I had promised feedback on Jakrapop’s talk at the FCCT. Here is a quick one. Happy to do more tomorrow if requested.
Jakrapop started out by announcing that he had been released from “Prem’s jail’, before launching into a review of Thai history since Ramkhamhaeng.
The key point of a meandering, and at times over-dramatic, talk seemed to be to provide an epic narrative to describe the current struggle. Thaksin, he said, sought to overthrow a patronage system that descended largely intact of feudal times and give full rights of citizenship to the Thai people.
Prem, he said, is the current the head of this network. The goal of the protest at Prem’s house and the victory they feel they accomplished came from forcing him to reveal himself as the puppetmaster.
He appeared to link the development of the monarchy with the development of a patronage system, perhaps initially benign, but no longer useful. Thais, he said, are forced by the elite to obey and conform. In exchange they receive petty rewards and protection. They are like children in his words. Not responsible for their own lives. They are owned by the elite. But the people now know this and no longer will accept being children. He said that the old system is not compatible with modern times and a globally integrated economy. It is fated to doom.
Jakrapop seemed to admit that Thaksin was flawed and said that he was a creature of the patronage system. He said Thaksin was loyal to the King, but later in questions backed off a statement that he was 100% loyal. He does not know whether or not he will return saying he seems quite happy now. He related the story, reported today in The Nation, that they contemplated setting up a gov’t in exile but were foiled by a phone call to Thaksin. While he would not reveal that source, earlier versions of the story that I have heard claimed the initials were SS.
He said that Thaksin consciously ignored Bangkok, because Bangkok did not need him. Bangkok people can’t name anything Thaksin did for them because he didn’t do much for them. But rural people can reel off a list of ten ways he made their lives better.
He spent some time discussing the tape of judges talking that he played at Sanam Luang. He said the tape was made by the third person in the room and that he was eager to go to court to bring the other, Prem and the judges in, to have to answer as well.
He seemed to imply that the solution would be a clash of revolutionary proportions. The elections, in his view, would solve nothing.
He was non-commital on Samak. He said he was earlier a pawn in the patronage system he has broken free and now opposed it. He said he could be a transitional leader for TRT. He said he was pained by the drug related killings and that it was a challenge when he was the government spokesman.
In my view, his talk presented a storyline that could play well in both international and rural circles.
His co-presenter sounded very academic. He was highly critical of the constitution which he described as a standard tool of the elite patronage network. He compared it to 1972. While not a member of TRT or PPP, he was far more complimentary to Thaksin than Jakrapop was.
This really eats into Republican, Pundit and ex-Ajarn entrails that the middle class and the Thai intelligentsia had completely deserted ‘democracy’ and left Thaksin to fend for himself against those ugly generals.
It is simple gentlemen. The middle class and the Thai intelligentsia only know too well how a manipulative politician like Thaksin can abuse the constitution, guile the poor hopeful masses into a huge Thaksin cult following, for personal enrichment and ‘absolute’ power, and Thailand was indeed menaced by Thaksin and his sycophantic TRT crooks.
So all your outrage fall on our deaf ears gentlemen. Thaksin was a danger. Thaksin won’t submit to ‘constitutional’ accountability for his many criminal abuses. Too bad the constitution had to be ‘reset’. The middle class and the intelligentsia were not comfortable with the ‘reset’ and the military interevention, but it happened, so everybody will just hope for the best. (And it is looking like General Sonthi will hold the promised election nearly on schedule too!)
But if you gentlemen were expecting the Thai middle class and those Bangkok citizens to pour on the streets to challenge the tanks to save Thaksin’s skin, you can just forget it. Thaksin got what was coming to him and he had to be removed.
It is amazing how blind hatred can affect a person’s outlook on issues. In this case, academia is no exception. Blind hatred of Thaksin has caused otherwise rational people to call an elected government with the support of the majority of the population “undemocratic” and an armed overthrow of an elected government by the military to stop an election from going forth, because they expected an outcome they would not like, democratic.
The discussion about whether one liked Thaksin and his policies needs to be decoupled from the issue of elections and democracy. One can not claim to favor democracy and only accept certain outcomes of elections. Democracy does not mean elites and those who control those with the most guns gets to decide who governs.
If Thaksin was so bad, why couldn’t his opponents beat him in an election? Why alternatives have been proposed by the anti-Thaksin politicians except the removal of the object of their hatred? Does Thailand want democracy that reflects the will of the people? Or does Thailand want democracy where only those the old guard elites approve of are allowed to run in elections?
So what has this “democratic’ exercise of removing the object of hatred of the elites done for the country? Economic growth has continued to decline, far below the regional average, violence in the South has intensified resulting in the deaths of many Thai citizens, the country’s international image is one of a banana republic ruled by keystone soldiers, the political division continues, the country now has a constitution that is light years behind the one it had previously in terms of guaranteed freedoms. What progress! But in one incidence, the coup leader have done the impossible, they have set a benchmark which makes Thaksin look democratic, progressive and very intelligent.
As long as hatred of Thaksin and emotions rule the debate, democracy will not move forward.
