or the poor sell themselves to the highest bidder. I feel nothing but animosity to those academics and opinion writers who write and speak with such Moaist rhetoric.
I saw three events that were the catalyst for the old powers to take advantage in the planning of the coup. The frustration from continued violence in the south, attempts to list the electricity authority, and finally, the sale of Shin Corp. All complete nonsense motives for a coup.
I won’t hide my desire to want Thailand to succeed in a truer form of democracy modeled on Western concepts. While not perfect, Thaksin was seen as perpetuating those ideals. I live in Thailand, because I like its people and its culture. But that doesn’t mean I cannot hold another set of ideals of what I have seen in the capital over the last year that one-day might be realized here.
I’m a bit confused by the Spiegel quote of Dr. Askew. I thought it was rather widely accepted by now that the uptick in violence began before 2004 (usually 2001 is chosen as a ‘starting’ date) and that the planning for this violence by a new generations of separatists / insurgents was in the planning stages for years prior to this. How then can the blame for the southern violence be placed so definitively at the feet of Thaksin?
Regarding the whoring of Islamic Studies, I suggest that Thai studies scholars read far and wide in the relevant academic and critical scholarship on Islam and the politicization of Islamic studies before they start reproducing simplistic tales about Islam, violence, democracy, etc. Clearly Islam has some explanatory value in what is happening in the South. Clearly however, more is going on than some civilizational conflict. We know for instance from the HRW report (and others) that lots of devout southern Thai Malay Muslims do not agree with the ideologies or strategies of the new generation of insurgents, even if they nonetheless are not sparkling liberal constitutionalists of a Western stripe. There are complexities here, as in the rest of the world of Muslim politics and political Islam, beyond simple dichotomies.
There is a brief article on Samak’s political past in the Bangkok Post of today (1 Sept 2007)
Friends or foes?
Recent events prove that alliances and rivalries in Thai politics are as unpredictable and impermanent as ever
KAMOL HENGKIETISAK
The saying, “there are no permanent friends and enemies in politics, only permanent interests” is a truism that will stand the test of time and well into the future, noted Boonlert Changyai, a Matichon writer.
Thai politics provides many examples of this truism, especially when it comes to Samak Sundaravej, a newly elected People’s Power party (PPP) leader who volunteered to be Thaksin’s nominee.
Since his political debut as an MP for the Democrat party in 1975-76, Samak has had political friends and enemies that have varied with the twists and turns of his political career.
Samak’s first political upset came in 1976 when he defeated the acting premier M.R. Kukrit Pramoj, a Social Action Party leader in Dusit constituency, by aligning himself with the military constituency and other community leaders.
Before and after the bloodshed of October 6, 1976, Samak was known to be the sworn enemy of the left, and especially to the leaders of the student movement, who Samak deemed as traitors who should be eliminated from Thailand.
Sutham Saengprathum, who, along with 17 of his fellow student leaders were arrested and faced jail time, knew all too well Samak’s role in suppressing their left-leaning student movement. Years later, though, Sutham joined Thai Rak Thai party and is now allied with Samak and the PPP to fight the CNS and the interim government.
As a reward for his right-wing stance, Samak was named as interior minister in the civilian puppet government of the coup leaders. While in power, he acted as a civilian dictator, closing down any newspaper which dared to put up news and comments unfavourable to the powers-that-be.
When the military leaders agreed to establish democracy again through a general election on 22 April 1979, Samak founded Prachakorn Thai party and defeated the Democrat party in a Bangkok landslide – leaving the party just the one seat held by Thanat Khoman, who was later elected as Democrat party leader.
The two parties became rivals in Bangkok and fiercely contested many local and national elections to win the hearts and minds of Bangkokians. Samak was not invited to join the Prem I government while the Democrats were. But, after a general election on 18 April 1983, Samak was invited to join the Democrat party in a Prem-led coalition government, which aimed to prevent Chart Thai leader Pramarn Adireksarn from becoming a prime minister even though the Chart Thai party came up with the largest number of MPs. Though fierce rivals, the two parties were able to work together under Gen Prem.
But when Gen Prem dissolved the House in 1986 and a general election followed, a coalition government led by Prem returned to power, this time without inviting Samak’s Prachakorn Thai party back. This may have been the beginning of Samak’s long-held grudge against Gen Prem, who later left politics and was appointed to the Privy Council, eventually becoming its president.
