I see that Pundit has linked to Republican’s post and has labeled it ‘the heart of the problem’.
I can see both sides:
The old elites gave nothing to the rural poor, and Thaksin did, hence his support.
Thaksin encroached on the old elites turf, and those old elites wanted to fight back.
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?
It seems you think the middle classes played into the hands of the old elites, by making the ground ripe for a coup.
I see it differently, in that I think Thaksin played into their hands by wanting it all – if he had moderated his behavior he would still be in power.
We all know one of the biggest problems in Thailand is corruption and self interest.
IMO the only way for things to get better is for the majority of the electorate (rural or urban, rich, poor or middle class) to look beyond self interest, and reject corruption in all it’s forms.
nganadeeleg: thanks for the link back to that comment on Handley’s book. I think the comments you made there are, for one who is generally supportive of the monarchy, reasonably even-handed and acknowledge that the book is well-researched.
“Somsak is again the lone voice who has identified the problem: the “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” position, of which Pasuk’s article is a good example.”
I do think there is a problem with the “Song Mai Aow” position and that someone, whether an academic or anyone else, who wishes to oppose a political leader/political policy needs to also think about what the consequence of that is. Instead of hoping for some imaginary perfect political leader to come along and implement policies that they agree with, they need to be realists. Supporting no one is the easy approach. If not Thaksin, then who? This doesn’t mean they should not criticise political leaders when they disagree with their policies, but just acknowledge what the alternatives are .
I agree almost entirely with the rest of the post.
Republican, this was a good rant. However, I believe your logic is Rawlsian and therefore does not account for the type of society Thailand has organically produced. Rather than eschew cultural relativism (where you are on a completely different side of the fence), it must be embraced with pluralism to avoid unnecessary conflict and then changed incrementally by persons such as yourself.
Why don’t academics take up the position of your rant? Because it would not be distanced from the action enough to gain proper perspective and would subsequently involve themselves in a siege mentality of intellectual thought which would not be very academic.
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.
I also agree that the middle class broadly supported the coup. This is largely because and elitist propaganda campaign created massive negative sentiment. I expect it will become increasingly clear that this campaign was motivated as much by Prachai’s desire to get TPI back and Saprang’s desire to be army head, but that is still speculation.
On a separate but related note, the cover of The Nation’s weekly political magazine had the North and Northeast as red states with the headline:
Phai pen phai, phai het phai tham?
This translates (from Isaan/dialect) as “Who is who, who is doing it, who is making it happen?”
My read on this is that the Nation and the elite can not bring themselves to believe that the poor have a will and can actually understand and act in their own interest. To them someone must be behind it all.
Given that P-net said the military is the one buying votes and Isaan isn’t going along, that storyline seems weak.
These two stories are tied together by a common thread: At the end of the day, the circumstances, made Thaksin. Thaksin didn’t make the circumstances. Even if you take the individual out of the picture, nothing has changed.
I would be very interested to hear any other ideas on this.
I don’t have access to recent analysis and literature on this case, therefore I can’t really comment.
However, one Burmese friend who is a political Activist of the Chin and Burmese in Germany told me in a conversation that he is quite impressed by integrity and social coherence the King provides to the Thai people. I think, westerners should acknowledge it.
I can’t get rid of the impression that the Thai society would disintegrate without the monarchy.
In my opinion the label “lese majeste” is very much a tool of the Privy Council who often act as a body of itself. They are responsible for displaying the King as unfallible.
Machima are more based in the central and lower northern parts of Thailand where the yes vote was high. It is often forgotten that TRT had huge numbers iof MPs from the central, eastern and lower northern areas.
These areas now look less supportative of ex-TRT while virtually all of the Isaan and the upper north look very solid. It will probably depend on where the ex-TRT MP is running as to which party they decide to run under. They wont want to have to use too much overt influence or too much vote buying now that it is harder to manipulate this way. The decisions made and the alliances forged in the next few months will give us a very good idea of how things will look after the election.