Reply to Bangkok Pundit: You’re right, we have to be realists, and that is exactly why the “song mai ao” criticism is valid. Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai was (and to a large extent still is) the choice of the majority of the electorate. What political force had/has the most realistic chance of overcoming the forces of royalist dictatorship? The position of supporting no-one is not just the “easy approach”, but given the present political conditions it in effect means supporting royalist-military dictatorship.
This is where we see the pretentiousness, the hypocrisy and the political irresponsibility of the “song mai ao” academics. They want so much to appear “pure” and democratic and morally superior and intellectually more far-sighted than the rest of us that they distance themselves as much as possible from Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai. That is, they distance themselves from a former government which had done precisely the sorts of things democratically-elected governments in other countries do: respond to the demands of the electorate which put them in government, and manage the national economy effectively. But the “song mai ao” academics pretend there is some other way. Some of them even occasionally criticize the monarchy openly to display their fake “democratic” commitment and solidarity with the people. A few of them will “bravely” give papers at the ICTS – in honour of the king’s 80th birthday. That is: they criticize the monarchy, but their failure to support the Thai Rak Thai government when it was most in need was the best favour they could have done for monarchical government. And don’t forget that many of these “song mai ao” academics are active “public intellectuals”: they don’t confine themselves to writing scholarly articles in academic journals or debates on academic blog sites but write columns for newspapers read by hundreds of thousands of people, or even appear on TV. Obviously they want their criticisms to have a political effect. Kasien is the best example, his “р╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕нр╕Ър╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У” has been taken up by the military junta, the Democrats and Thaksin’s other political enemies and is now a byword used to signify the evil of everything Thaksin stands for. His concept of “electocracy” also helped undermine the most important element of the political legitimacy of the Thai Rak Thai government. Pasuk’s criticism of Thaksin’s “populism” is another example of a discourse which attacks the legitimacy of Thai Rak Thai. When you see these “song mai ao” public intellectuals come out after the coup with their democratic protestations and their comparatively mild criticisms of the junta, one feels like pointing out, well you were the guys who helped bring down Thai Rak Thai in the court of (middle class) public opinion.
People like the “war room” academics and all the other anti-Thaksin academics talk about human rights violations under the Thai Rak Thai government, its alleged corruption and the “undemocratic” Thaksin, but are silent about the human rights abuses, corruption and undermining of democracy by the monarchy over the last 50 years. On the latter, as I keep saying, the truth is largely invisible because of the lese majeste law and the relentless royalist propaganda. But despite this law and the propaganda, anyone who has studied this country for a length of time should surely know the extent of the monarchy’s corruption of the political system, and its poisonous influence on society in general.
Go to any royal ceremony (a graduation for example) and the feudal, profoundly undemocratic nature of the monarchy is on display. Look at the way they treat the Thai people like animals, forcing them to grovel at their feet in prostration and to address them from underneath the specks of dust on the soles of their Royal Feet. Listen to the king who sits on top of a $40 billion fortune tell the villagers (whose government he has just helped overthrown) to be satisfied for what little they have, and then watch the academics give their learned papers on sufficiency economy. All this is somehow more desirable for the academics than Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin.
No one has come back on Handley’s book, so let me go back to the original point I made in response to jonfernquest: “IMHO the main import of the Anand speech is in demonstrating the indirect way HMK indirectly guides political actors, something Handley appears to miss with his speculative attributions of direct influence.”
Leaving aside Handley, here are two recent examples of the king’s direct influence. Now, of course, people may say that these are speculative, but that is because the palace prevents people seeing in.
On a daily basis, the king was kept up to date and provided advice to the judges dealing with the sacking and jailing of the election commissioners in April 2006. The evidence, which has not been refuted as far as I am aware was the illegal wiretap released by Jakrapob (see the English version at the Asian Legal Resource Centre journal, article2, 6, 3, 2007,which can be downloaded at the AHRC site).
A second interesting example is related to the king, palace, and military links to the anti-Thaksin links. It seems that there were links to the king and a statement is included regarding the go-ahead for the coup. This is provided – along with lots of other interesting statements in the recent “interview” by none other than Sondhi Limthongkul (Manager website, http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000100015, 25 р╕кр╕┤р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕Др╕б 2550).
Republican’s point about the hypocrisy of the majority of Thai academics is valid. It cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a non-Thai or a Thaksinophile.
Sure, Thai academics operate under a different set of rules (lese majeste) but this does not explain the overtly pro-elite position that most of them have taken.
I agree with Sidh. S. and cannot get rid of the impression that the Thai middle class has been hypocritical towards the poor all the years. I remember the months under Chuan’s government where the assembly of the poor gathered Bangkok’s streets. In those day there was much sympathy and talk about “empowerment”. But when there is someone (like Thaksin) coming into power to benefit them, the poor were dropped by the middle class as being stupid and mislead by a populist. Obviously, that is because the middle class taxes has been used for that purpose.
I wonder what the media mogul Sondhi (or Sonthi – please excuse me, I tend to confuse the romanisation for the two) is doing now. Wasn’t he the one bringing the middle class masses against Thaksin? He talked about democracy, but why isn’t he saying anything about the elitist’ takeover?