When in 2006 Gen Prem addressed well-wishers and military cadets, reminding them to work for the country in an honest manner as soldiers of the King and the people – not the government – Samak berated Gen Prem on TV, saying that as a statesman and president of Privy Council, Gen Prem should not speak out to damage Thaksin. It was strange that Samak who used to support the military wholeheartedly now dared to criticise Gen Prem, a person well-loved and respected by the military.
Stranger still was Veera Musikhapong – like Gen Prem, a native of the South – who declared himself to be one of Prem’s children when he was with the Democrat party and has since become one of the UDD leaders who campaigned to pressure Gen Prem to resign from the Privy Council.
Veera, who was also defeated by Samak in Dusit constituency and had to retreat to Phatthalung to get elected, was Samak’s sworn enemy for many years. He is now allied with Samak in the PPP to fight his old Democrat party in the Dec 23 general election. They became allies because they both worked for Thaksin.
In 1992, Samak’s Prachakorn Thai, Samakkhitham, Chart Thai, Social Action and Rassadorn parties united to invite Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon to head a coalition government, even though Gen Suchinda did not stand for general election and had made a pledge in toppling the “buffet cabinet” government of Gen Chatichai Choonhavan that he would not hold onto power and become a prime minister after a general election.
This led to the uprising and the so-called Black May incident which forced Gen Suchinda to resign and resulted in an interim government led by Anand Panyarachun to organise a new general election. At the time, Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was the leader of the New Aspiration party and was opposed to the Gen Suchinda. At that time, Samak and Gen Chavalit stood in opposite camps.
Now both Samak and Gen Chavalit are working to advance the cause of Thaksin’s return to power. Initially, it was believed that Gen Chavalit was invited to become the PPP leader, but his “fee” was too much for Thaksin’s camp to bear, so Samak was offered the job instead.
Yet Gen Chavalit was still believed to work for Thaksin in a covert manner by offering to make himself a go-between to bridge the enmity of the two opposing camps: the PPP and the Democrats.
One trait of Samak which was much admired by his political allies was that once he committed himself politically in a coalition government, he would not waver in his support. This was the case in 1996 when the Banharn-led coalition government was facing a no-confidence debate in the House. Other coalition government parties wanted Banharn to quit so that the NAP leader Gen Chavalit could become PM instead, but Samak declared that Prachakorn Thai would support Banharn 100%. Banharn was grateful.
Yet today, Banharn’s Chart Thai party is in a coalition with the Democrat party to contest in the general election against the PPP led by Samak.
When Samak decided to run for Bangkok’s governorship in 2001, he faced a formidable opponent in Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, of Thai Rak Thai party. Despite facing the better funded, Thaksin-backed candidate, Samak prevailed against the TRT party machine. Even so, Samak mended fences with Thaksin when he was Bangkok governor and continued being Thaksin’s supporter even after his retirement from politics.
Now, Samak is a true friend of the TRT and in its new guise of the PPP, fights to demand justice from the CNS. His enemies are the CNS, the Assets Scrutiny Committee, the Democrats, the People’s Alliance for Democracy, newspapers, academics and whoever dares to criticise and oppose Thaksin.
Samak will lead the PPP to fight all who are Thaksin’s sworn enemies. His troops include former TRT party executives who used to fight against Samak in their previous political careers, before they joined Thaksin-led Thai Rak Thai.
One may never know what Thaksin offered Samak to entice the old warrior to come out of political retirement and lead a political fight again.
One also has to wait and see whether Samak, as Thaksin’s nominee, can help Thaksin and the former TRT return to power. Finally, one has to wait and see if Samak’s friends today will become his enemies tomorrow. Nothing is certain in politics.
I haven’t yet read the HRW report, but given the history of the southern conflict ss separatism and nationalism it would be odd not to see the current war in this manner. So when can we expect to be able to read Dr Askew’s research-based account of what’s really happening in the south? Or where is it currently available?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
If true, these reports of ‘training’ are disturbing:
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=282538
Yala-based Centre for Muslim Lawyers coordinator Adilan Al Ishak said the arrests and subsequent forced-training were creating chaos among affected families while resentment from the local community towards the government was rising.
“This is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the people,” he said.
Adilan said the military operation aimed at winning the south started in Bannang Satar district on June 18 and so far, more than 500 people had been arrested in four provinces.