It is indeed a fascinating read – and very well confirms the perception of PMChatchai’s personality/capacity. He is indeed a very smooth, international operator moderating a small Southeast Asian country through Cold-War diplomacy and politics. Here was someone who managed to get in the good books of both Chairman Mao and Henry Kissinger with healthy doses of confidence and pragmatism.
Ofcourse, having the benefit of hindsight, I don’t agree with the Vietnam War and Thailand’s involvement – but in the situation of being a small fish in the Big Boys’ games and extreme ideologies, it is also a question of survival – at least as an evolving constitutional-monarchy.
As an aside, this has parallels with Australia’s involvement in Iraq – it is ideological-religious on the one hand ‘War on (Islamic) Terrorism’, and practical, to share in the expected economic benefits on the other (which increasingly looks like a bad ‘investment’). Thailand, under PMThaksin, was similarly involved with a few hundred troops, since withdrawn. It is interesting to note the different perceptions on this ideological war. While there’s no hesitancy to brand the terrorism ‘Islamic’ in Australia yet to be successfully attacked, in contrast, in Thailand with a very violent insurgency that is carried out by southern Muslims – the mainstream Thai media, more often than not, refers to these people as literally “Southern Thieves”…
Is this self-censorship on the Thai press? A societal effort at ‘reconcilliation’? A knowledge that you can’t reduce the highly complex histories/issues to merely ‘us vs them’? Or is this just instinctively Thai pragmatism – nothing altruistic nor reconcilliatory?
Maybe it is arguably part of being ‘Thai’, predominantly royalist, yet I will dare say most also love their ‘democracy’ (and their varying understandings of it). They are combining, what in the enlightened ‘Western’ mind, can’t be reconcilled. Come to think of it, this is a society that successfuly synthesized Buddhism with animism (to the detriment of Buddhism according to the purist!) – so it is not that surprising…
re nganadeeleg:> To be fair to the U.S. Civil Service, the vast majority of jobs are on the merit system. Nevertheless, I do favor the spoils system to a limited sense as a system of incentive. I think it’s the lesser of two evils when compared to the British “Yes, Minister” style civil service.
Oh dear nganadeeleg, I would have thought you’d be far more thorough than this and that you would have kept detailed notes of all the errors of fact and unsubstantiated speculation you think you found regarding direct influence on political events (as opposed to indirect). That was the point of the genuine question above.
Maybe someone else told you what they were and you’ve forgotten. Or maybe like other so-called readers who found it just “terrible” you didn’t really read it at all. Anyway, maybe there is someone who has done a serious read of it and really did find crucial speculation rather than fact.
Can you provide specific examples of Handley’s speculation?
Obviously you have not read the book!
I don’t have the book anymore – For anyone who does have the book, I would be interested to hear it’s examples of proof (as opposed to speculation).
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.”
Anand has been defending the king for years in various speeches. Indirect influence I suppose, but then again, he was appointed twice as PM without being elected…. Direct influence?
Can you provide specific examples of Handley’s speculation?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I also have a slightly different view on what is the’ heart of the problem’:
– Is Thailand politics/democracy a mess because of HMK, or in spite of him?
I believe that without HMK the country would be worse off, and more chaotic.
I am also of the opinion that networks of elites will always dominate, irrespective of whether a monarchy exists.
I would take Bhumibol over a Thaksin, Samak, Chavalit type anytime.
I agree with Handley, that overall HMK’s biggest failure is the failure to provide for a smooth succession.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
I see that Pundit has linked to Republican’s post and has labeled it ‘the heart of the problem’.
I can see both sides:
The old elites gave nothing to the rural poor, and Thaksin did, hence his support.
Thaksin encroached on the old elites turf, and those old elites wanted to fight back.
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?
It seems you think the middle classes played into the hands of the old elites, by making the ground ripe for a coup.
I see it differently, in that I think Thaksin played into their hands by wanting it all – if he had moderated his behavior he would still be in power.