I am equally sad that due to the schematic western thinking that everything that is democratically elected is a good thing, Thaksin shines as a good boy of Thai democracy. Seemingly all but forgotten are his human rights violations, especially in the area of freedom of the media.
Please apologise my humble opinion and the fact that I may haven’t come with a well-funded standpoint.
Why don’t you channel your passions into an article or book and get it published? Even though we wouldn’t be able to identify your real name with your pseudonym, it would be a contribution to the field.
“He /she seems to not understand the country, it’s history and culture at all.” This intellectually disingenuous “argument” seems to have a long life, as have the dream worlds many Thai academics have constructed for themselves to fend off the real world.
“I do think that Pasuk has some valid points. I have not seen much evidence that Thaksin was interested in the poor until he saw the expediency. But motive isn’t the issue. He did genuinely support the poor and they genuinely love him for it.”
It is difficult to attribute motives to politicians, but I agree with you motive isn’t the issue as we can never really know what Thaksin’s true motive was. Actions speak louder than words.
“If the middle class really believes that Thaksin was so much more corrupt, where is the outrage that all of this minions have been let off? Or that he is only being tried for a little land purchase that probably won’t even hold up in the end.”
This is the problem for the “old power” clique description as it morphs from only Thaksin to all his “cronies”, whatever that means. It is as if they were all somehow all under his control and were manipulated by him and couldn’t get out from his control, but Thaksin’s power derived from the legislature. Thaksin stayed in power because he had enough support from MPs. When his popularity decreased some factions jumped ship. The more his support fell, the more MPs would leave as they were worried about losing their MP status. The reason some stayed as he was their ticket to being an MP. All those MPs and Cabinet Ministers could have resigned at anytime, but by staying and somehow trying to distance themselves from Thaksin is hilarious. When Thaksin did something “illegal”, weren’t the rest of them enabling him? Oddly, it is only Thaksin who is the source off all evil and the only one, with his family, who must be punished.
“If you sold your shares for 70 billion baht without paying taxes – just 5-10 billion donation for good causes would have won the whole country over (maybe even the Democrat’s stronghold of the South!). ”
Umm. You really think he would have won any votes from the “He-is-selling-out-Thailand-to-evil-foreigners-crowd”? I think it would have lessened the anger, but then he would have been accused of using “taxpayer’s money” for cynical political purposes.
“…foolish to think that the masses are actually politically sophisticated…”
Political sophistication is impossible without knowing what is going on.
Everyone is always talking about decentralisation and localised political decisionmaking but there is no such thing as a **local media reporting local provincial news**.
I used to read Matthew McDaniel’s early embryo version of a blog, reporting events in Akha land northwest of Chiang Rai, as if he was reporting from from the moon, e.g. …
Hey, Akha father-in-law of Polish tennis teacher shot dead in the head and dumped on the road by you know who.
Hey, why did that 30 million baht mysteriously disappear from the Japanese educational grant.
Hey, why is that squatter camp army of Burmese migrants building this university and then, why are they building a 60 million baht spa and massage complex behind the university and what does this have to do with education? I’m confused.
Hey, why did that guy who stole the electricity generating concession for Tachileik, Burma from that Thai guy, get a silencer stuck to his head and his head blown off when he was leaving the driving range.
Hey, why did that Swiss friend who used to eat with us at my mother in law’s house just hang himself in his jail cell the day after you know who was pushing him around his jail cell for 1.5 million baht? After the most untransparent set events (not reported in the media) I’ve ever seen transpired?
Hey, why did that Farang scum ball who was seen in the woman’s room before her murder suddenly get let loose and fly back to his country after reported payments
Hey, where did that Muslim lawyer go, didn’t Chavalit tell everyone in front of the whole National Assembly and didn’t Thaksin protect the culprits?
Hey, why were those Burmese hiding in the school bathroom taking refuge from the rain shot dead in cold blood with shot guns by the local militia?
Hey, why is the corpse of that Farang floating down the Maesai river?
Hey, why did that German driving drunk wack that farmer, almost killing him, and then get off with 90,000 baht because his Thai wife’s brother is a high ranking officer.
Hey, why did that provincial have to pay three times as much everyone else in the traffic accident settlement just because he couldn’t find friends in Bangkok to vouch for him?
Hey, why did my sister-in-law’s mother-in-law steal her baby and refuse to feed my sister-in-law (essentially treating her like an animal) when she came to visit her baby?
Hey, why did those three teenagers get shot in the head by men in black ski masks and dumped out of the back of a truck at the entrance to Chiang Rai hospital in the dead of night?
Hey, why did that teacher just run a red light?
Hey, why did that hit-and-run hit the guy and flee?
There’s ***no such thing as provincial news*** so no one will ever know the answer to these questions.
I can emphathize with Republican. When one starts from a deep hatred of the ‘old elite’/monarchy, it is not hard to have deep affections for Thaksin. I know many who are the same.
Although taking the opposite route is not necessary true – as many Thais combine a deep love for HMK with affection for Thaksin. It does make Republican’s article somewhat reductivist and simplistic – and it is quite surprising that he/she is an active participant in a blog about Thailand. He /she seems to not understand the country, it’s history and culture at all.