“First, they were held for seven days under the martial law and another 30 days under the emergency law. But instead of charging them in court or releasing the villagers, the authorities are sending them for training which is against the law and a violation of human rights,” he said.
Adilan said that from accounts given by detained villages, the detainees were given only two choices, either go for job training or risk being charged in court for involvement in the ongoing violence.
He said that though family members were allowed to see the detainees, many could not afford to go as the training centres are located in other provinces.
“But why is the military sending the villagers to undergo handicraft skill or vehicle repair training when they have steady jobs? We are not even sure now if they will be released after four months,” he said.
A social worker, Lamai Manalearn, said a 74-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy were arrested from a village in Nongchik, Patani.
“This was the first time people from the village were arrested. The old man told me he was asked to sign a paper before he can be released but instead of going home, he was sent for job training in Surat Thani,” she said.
Thai army spokesman Colonel Akara Tiproj, however, denied that the villagers were being forced to attend the job training, saying instead that it was for enhancing their labour skill and proper teaching of religion.
“We didn’t force them but explained the need for them to attend the training. But we have released several under-age detainees as we don’t want to be criticised by human rights groups,” he said.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Remember Thianwan and his fate … I think that the “song mai ao” gang ought to consider whether there is not really one just fundamental issue here. It relates to Republican’s point concerning what was *really* going on but was never openly analyzed–let alone criticized–between the announcement of the Temasek deal and 19 September. That point must be addressed seriously by anyone–above all “academics” who would have us take them seriously– participating in this debate. Or so it seems to me, at least.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Awzar
I agree that the report doesn’t provide much direction for the future – its recommendations are useless but it does identify the Islamic presence in the beheadings, killings of teachers etc. This needs to be confronted by the mainstream Islamic community and perhaps then progress can be made. Unfortunately you are still avoiding this issue in your post.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
It is obvious the military dictatorship has no plans on dealing with the violence. Instead of protecting the citizens of the country, the soldiers are playing at politics and working to get their fingers in the pies created by private Thai companies.
Sonthi and his gang have apparently decided to let the Buddhists in the South to their fate. Without a change in policy, the extremists will achieve their goals of driving out all Buddhists from the areas of terror and Thailand’s claim to the area will obviously be weakened.
Direct military confrontation with the extremists surely isn’t a perfect strategy, but the current strategy and appeasement and apathy has resulted in the deaths of far more civilians than the previous strategy of confrontation (but the military is much safer working in government house in Bangkok rather than where they are needed in the South).
These reports are a waste of paper; the extremists will not change a strategy that is working just because some papers gets shuffled in Western countries.
On the other, if there was as much outrage within the Thai and international community over the beheadings and torture as there has been over Thaksin playing fast and loose with the tax laws, there might be enough pressure to force a change in policy.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Frustrated: Thanks for your remarks. I made no comments about Islamic ideology or otherwise because the subject of my observations was not the conflict in the south but the HRW report. The question is, what can this report achieve? The answer is nothing: first, because it is addresses the actions of persons who cannot be held accountable or subjected to pressure for change through methods available to HRW or any other rights group, and secondly, because it fails to offer any sort of really useful in-depth analysis through which suggestions can be made for changes to institutions designed to address the conflict in the south. This is manifest in the facile recommendations described in the original post.
It is also for this reason that, as Serf points out, ” 1,oo1 such reports on Burma/Myanmar have achieved absolutely nothing”.
Human rights advocates must begin from a place where it is possible to achieve something through their efforts. Otherwise, what is the point?
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Reply to Pasuk: thanks for the response and clarification.
Personally I am not a fan of multiple choice questions because the answer has already been determined by the teacher who has set the exam. But I will resist writing another diatribe and try to reply briefly.
I have to admit I’m a bit surprised that you would think that I would argue that an academic should be censored from criticizing a “new” government that “murders lots of people”, “aims to be president for life” and “has my Dad shot”. (Also, I know this is a reference to the Thaksin, which I reject, but I will let it go here in the interests of brevity).
But this is a distortion of the argument. Let me put a number of questions to you:
Was it ethical (or wise, in a tactical sense) for academics to criticize in the media the leader of a democratically-elected government so strongly when before September 19 he was clearly under attack by the anti-democratic forces of the “network” led by the “phu mi barami” who controls the media and is protected from criticism by lese majeste?