We all know one of the biggest problems in Thailand is corruption and self interest.
IMO the only way for things to get better is for the majority of the electorate (rural or urban, rich, poor or middle class) to look beyond self interest, and reject corruption in all it’s forms.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
nganadeeleg: thanks for the link back to that comment on Handley’s book. I think the comments you made there are, for one who is generally supportive of the monarchy, reasonably even-handed and acknowledge that the book is well-researched.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
“Somsak is again the lone voice who has identified the problem: the “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” position, of which Pasuk’s article is a good example.”
I do think there is a problem with the “Song Mai Aow” position and that someone, whether an academic or anyone else, who wishes to oppose a political leader/political policy needs to also think about what the consequence of that is. Instead of hoping for some imaginary perfect political leader to come along and implement policies that they agree with, they need to be realists. Supporting no one is the easy approach. If not Thaksin, then who? This doesn’t mean they should not criticise political leaders when they disagree with their policies, but just acknowledge what the alternatives are .
I agree almost entirely with the rest of the post.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Republican, this was a good rant. However, I believe your logic is Rawlsian and therefore does not account for the type of society Thailand has organically produced. Rather than eschew cultural relativism (where you are on a completely different side of the fence), it must be embraced with pluralism to avoid unnecessary conflict and then changed incrementally by persons such as yourself.
Why don’t academics take up the position of your rant? Because it would not be distanced from the action enough to gain proper perspective and would subsequently involve themselves in a siege mentality of intellectual thought which would not be very academic.
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.
I also agree that the middle class broadly supported the coup. This is largely because and elitist propaganda campaign created massive negative sentiment. I expect it will become increasingly clear that this campaign was motivated as much by Prachai’s desire to get TPI back and Saprang’s desire to be army head, but that is still speculation.
On a separate but related note, the cover of The Nation’s weekly political magazine had the North and Northeast as red states with the headline:
Phai pen phai, phai het phai tham?
This translates (from Isaan/dialect) as “Who is who, who is doing it, who is making it happen?”
My read on this is that the Nation and the elite can not bring themselves to believe that the poor have a will and can actually understand and act in their own interest. To them someone must be behind it all.
Given that P-net said the military is the one buying votes and Isaan isn’t going along, that storyline seems weak.
These two stories are tied together by a common thread: At the end of the day, the circumstances, made Thaksin. Thaksin didn’t make the circumstances. Even if you take the individual out of the picture, nothing has changed.
I would be very interested to hear any other ideas on this.
Time to challenge the status quo
[…] in Laos. Full details are available here. Previous New Mandala discussions on these issues are here and […]
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
I don’t have access to recent analysis and literature on this case, therefore I can’t really comment.
However, one Burmese friend who is a political Activist of the Chin and Burmese in Germany told me in a conversation that he is quite impressed by integrity and social coherence the King provides to the Thai people. I think, westerners should acknowledge it.
I can’t get rid of the impression that the Thai society would disintegrate without the monarchy.
In my opinion the label “lese majeste” is very much a tool of the Privy Council who often act as a body of itself. They are responsible for displaying the King as unfallible.
Thailand’s crown prince
Dear Judy,
Could you forward the vedio to me, please? Thanks.
Kind Regards,
Addy
Samak Sundaravej
Observer
Machima are more based in the central and lower northern parts of Thailand where the yes vote was high. It is often forgotten that TRT had huge numbers iof MPs from the central, eastern and lower northern areas.
These areas now look less supportative of ex-TRT while virtually all of the Isaan and the upper north look very solid. It will probably depend on where the ex-TRT MP is running as to which party they decide to run under. They wont want to have to use too much overt influence or too much vote buying now that it is harder to manipulate this way. The decisions made and the alliances forged in the next few months will give us a very good idea of how things will look after the election.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
“The entire conversation is frightening, pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
For once I agree with you Fonzi.