I wonder if Republican should be writing on Burma or Vietnam, where the British and French colonizers systematically dismantled their ‘old elite’ system and network. Maybe if the Thai ‘domino’ fell to Communism, the country would be far better off? Or maybe America should invade Thailand and violently impose democracy like in Iraq?
Moreover, by implication, Republican brands the majority of Thais, who are royalists, feudal and backwards. But that is what Thais will have to accept as I won’t be surpised if that is what the majority of ‘democratic’ Westerners think deep inside. But I wish he/she could emphathize with us (unless if he/she happens to be Thai) – the monarchy is part of the Thais sense of identity of which we are very proud of. We maybe poor and backwards, but please don’t trample on our dignity – leave us some space to be proud – if you consider yourself a friend of Thailand…
As for PMThaksin, his greed and stinginess led to his downfall as much, if not more, than anything the ‘old elite’ could muster against him. His strong government (the result of the 1997 ‘people’s constitution’ which came about as the offspring of ‘Black May’) and populist policies has won the hearts of the people of the North and Northeast (and his 300km rail mass-transit plan would have won Bangkok). But if you want to be seen as strong and decisive the ‘Thai’ way – ‘Nakleng’, you must be ‘Jai kwang’, you must ‘give’. If you sold your shares for 70 billion baht without paying taxes – just 5-10 billion donation for good causes would have won the whole country over (maybe even the Democrat’s stronghold of the South!). PMThaksin couldn’t part with one baht while he is seen as ‘tum namphrik lalai maenam’ or ‘wasting’ the middle-class’ tax on questionable populist schemes. That is pure political suicide…
Moreover, he had offered and reneged to debate the ShinCorp sale in parliament; he the chance to ‘step down’ and let Somkid Jatusripitak or other political nominee take over as PM; he was offered a chance to ‘negotiate/compromise’ with the opposition party before the 2006 election… He had numerous chances to ‘save’ democracy and the 1997 Constitution (from himself) but he did not. He would have also got away with all the corruption charges (and I totally agree with nganadeeleg here). I would go as far to argue that PMThaksin was not naive – he was full aware of what he was up against, the possibility of a coup. He was willing to play a very high stakes gamble (for the sake of not paying taxes?!?!)… He saw the 1997 Constitution and ‘democracy’ as something he could, like fame and fortune, gamble with – and because of that, he is not worthy of both.
The huge irony is that Thaksin is now the ‘pin-up boy’ for Thai democracy according to some foreigners and, according to this article, the monarchy shoulders all the blame. I find this assessment extremely biased and shocking.
[…] welcome any further insights from New Mandala readers.┬ (And perhaps the ANU may be willing to host a delegation from the Burmese regime to provide us with an update on the political […]
“If Thaksin had not taken the plunder to new heights, arrogantly evaded taxes and tried to manipulate everything (including succession), do you really think the old elites would have been able to pull off a coup?”
I think the answer is yes and no. It is far from clear that Thaksin took corruption to a new level. Corruption is very subjective in the eyes of the eleite. If they are doing it, it is fine. If it is those nasty poor people it is evil. Do you really believe that Suwat, Bannowit, and Saprang are entirely different creatures than Thaksin’s fund raisers?
If the middle class really believes that Thaksin was so much more corrupt, where is the outrage that all of this minions have been let off? Or that he is only being tried for a little land purchase that probably won’t even hold up in the end.
But the “manipulate everything” accusation has a lot more to do with it.
The military used the cover story of corruption (again) to unseat Thaksin. This is going to turn back and bite them. it is already obvious that they are just as corrupt and haven’t been able to convict Thaksin on anything. Where are the cases against Suriya and Newin?
Broadly though your posts above are quite good and do show both sides of the issue. If Thailand can come to a clearer and less twisted view of what happens it will make a much more solid foundation for the future than the propaganda that has been dominating the dialogue thus far.
Pasuk/Baker thought that Thaksin had established TRT and tried to get into government in order to deal with the scheduled liberalization of the telecom sector. In other words, they saw his political work as part of Shin Corp’s business plan.
“warm welcome” – Obviously, Pasuk here refers to the //minority// middle class, and not to the general voter.
To equate Thaksin’s policy approach with a coup is rather disingenous.
Whilst I think he is misguided to worship Thaksin, and foolish to think that the masses are actually politically sophisticated, I can however understand Republican’s irritation and anger.
I know it’s wishful thinking, but I think a lot of that frustration could be alleviated if the lese majeste law were amended such that only HMK can make the charge.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I had promised feedback on Jakrapop’s talk at the FCCT. Here is a quick one. Happy to do more tomorrow if requested.
Jakrapop started out by announcing that he had been released from “Prem’s jail’, before launching into a review of Thai history since Ramkhamhaeng.
The key point of a meandering, and at times over-dramatic, talk seemed to be to provide an epic narrative to describe the current struggle. Thaksin, he said, sought to overthrow a patronage system that descended largely intact of feudal times and give full rights of citizenship to the Thai people.
Prem, he said, is the current the head of this network. The goal of the protest at Prem’s house and the victory they feel they accomplished came from forcing him to reveal himself as the puppetmaster.