Do you accept that such criticisms (“demonizations” in many cases, as you yourself pointed out), which Thaksin could hardly respond to because of lese majeste, were among the factors that paved the way for the coup (in the sense of softening up the Bangkok middle class to accept a coup)?
Is it not then hypocritical for those academics who did play major roles in demonizing Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai to now trumpet their democratic virtues?
Is it ethical for academics to continue to criticize the former leader of a democratically-elected government by writing columns in an anti-Thaksin, pro-coup, pro-CNS newspaper like The Nation when Thaksin has no right of reply in Thailand because he has been censored from the media by the junta, which has dissolved his party and continues to intimidate his supporters, many of whom still live under martial law?
If you are being honest to your profession, to balance your criticisms of Thaksin why do you not criticize the King in the mass media? Why do you not point out in a newspaper column the King’s constant undermining of Thaksin’s democratically-elected government – after the election in April 2006 when Thaksin announced he would “take a break” from politics; his speech to the three courts on 25 April 2006 following which the elections were annulled; his endorsement of the September 19 coup and strong support for the junta; his strong backing for the junta-appointed cabinet in his birthday speech; his speech to the Administrative Court on 24 May 2007 re. the party dissolution case, etc. And these are only the incidents that we actually know about in the last year and a half.
You are a very high profile academic and are much respected in political, academic and media circles. If you were to make such public criticisms it would truly be of value to the development of democracy in Thailand and Republican would be the first one to support you (on NM).
PS. re. “…Don’t think this is all heaven has to offer…”: this is a perfect example of the “song mai ao” position: your alternatives are “made in heaven” but can not exist in the real world. In the real world we have Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai and the electorate that voted for them.
(By the way, I hope you meant “heaven” in the farang saying, not in the Thai sense).
There is much else I would like to say in response but I fear that I have already gone on to long.
Global investment in Laos.
What got said?
Republican on Thailand after the coup
“Democracy is the weakest form of government. It transfers power to the people. It requires great courage from great people to defend it and uphold its principles.”
With power comes responsibilities – that’s the missing link.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
SS: “simplistic reductivisms” > Who, not me, right? You are not Chinese, right?
Are the SS of #41 and #43 the same person?
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I agree with Paul L, we need great people with great courage to defend democracy and its principles but not from the Thai ‘small fishes’, but rather from the ‘big fishes’, the so called great Western democracies who bomb Iraq to impose democracy and freedom. We also need people to explain to aspiring democracies why Thailand, implementing plans to return to a form of democracy (however imperfect), is viewed with contempt by the US, while Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia for that matter) which has been a truer military dictatorship for more than half a decade now is highly praised. Concerning Western concepts of democracy, there are broader systemic hypocrisies that needs to be addressed first and foremost. As long as democracy (and even personal freedoms and basic rights in the West I must add) is cheaply traded for oil and ‘war on terror’ – democracy would be a very hard sell – not just in Thailand, but anywhere. From the rhetoric I am hearing, I expect many heroes ready to take the fight to the Big Boys in Washington DC, London and Canberra – Bangkok is only an apprentice in democracy, you only need to give her time…
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I read the same nonsense from Paul L that he sees “while not perfect, Thaksin was seen as perpetuating those ideals (of Western democracy).”
Nonsense and stupid lies.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Srithanonchai – thanks for raising the point about the
multiplicity and complexity of Thai worldviews.
This reinforces my point about the critical
Westerner’s ‘real world’, ‘reality’, ‘realist’ –
and the notion of one truth and objectivity. It is
very modernist, very dualistic us VS them (and more
often than not, very dangerous). Since you accept that
there’s multiple ‘Thaines’ and a wide spectrum of
Thai societal grey areas – can we not approach the
subject as such and refrain from simplistic
reductivisms. Your ‘hypocritical’, ‘songmaiao’ Thai
academics ‘living in fantasy world’ have the uneviable
task of addressing this multiplicity and complexity on
the ground…
As for my views, they are wholly my own and is merely
one of 65 million Thais. It is a Bangkok middle-class
voice, male, dislikes corruption, advocates
non-violent reforms, mitigation of the excesses of
globalization/economic rationalization amongst others.