I’m surprised it was even documented like that – not very professional.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
Historicus: It’s a while ago since I read it, but when I did I was looking for fact, but only found speculation (on direct involvement).
Maybe one of the New Mandala regulars keeps Handleys book like a bible, and might be able to help with your query.
FWIW here is a thread on the book – my review is at post #33:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/07/28/the-king-never-smiles/#comment-79490
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
Thanks for the archive Tosakan.
It is indeed a fascinating read – and very well confirms the perception of PMChatchai’s personality/capacity. He is indeed a very smooth, international operator moderating a small Southeast Asian country through Cold-War diplomacy and politics. Here was someone who managed to get in the good books of both Chairman Mao and Henry Kissinger with healthy doses of confidence and pragmatism.
Ofcourse, having the benefit of hindsight, I don’t agree with the Vietnam War and Thailand’s involvement – but in the situation of being a small fish in the Big Boys’ games and extreme ideologies, it is also a question of survival – at least as an evolving constitutional-monarchy.
As an aside, this has parallels with Australia’s involvement in Iraq – it is ideological-religious on the one hand ‘War on (Islamic) Terrorism’, and practical, to share in the expected economic benefits on the other (which increasingly looks like a bad ‘investment’). Thailand, under PMThaksin, was similarly involved with a few hundred troops, since withdrawn. It is interesting to note the different perceptions on this ideological war. While there’s no hesitancy to brand the terrorism ‘Islamic’ in Australia yet to be successfully attacked, in contrast, in Thailand with a very violent insurgency that is carried out by southern Muslims – the mainstream Thai media, more often than not, refers to these people as literally “Southern Thieves”…
Is this self-censorship on the Thai press? A societal effort at ‘reconcilliation’? A knowledge that you can’t reduce the highly complex histories/issues to merely ‘us vs them’? Or is this just instinctively Thai pragmatism – nothing altruistic nor reconcilliatory?
Maybe it is arguably part of being ‘Thai’, predominantly royalist, yet I will dare say most also love their ‘democracy’ (and their varying understandings of it). They are combining, what in the enlightened ‘Western’ mind, can’t be reconcilled. Come to think of it, this is a society that successfuly synthesized Buddhism with animism (to the detriment of Buddhism according to the purist!) – so it is not that surprising…
Talk on “Democracy and Patronage in Thailand”
I am planning to go. Will report back on Thursday morning, Thai time.
A loose cannon in the “war room”
re nganadeeleg:> To be fair to the U.S. Civil Service, the vast majority of jobs are on the merit system. Nevertheless, I do favor the spoils system to a limited sense as a system of incentive. I think it’s the lesser of two evils when compared to the British “Yes, Minister” style civil service.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
Oh dear nganadeeleg, I would have thought you’d be far more thorough than this and that you would have kept detailed notes of all the errors of fact and unsubstantiated speculation you think you found regarding direct influence on political events (as opposed to indirect). That was the point of the genuine question above.
Maybe someone else told you what they were and you’ve forgotten. Or maybe like other so-called readers who found it just “terrible” you didn’t really read it at all. Anyway, maybe there is someone who has done a serious read of it and really did find crucial speculation rather than fact.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
If you want to read about Anand’s relationship with Henry Kissinger, you have to read this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB193/HAK-11-26-75.pdf
I got it off the George Washington University’s National Security Archives website.
1975–during the democratic interregnum
Anand was ambassador to the US
Chatichai Choonawan was foreign minister
The entire conversation is frightening, pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
Can you provide specific examples of Handley’s speculation?
Obviously you have not read the book!
I don’t have the book anymore – For anyone who does have the book, I would be interested to hear it’s examples of proof (as opposed to speculation).
Thailand’s crown prince
I also have seen the vdo too , I felt sorry for thai people if she become a queen.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
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.”
Anand has been defending the king for years in various speeches. Indirect influence I suppose, but then again, he was appointed twice as PM without being elected…. Direct influence?
Can you provide specific examples of Handley’s speculation?