He appeared to link the development of the monarchy with the development of a patronage system, perhaps initially benign, but no longer useful. Thais, he said, are forced by the elite to obey and conform. In exchange they receive petty rewards and protection. They are like children in his words. Not responsible for their own lives. They are owned by the elite. But the people now know this and no longer will accept being children. He said that the old system is not compatible with modern times and a globally integrated economy. It is fated to doom.
Jakrapop seemed to admit that Thaksin was flawed and said that he was a creature of the patronage system. He said Thaksin was loyal to the King, but later in questions backed off a statement that he was 100% loyal. He does not know whether or not he will return saying he seems quite happy now. He related the story, reported today in The Nation, that they contemplated setting up a gov’t in exile but were foiled by a phone call to Thaksin. While he would not reveal that source, earlier versions of the story that I have heard claimed the initials were SS.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/08/30/politics/politics_30047095.php
He said that Thaksin consciously ignored Bangkok, because Bangkok did not need him. Bangkok people can’t name anything Thaksin did for them because he didn’t do much for them. But rural people can reel off a list of ten ways he made their lives better.
He spent some time discussing the tape of judges talking that he played at Sanam Luang. He said the tape was made by the third person in the room and that he was eager to go to court to bring the other, Prem and the judges in, to have to answer as well.
He seemed to imply that the solution would be a clash of revolutionary proportions. The elections, in his view, would solve nothing.
He was non-commital on Samak. He said he was earlier a pawn in the patronage system he has broken free and now opposed it. He said he could be a transitional leader for TRT. He said he was pained by the drug related killings and that it was a challenge when he was the government spokesman.
In my view, his talk presented a storyline that could play well in both international and rural circles.
His co-presenter sounded very academic. He was highly critical of the constitution which he described as a standard tool of the elite patronage network. He compared it to 1972. While not a member of TRT or PPP, he was far more complimentary to Thaksin than Jakrapop was.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
This really eats into Republican, Pundit and ex-Ajarn entrails that the middle class and the Thai intelligentsia had completely deserted ‘democracy’ and left Thaksin to fend for himself against those ugly generals.
It is simple gentlemen. The middle class and the Thai intelligentsia only know too well how a manipulative politician like Thaksin can abuse the constitution, guile the poor hopeful masses into a huge Thaksin cult following, for personal enrichment and ‘absolute’ power, and Thailand was indeed menaced by Thaksin and his sycophantic TRT crooks.
So all your outrage fall on our deaf ears gentlemen. Thaksin was a danger. Thaksin won’t submit to ‘constitutional’ accountability for his many criminal abuses. Too bad the constitution had to be ‘reset’. The middle class and the intelligentsia were not comfortable with the ‘reset’ and the military interevention, but it happened, so everybody will just hope for the best. (And it is looking like General Sonthi will hold the promised election nearly on schedule too!)
But if you gentlemen were expecting the Thai middle class and those Bangkok citizens to pour on the streets to challenge the tanks to save Thaksin’s skin, you can just forget it. Thaksin got what was coming to him and he had to be removed.
Thailand’s crown prince
Dear Debbie,
I would like to see the video of the birthday by the pool too.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
It is amazing how blind hatred can affect a person’s outlook on issues. In this case, academia is no exception. Blind hatred of Thaksin has caused otherwise rational people to call an elected government with the support of the majority of the population “undemocratic” and an armed overthrow of an elected government by the military to stop an election from going forth, because they expected an outcome they would not like, democratic.
The discussion about whether one liked Thaksin and his policies needs to be decoupled from the issue of elections and democracy. One can not claim to favor democracy and only accept certain outcomes of elections. Democracy does not mean elites and those who control those with the most guns gets to decide who governs.
If Thaksin was so bad, why couldn’t his opponents beat him in an election? Why alternatives have been proposed by the anti-Thaksin politicians except the removal of the object of their hatred? Does Thailand want democracy that reflects the will of the people? Or does Thailand want democracy where only those the old guard elites approve of are allowed to run in elections?
So what has this “democratic’ exercise of removing the object of hatred of the elites done for the country? Economic growth has continued to decline, far below the regional average, violence in the South has intensified resulting in the deaths of many Thai citizens, the country’s international image is one of a banana republic ruled by keystone soldiers, the political division continues, the country now has a constitution that is light years behind the one it had previously in terms of guaranteed freedoms. What progress! But in one incidence, the coup leader have done the impossible, they have set a benchmark which makes Thaksin look democratic, progressive and very intelligent.
As long as hatred of Thaksin and emotions rule the debate, democracy will not move forward.
Sorry, this one removes the typos 🙂
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Reply to Bangkok Pundit: You’re right, we have to be realists, and that is exactly why the “song mai ao” criticism is valid. Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai was (and to a large extent still is) the choice of the majority of the electorate. What political force had/has the most realistic chance of overcoming the forces of royalist dictatorship? The position of supporting no-one is not just the “easy approach”, but given the present political conditions it in effect means supporting royalist-military dictatorship.