It is not necessary ‘consistent’ and it tries not to
be hate-filled. It is not necessarily altruistic – not
‘good’ or ‘evil’, tries to be empathic but not
necessary successful. While I can’t claim to be ‘on
ground’ (more an armchair commentator) as I am not
living inThailand, I can only hope my views are ‘pragmatic’ and ‘appropriate’.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Pasuk,
I don’t think there is any gain in trying to answer your points. You talk fiction as though Samak has already gone out and committed crimes against humanity. They are your own personal fears, not the electorate at large.
All your concerns can be addressed simply by allowing the electorate to decide their future at the polls. If certain sections of society don’t like the choice of the electorate, then criticise. But to forcefully remove the elected government is not democracy in any form or function. Democracy is the weakest form of government. It transfers power to the people. It requires great courage from great people to defend it and uphold its principles.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
I agree with #2 comments that “anything that could be considered disturbing about Islam is quickly thrown down the memory hole.” And I feel that #1 comments is further evidence of this. Sure the state’s role in this conflict is not following human rights obligations but does this mean you cannot identify the presence of an abherrant Islamic ideology or Al Quaeda presence causing much violence. Where Awzar Thi is your discussion of this ?
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I’ve been busy so I’ve only just been told about this. As Republican’s post started such a good thread, we must say thank you to him. It’s hard to respond because I tend to agree with him and I don’t recognize my writing as he represents it. I don’t criticize Thaksin’s populism, I haven’t demonized him, I don’t put an elected government on par with a coup regime, I don’t avoid saying monarchy when I mean monarchy, I made clear that the coup received a ‘warm welcome’ within a limited space, etc, etc. Republican seems to be spluttering against some imaginary enemy in his head.
The only substantive point is over the Double No position, which I certainly do hold. Don’t like Thaksin. Don’t like coup even more. Don’t think this is all heaven has to offer. Believe it’s my right and duty to critique both Thaksin and this lousy junta. But the debate between the Double-No and the Black-White positions can be outlined in a couple of sentences. Republican has been going on and on and on and on about this for months and it seems a waste of his considerable talent and energy.
I have one question. If we get a new elected government (say one headed by someone like Samak), and he murders lots of people (e.g., left-wing activists), squashes the media, openly aims to be president-for-life of a one-party state, cuddles up to Bush and Burma in the pursuit of profit, and has my Dad shot as a drug dealer, must I withhold all criticism on grounds that would only encourage another military coup?
Republican, please answer like a multiple-choice exam question, not a long diatribe. This is a very simple question. And I need guidance.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
I don’t understand Prof. Askew’s objection to this HRW report. Given Prof. Askew’s evident disdain for armchair academics and terrorism deniers, one would think that he would welcome a report that puts the victims of terrorism at the center of the story and is clear and exact about the identity and aims of those responsible for terrorist violence. Certainly, the recommendations are not likely to effect changes in militant behavior. Then again, four years of fitful suppressive measures by the police, army and marines haven’t had much effect on their behavior, either, so what are we going to demand of a human-rights report?
The substance of the report, meanwhile, would appear to favor Prof. Askew’s own assertion that “there is a new style of full-scale ‘total war’ going on here in Thailand’s south”. To that extent, the report should be helpful in correcting a skeptical discourse that Prof. Askew finds dismaying.
I think Prof. Askew minimizes the significance of the interviews with BRN-C militants. I am not aware of any other reports or studies that make use of interviews with militants not in custody. (I’d be grateful if other readers could direct me to any.) These interviews are significant precisely because they can’t be dismissed as military or government reporting, and because these militants are presumably still active. The reticence of BRN-C to proclaim the aims of their violence (in a form other than leaflets and graffiti, which can be produced by anyone for any number of reasons) has made it easier for some skeptics to avoid acknowledging the nature of the conflict.
Prof. Askew wants people to accept the fact that “Islamic people’s war” is underway in the deep South. Given that the HRW report is based in part on interviews with active militants that make this point quite forcefully, and otherwise emphasizes the human cost of the violence, it’s not clear why he is so anxious to discount it.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Thailand, its history, and its culture will always be an impediment, or at most a non-catalyst, to democracy in this region. I can understand Republican’s frustrations. Western observers wanted Thailand to succeed as a model of western style democracy, and saw Thaksin as the torchbearer for spreading of a more accountable and a more open form of democracy in South East Asia. But we can see that Thailand, at least those who still hold power i.e. those who have influence over the military, do not want to take on that responsibility. They see it as a threat to the old patronage system that has served them so well in the past. Let me put it in simple terms if you cannot understand what that means: the military will not be accountable to parliament. But it is exactly this ageing and creaking system that has created the great disparity between the rich and poor. I hear and read downright awful things in leading newspapers everyday to explain such things as good for the betterment of democracy in Thailand, such as democracy is only for the educated, or the poor sell themselves to the highest bidder. I feel nothing but animosity to those academics and opinion writers who write and speak with such Moaist rhetoric.
I saw three events that were the catalyst for the old powers to take advantage in the planning of the coup. The frustration from continued violence in the south, attempts to list the electricity authority, and finally, the sale of Shin Corp. All complete nonsense motives for a coup.
I won’t hide my desire to want Thailand to succeed in a truer form of democracy modeled on Western concepts. While not perfect, Thaksin was seen as perpetuating those ideals. I live in Thailand, because I like its people and its culture. But that doesn’t mean I cannot hold another set of ideals of what I have seen in the capital over the last year that one-day might be realized here.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
I’m a bit confused by the Spiegel quote of Dr. Askew. I thought it was rather widely accepted by now that the uptick in violence began before 2004 (usually 2001 is chosen as a ‘starting’ date) and that the planning for this violence by a new generations of separatists / insurgents was in the planning stages for years prior to this. How then can the blame for the southern violence be placed so definitively at the feet of Thaksin?
Regarding the whoring of Islamic Studies, I suggest that Thai studies scholars read far and wide in the relevant academic and critical scholarship on Islam and the politicization of Islamic studies before they start reproducing simplistic tales about Islam, violence, democracy, etc. Clearly Islam has some explanatory value in what is happening in the South. Clearly however, more is going on than some civilizational conflict. We know for instance from the HRW report (and others) that lots of devout southern Thai Malay Muslims do not agree with the ideologies or strategies of the new generation of insurgents, even if they nonetheless are not sparkling liberal constitutionalists of a Western stripe. There are complexities here, as in the rest of the world of Muslim politics and political Islam, beyond simple dichotomies.
Samak Sundaravej
There is a brief article on Samak’s political past in the Bangkok Post of today (1 Sept 2007)
Friends or foes?
Recent events prove that alliances and rivalries in Thai politics are as unpredictable and impermanent as ever
KAMOL HENGKIETISAK
The saying, “there are no permanent friends and enemies in politics, only permanent interests” is a truism that will stand the test of time and well into the future, noted Boonlert Changyai, a Matichon writer.
Thai politics provides many examples of this truism, especially when it comes to Samak Sundaravej, a newly elected People’s Power party (PPP) leader who volunteered to be Thaksin’s nominee.
Since his political debut as an MP for the Democrat party in 1975-76, Samak has had political friends and enemies that have varied with the twists and turns of his political career.
Samak’s first political upset came in 1976 when he defeated the acting premier M.R. Kukrit Pramoj, a Social Action Party leader in Dusit constituency, by aligning himself with the military constituency and other community leaders.
Before and after the bloodshed of October 6, 1976, Samak was known to be the sworn enemy of the left, and especially to the leaders of the student movement, who Samak deemed as traitors who should be eliminated from Thailand.
Sutham Saengprathum, who, along with 17 of his fellow student leaders were arrested and faced jail time, knew all too well Samak’s role in suppressing their left-leaning student movement. Years later, though, Sutham joined Thai Rak Thai party and is now allied with Samak and the PPP to fight the CNS and the interim government.
As a reward for his right-wing stance, Samak was named as interior minister in the civilian puppet government of the coup leaders. While in power, he acted as a civilian dictator, closing down any newspaper which dared to put up news and comments unfavourable to the powers-that-be.
When the military leaders agreed to establish democracy again through a general election on 22 April 1979, Samak founded Prachakorn Thai party and defeated the Democrat party in a Bangkok landslide – leaving the party just the one seat held by Thanat Khoman, who was later elected as Democrat party leader.
The two parties became rivals in Bangkok and fiercely contested many local and national elections to win the hearts and minds of Bangkokians. Samak was not invited to join the Prem I government while the Democrats were. But, after a general election on 18 April 1983, Samak was invited to join the Democrat party in a Prem-led coalition government, which aimed to prevent Chart Thai leader Pramarn Adireksarn from becoming a prime minister even though the Chart Thai party came up with the largest number of MPs. Though fierce rivals, the two parties were able to work together under Gen Prem.