This is where we see the pretentiousness, the hypocrisy and the political irresponsibility of the “song mai ao” academics. They want so much to appear “pure” and democratic and morally superior and intellectually more far-sighted than the rest of us that they distance themselves as much as possible from Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai. That is, they distance themselves from a former government which had done precisely the sorts of things democratically-elected governments in other countries do: respond to the demands of the electorate which put them in government, and manage the national economy effectively. But the “song mai ao” academics pretend there is some other way. Some of them even occasionally criticize the monarchy openly to display their fake “democratic” commitment and solidarity with the people. A few of them will “bravely” give papers at the ICTS – in honour of the king’s 80th birthday. That is: they criticize the monarchy, but their failure to support the Thai Rak Thai government when it was most in need was the best favour they could have done for monarchical government. And don’t forget that many of these “song mai ao” academics are active “public intellectuals”: they don’t confine themselves to writing scholarly articles in academic journals or debates on academic blog sites but write columns for newspapers read by hundreds of thousands of people, or even appear on TV. Obviously they want their criticisms to have a political effect. Kasien is the best example, his “р╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕нр╕Ър╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У” has been taken up by the military junta, the Democrats and Thaksin’s other political enemies and is now a byword used to signify the evil of everything Thaksin stands for. His concept of “electocracy” also helped undermine the most important element of the political legitimacy of the Thai Rak Thai government. Pasuk’s criticism of Thaksin’s “populism” is another example of a discourse which attacks the legitimacy of Thai Rak Thai. When you see these “song mai ao” public intellectuals come out after the coup with their democratic protestations and their comparatively mild criticisms of the junta, one feels like pointing out, well you were the guys who helped bring down Thai Rak Thai in the court of (middle class) public opinion.
People like the “war room” academics and all the other anti-Thaksin academics talk about human rights violations under the Thai Rak Thai government, its alleged corruption and the “undemocratic” Thaksin, but are silent about the human rights abuses, corruption and undermining of democracy by the monarchy over the last 50 years. On the latter, as I keep saying, the truth is largely invisible because of the lese majeste law and the relentless royalist propaganda. But despite this law and the propaganda, anyone who has studied this country for a length of time should surely know the extent of the monarchy’s corruption of the political system, and its poisonous influence on society in general.
Go to any royal ceremony (a graduation for example) and the feudal, profoundly undemocratic nature of the monarchy is on display. Look at the way they treat the Thai people like animals, forcing them to grovel at their feet in prostration and to address them from underneath the specks of dust on the soles of their Royal Feet. Listen to the king who sits on top of a $40 billion fortune tell the villagers (whose government he has just helped overthrown) to be satisfied for what little they have, and then watch the academics give their learned papers on sufficiency economy. All this is somehow more desirable for the academics than Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
No one has come back on Handley’s book, so let me go back to the original point I made in response to jonfernquest: “IMHO the main import of the Anand speech is in demonstrating the indirect way HMK indirectly guides political actors, something Handley appears to miss with his speculative attributions of direct influence.”
Leaving aside Handley, here are two recent examples of the king’s direct influence. Now, of course, people may say that these are speculative, but that is because the palace prevents people seeing in.
On a daily basis, the king was kept up to date and provided advice to the judges dealing with the sacking and jailing of the election commissioners in April 2006. The evidence, which has not been refuted as far as I am aware was the illegal wiretap released by Jakrapob (see the English version at the Asian Legal Resource Centre journal, article2, 6, 3, 2007,which can be downloaded at the AHRC site).
A second interesting example is related to the king, palace, and military links to the anti-Thaksin links. It seems that there were links to the king and a statement is included regarding the go-ahead for the coup. This is provided – along with lots of other interesting statements in the recent “interview” by none other than Sondhi Limthongkul (Manager website, http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000100015, 25 р╕кр╕┤р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕Др╕б 2550).
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Republican’s point about the hypocrisy of the majority of Thai academics is valid. It cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a non-Thai or a Thaksinophile.
Sure, Thai academics operate under a different set of rules (lese majeste) but this does not explain the overtly pro-elite position that most of them have taken.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I agree with Sidh. S. and cannot get rid of the impression that the Thai middle class has been hypocritical towards the poor all the years. I remember the months under Chuan’s government where the assembly of the poor gathered Bangkok’s streets. In those day there was much sympathy and talk about “empowerment”. But when there is someone (like Thaksin) coming into power to benefit them, the poor were dropped by the middle class as being stupid and mislead by a populist. Obviously, that is because the middle class taxes has been used for that purpose.
I wonder what the media mogul Sondhi (or Sonthi – please excuse me, I tend to confuse the romanisation for the two) is doing now. Wasn’t he the one bringing the middle class masses against Thaksin? He talked about democracy, but why isn’t he saying anything about the elitist’ takeover?
I am equally sad that due to the schematic western thinking that everything that is democratically elected is a good thing, Thaksin shines as a good boy of Thai democracy. Seemingly all but forgotten are his human rights violations, especially in the area of freedom of the media.