But when Gen Prem dissolved the House in 1986 and a general election followed, a coalition government led by Prem returned to power, this time without inviting Samak’s Prachakorn Thai party back. This may have been the beginning of Samak’s long-held grudge against Gen Prem, who later left politics and was appointed to the Privy Council, eventually becoming its president.
When in 2006 Gen Prem addressed well-wishers and military cadets, reminding them to work for the country in an honest manner as soldiers of the King and the people – not the government – Samak berated Gen Prem on TV, saying that as a statesman and president of Privy Council, Gen Prem should not speak out to damage Thaksin. It was strange that Samak who used to support the military wholeheartedly now dared to criticise Gen Prem, a person well-loved and respected by the military.
Stranger still was Veera Musikhapong – like Gen Prem, a native of the South – who declared himself to be one of Prem’s children when he was with the Democrat party and has since become one of the UDD leaders who campaigned to pressure Gen Prem to resign from the Privy Council.
Veera, who was also defeated by Samak in Dusit constituency and had to retreat to Phatthalung to get elected, was Samak’s sworn enemy for many years. He is now allied with Samak in the PPP to fight his old Democrat party in the Dec 23 general election. They became allies because they both worked for Thaksin.
In 1992, Samak’s Prachakorn Thai, Samakkhitham, Chart Thai, Social Action and Rassadorn parties united to invite Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon to head a coalition government, even though Gen Suchinda did not stand for general election and had made a pledge in toppling the “buffet cabinet” government of Gen Chatichai Choonhavan that he would not hold onto power and become a prime minister after a general election.
This led to the uprising and the so-called Black May incident which forced Gen Suchinda to resign and resulted in an interim government led by Anand Panyarachun to organise a new general election. At the time, Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was the leader of the New Aspiration party and was opposed to the Gen Suchinda. At that time, Samak and Gen Chavalit stood in opposite camps.
Now both Samak and Gen Chavalit are working to advance the cause of Thaksin’s return to power. Initially, it was believed that Gen Chavalit was invited to become the PPP leader, but his “fee” was too much for Thaksin’s camp to bear, so Samak was offered the job instead.
Yet Gen Chavalit was still believed to work for Thaksin in a covert manner by offering to make himself a go-between to bridge the enmity of the two opposing camps: the PPP and the Democrats.
One trait of Samak which was much admired by his political allies was that once he committed himself politically in a coalition government, he would not waver in his support. This was the case in 1996 when the Banharn-led coalition government was facing a no-confidence debate in the House. Other coalition government parties wanted Banharn to quit so that the NAP leader Gen Chavalit could become PM instead, but Samak declared that Prachakorn Thai would support Banharn 100%. Banharn was grateful.
Yet today, Banharn’s Chart Thai party is in a coalition with the Democrat party to contest in the general election against the PPP led by Samak.
When Samak decided to run for Bangkok’s governorship in 2001, he faced a formidable opponent in Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, of Thai Rak Thai party. Despite facing the better funded, Thaksin-backed candidate, Samak prevailed against the TRT party machine. Even so, Samak mended fences with Thaksin when he was Bangkok governor and continued being Thaksin’s supporter even after his retirement from politics.
Now, Samak is a true friend of the TRT and in its new guise of the PPP, fights to demand justice from the CNS. His enemies are the CNS, the Assets Scrutiny Committee, the Democrats, the People’s Alliance for Democracy, newspapers, academics and whoever dares to criticise and oppose Thaksin.
Samak will lead the PPP to fight all who are Thaksin’s sworn enemies. His troops include former TRT party executives who used to fight against Samak in their previous political careers, before they joined Thaksin-led Thai Rak Thai.
One may never know what Thaksin offered Samak to entice the old warrior to come out of political retirement and lead a political fight again.
One also has to wait and see whether Samak, as Thaksin’s nominee, can help Thaksin and the former TRT return to power. Finally, one has to wait and see if Samak’s friends today will become his enemies tomorrow. Nothing is certain in politics.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
I haven’t yet read the HRW report, but given the history of the southern conflict ss separatism and nationalism it would be odd not to see the current war in this manner. So when can we expect to be able to read Dr Askew’s research-based account of what’s really happening in the south? Or where is it currently available?