Please apologise my humble opinion and the fact that I may haven’t come with a well-funded standpoint.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Why don’t you channel your passions into an article or book and get it published? Even though we wouldn’t be able to identify your real name with your pseudonym, it would be a contribution to the field.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
“He /she seems to not understand the country, it’s history and culture at all.” This intellectually disingenuous “argument” seems to have a long life, as have the dream worlds many Thai academics have constructed for themselves to fend off the real world.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
“I do think that Pasuk has some valid points. I have not seen much evidence that Thaksin was interested in the poor until he saw the expediency. But motive isn’t the issue. He did genuinely support the poor and they genuinely love him for it.”
It is difficult to attribute motives to politicians, but I agree with you motive isn’t the issue as we can never really know what Thaksin’s true motive was. Actions speak louder than words.
“If the middle class really believes that Thaksin was so much more corrupt, where is the outrage that all of this minions have been let off? Or that he is only being tried for a little land purchase that probably won’t even hold up in the end.”
This is the problem for the “old power” clique description as it morphs from only Thaksin to all his “cronies”, whatever that means. It is as if they were all somehow all under his control and were manipulated by him and couldn’t get out from his control, but Thaksin’s power derived from the legislature. Thaksin stayed in power because he had enough support from MPs. When his popularity decreased some factions jumped ship. The more his support fell, the more MPs would leave as they were worried about losing their MP status. The reason some stayed as he was their ticket to being an MP. All those MPs and Cabinet Ministers could have resigned at anytime, but by staying and somehow trying to distance themselves from Thaksin is hilarious. When Thaksin did something “illegal”, weren’t the rest of them enabling him? Oddly, it is only Thaksin who is the source off all evil and the only one, with his family, who must be punished.
“If you sold your shares for 70 billion baht without paying taxes – just 5-10 billion donation for good causes would have won the whole country over (maybe even the Democrat’s stronghold of the South!). ”
Umm. You really think he would have won any votes from the “He-is-selling-out-Thailand-to-evil-foreigners-crowd”? I think it would have lessened the anger, but then he would have been accused of using “taxpayer’s money” for cynical political purposes.
Fuel and fire in Burma
Hopefully the protests will develop enough momentum that the army jumps ship, sticks flowers in their guns, and joins the protesters.
Or maybe they’ll just close off the country to the world like they did in the past.
I always think back to the Aquino-Marcos duel.
In the end it was solid diplomatic relations coupled with political-economic dependence that made all the difference in giving Marcos the boot.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
“…foolish to think that the masses are actually politically sophisticated…”
Political sophistication is impossible without knowing what is going on.
Everyone is always talking about decentralisation and localised political decisionmaking but there is no such thing as a **local media reporting local provincial news**.
I used to read Matthew McDaniel’s early embryo version of a blog, reporting events in Akha land northwest of Chiang Rai, as if he was reporting from from the moon, e.g. …
Hey, Akha father-in-law of Polish tennis teacher shot dead in the head and dumped on the road by you know who.
Hey, why did that 30 million baht mysteriously disappear from the Japanese educational grant.
Hey, why is that squatter camp army of Burmese migrants building this university and then, why are they building a 60 million baht spa and massage complex behind the university and what does this have to do with education? I’m confused.
Hey, why did that guy who stole the electricity generating concession for Tachileik, Burma from that Thai guy, get a silencer stuck to his head and his head blown off when he was leaving the driving range.
Hey, why did that Swiss friend who used to eat with us at my mother in law’s house just hang himself in his jail cell the day after you know who was pushing him around his jail cell for 1.5 million baht? After the most untransparent set events (not reported in the media) I’ve ever seen transpired?
Hey, why did that Farang scum ball who was seen in the woman’s room before her murder suddenly get let loose and fly back to his country after reported payments
Hey, where did that Muslim lawyer go, didn’t Chavalit tell everyone in front of the whole National Assembly and didn’t Thaksin protect the culprits?
Hey, why were those Burmese hiding in the school bathroom taking refuge from the rain shot dead in cold blood with shot guns by the local militia?
Hey, why is the corpse of that Farang floating down the Maesai river?
Hey, why did that German driving drunk wack that farmer, almost killing him, and then get off with 90,000 baht because his Thai wife’s brother is a high ranking officer.
Hey, why did that provincial have to pay three times as much everyone else in the traffic accident settlement just because he couldn’t find friends in Bangkok to vouch for him?
Hey, why did my sister-in-law’s mother-in-law steal her baby and refuse to feed my sister-in-law (essentially treating her like an animal) when she came to visit her baby?
Hey, why did those three teenagers get shot in the head by men in black ski masks and dumped out of the back of a truck at the entrance to Chiang Rai hospital in the dead of night?
Hey, why did that teacher just run a red light?
Hey, why did that hit-and-run hit the guy and flee?
There’s ***no such thing as provincial news*** so no one will ever know the answer to these questions.
The coup was a sudden unexpected surprising black swan event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
It was unpredictable and unplanned except among a tight secret **indeterminate** cabal of powerful people.
Lack of transparency is par for the course.
No one seems to know what really happened, so rumour abounds.
Then wham: black swan event.
Before and after Thaksin, no difference.
Nothing has changed except that people aren’t marching in the same direction anymore.
Only HMK can help them do that. That’s what a King does.
Me, I’m going to learn more Pali and read more Buddhist scriptures.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I can emphathize with Republican. When one starts from a deep hatred of the ‘old elite’/monarchy, it is not hard to have deep affections for Thaksin. I know many who are the same.
Although taking the opposite route is not necessary true – as many Thais combine a deep love for HMK with affection for Thaksin. It does make Republican’s article somewhat reductivist and simplistic – and it is quite surprising that he/she is an active participant in a blog about Thailand. He /she seems to not understand the country, it’s history and culture at all.
I wonder if Republican should be writing on Burma or Vietnam, where the British and French colonizers systematically dismantled their ‘old elite’ system and network. Maybe if the Thai ‘domino’ fell to Communism, the country would be far better off? Or maybe America should invade Thailand and violently impose democracy like in Iraq?
Moreover, by implication, Republican brands the majority of Thais, who are royalists, feudal and backwards. But that is what Thais will have to accept as I won’t be surpised if that is what the majority of ‘democratic’ Westerners think deep inside. But I wish he/she could emphathize with us (unless if he/she happens to be Thai) – the monarchy is part of the Thais sense of identity of which we are very proud of. We maybe poor and backwards, but please don’t trample on our dignity – leave us some space to be proud – if you consider yourself a friend of Thailand…
As for PMThaksin, his greed and stinginess led to his downfall as much, if not more, than anything the ‘old elite’ could muster against him. His strong government (the result of the 1997 ‘people’s constitution’ which came about as the offspring of ‘Black May’) and populist policies has won the hearts of the people of the North and Northeast (and his 300km rail mass-transit plan would have won Bangkok). But if you want to be seen as strong and decisive the ‘Thai’ way – ‘Nakleng’, you must be ‘Jai kwang’, you must ‘give’. If you sold your shares for 70 billion baht without paying taxes – just 5-10 billion donation for good causes would have won the whole country over (maybe even the Democrat’s stronghold of the South!). PMThaksin couldn’t part with one baht while he is seen as ‘tum namphrik lalai maenam’ or ‘wasting’ the middle-class’ tax on questionable populist schemes. That is pure political suicide…
Moreover, he had offered and reneged to debate the ShinCorp sale in parliament; he the chance to ‘step down’ and let Somkid Jatusripitak or other political nominee take over as PM; he was offered a chance to ‘negotiate/compromise’ with the opposition party before the 2006 election… He had numerous chances to ‘save’ democracy and the 1997 Constitution (from himself) but he did not. He would have also got away with all the corruption charges (and I totally agree with nganadeeleg here). I would go as far to argue that PMThaksin was not naive – he was full aware of what he was up against, the possibility of a coup. He was willing to play a very high stakes gamble (for the sake of not paying taxes?!?!)… He saw the 1997 Constitution and ‘democracy’ as something he could, like fame and fortune, gamble with – and because of that, he is not worthy of both.
The huge irony is that Thaksin is now the ‘pin-up boy’ for Thai democracy according to some foreigners and, according to this article, the monarchy shoulders all the blame. I find this assessment extremely biased and shocking.
A loose cannon in the “war room”
[…] welcome any further insights from New Mandala readers.┬ (And perhaps the ANU may be willing to host a delegation from the Burmese regime to provide us with an update on the political […]
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Nganadeeleg said:
“If Thaksin had not taken the plunder to new heights, arrogantly evaded taxes and tried to manipulate everything (including succession), do you really think the old elites would have been able to pull off a coup?”
I think the answer is yes and no. It is far from clear that Thaksin took corruption to a new level. Corruption is very subjective in the eyes of the eleite. If they are doing it, it is fine. If it is those nasty poor people it is evil. Do you really believe that Suwat, Bannowit, and Saprang are entirely different creatures than Thaksin’s fund raisers?
If the middle class really believes that Thaksin was so much more corrupt, where is the outrage that all of this minions have been let off? Or that he is only being tried for a little land purchase that probably won’t even hold up in the end.
But the “manipulate everything” accusation has a lot more to do with it.
The military used the cover story of corruption (again) to unseat Thaksin. This is going to turn back and bite them. it is already obvious that they are just as corrupt and haven’t been able to convict Thaksin on anything. Where are the cases against Suriya and Newin?
Broadly though your posts above are quite good and do show both sides of the issue. If Thailand can come to a clearer and less twisted view of what happens it will make a much more solid foundation for the future than the propaganda that has been dominating the dialogue thus far.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Pasuk/Baker thought that Thaksin had established TRT and tried to get into government in order to deal with the scheduled liberalization of the telecom sector. In other words, they saw his political work as part of Shin Corp’s business plan.
“warm welcome” – Obviously, Pasuk here refers to the //minority// middle class, and not to the general voter.
To equate Thaksin’s policy approach with a coup is rather disingenous.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I second Observer’s comment.
Thailand’s crown prince
Dear Judy or Addy,
Where can I find the video of the birthday by the pool?
Thanks,
Debbie
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Whilst I think he is misguided to worship Thaksin, and foolish to think that the masses are actually politically sophisticated, I can however understand Republican’s irritation and anger.
I know it’s wishful thinking, but I think a lot of that frustration could be alleviated if the lese majeste law were amended such that only HMK can make the charge.