So, the date of the general election has been announced -Dec. 23, if I heard correctly. Any party which advertises itself as a proxy TRT is going to do well in the NE. So, I wonder, what’s a hypocritical, self- serving politician to do? Will they turn round and say, ‘well Taksin wasn’t as bad as we’ve been telling you. In fact, really I rather liked the man.’
The other question of course is whether the military have done enough to ensure that this time the election will produce the ‘correct’ result.
Last night: “If you choose to host Palace propagandists giving eulogies about the king can this be taken to mean that the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand supports royalist dictatorship?”
LLS: I’m not so sure that’s the pay-back that Republican has in mind.
I think Jakrapob’s declaration that someone has to ‘pay’ for what has happened is an ominous warning should they ever get back into power.
BTW, the ‘spoils system’ looks like business as usual in Thailand (still looks offensive to me).
Maybe that’s what they want. My understanding was that TRT only moved to PPP as insurance in case the constitution failed and they would have needed to be registered with a political party in the event that the 1997 version was returned.
Now that the new constitution doesn’t require a 90 day membership period, everything is up in the air. Politicians can move to any party they want. Maybe PPP is a temporary stand in giving Samak an opportunity to rant a bit while the rest of them sort out a more permanent situation.
All parties now, are just lists of name of people who may or may not be with them at election time. This is especially true for Ruam Jai Thai, Machima, PPP, and other new ones.
All politicans are waiting to see how it shakes out and who can deliver. I would be surprised if there are not massive defections from all of these. Machima and RJT were just plays on the military staying strong going into the election.
With their drubbing in the constitutional vote, that card is looking harder to play. Is Machima really going to retain 100 electable candidates who are willing to stand in Isaan on a pro-military platform?
What would their slogan be? “I know you hate the military and the constitution, but I’m a really good guy”?
We’re back to horse trading and horse trading season doesn’t start for a few more months now.
I find this volume plus the more recent “Militia Redux: Or Sor and the Revival of Paramilitarism in Thailand (White Lotus, Bangkok, 2007).” extremely useful and unique at getting at the largely **untransparent functionings of government institutions in the provinces**, the forestry department and police being two other important institutions. These books provide a valuable institutional history and background that is extremely difficult to piece together from Thai sources by oneself, if this is not your speciality. Hopefully they will cover the other militias in the border area one day, the Aw-paw-pa-lo, Chaw-paw-po-lo (rough attempt at transliteration). To get this background info after first being familiar with the anecdotal-hearsay tales surrounding militia operations from locals, Matthew McDaniel, and personal experience is enlightening (whoops, not the Buddhist kind).
From latest news … Samak and PPP may be both short-lived.
It appears that Samak & PPP may have already violated the election laws by their steadfast and unashamed declaration that they are Thaksin-TRT nominees because that is like confession they will be agents for an outlaw and an an outlawed party.
Re: nganadeeleg>
Well, if the “pay-back” only consists of cabinet, police, and army shuffles combined with a little income redistribution…err…”social justice” to the villagers up in the Northeast, then I would say that’s fairly harmless. It would be nothing more offensive than the “spoils system” of the U.S.
If the “pay-back” he’s thinking of consists of dragging yellowshirts from their homes and hanging them from the nearest lamppost, then, of course not.
BTW… I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the PAD in the other thread.
“Nor is he by royal convention in a position to answer or respond to these critics…”
i.e. because he is bound to act in an indirect manner. Comparisons with other examples of failed institutions of kingship show why. Take the recently deposed Nepalese king Gyanendra:
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.
“Without His Majesty’s guiding hand, we would not be where we are today – a nation which has invariably demonstrated its inner strength, political resilience, social harmony and economic dynamism – a trait which has enabled the Thais to survive many a threat and misfortune in their long history.”
The main intellectual dividing line seems to the resurgence of royal power after 1976. If Thailand had taken the socialist route of Burma would it have been more or less well off? I would say no.
Perhaps there are other possible counterfactual histories, but I sure would like to hear them. IMHO HMK held the state together in the context of very divisive globalisation that was happening even then and is happening once again today.
While we are trying to hold Thaksin, the military, the monarchy, the urban middle class, PAD, poor farmers…etc…etc… accountable for holding back democracy in Thailand, it pays to remember the old maxim:
“Isaan elects the government, Bangkok overthrows it”
It is the poorest part of the country and it’s patronage politics Vs. the wealthiest and its “democracy is not just the vote” and this seemingly irreconciliable differences will continue to define and influence Thai democracy and politics.
All the so-called ‘key players’ have always assessed, polled the popular sentiments (particularlyclearly so in the mobile-phone, internet era) and either responded to and/or exploited it.
This is a societal phenomenon (but, yes, in response to one man – Thaksin’s actions in the past seven years) – and let us see it for what it is.
Historicus, it is just what mainstream society is – ‘star’ obssessed (whether they are singers, popstars, hi-sos, politicians etc.). And it’s no different here in Australia from America, Thailand – or anywhere. The labels people put the ‘same’ news in different societies simply reflect their socio-economic, cultural subjectivities.
Whether we’d readily admit or not, we yearn for these news (and I’m not talking about ‘truths’ here) and the media – mainstream or underground – will readily feed it to us (if we haven’t already been on the lookout). The fact that is is posted on this blog and that we are discussing it already says a lot…
I did a quick search of the FEER archive from 1972 to 1980, and there is remarkably little on Samak. There are 5-6 stories that are interesting and that relate to Samak and his right-wing politics, fear of a Vietnamese invasion, expelling a foreign journalist, etc. (and I could post these if people are interested) but no interviews or anything that might reveal his deeper thoughts, if he has them.
It is chiefly a literature review and summary of available data, aiming to highlight gaps where further research and/or intervention is needed. WRT police and army groups like this, I would say that they do little if anything to prevent true “trafficking”, instead preferring to spend their time extorting accumulated wages from returnee (illegal) migrant workers.
Is Tongdaeng the dog that HM adopted off the streets of Bangkok? I seem to remember that that led to a lot of stray dogs being adopted, or at least better treated. At the time it was also taken as a metaphor for the King’s “leading by example” approach which was contrasted unfavourably with Thaksin’s governance approach. I guess the CP rumours explain this story, but is it being used as a symbol for anything else?
Great, another bunch of shake-down artists migrant workers have to bribe.
Is this the same military unit that was forcing Hmong refugees to return to Laos last year?
Dear Thai Friends,
I had seen the vedio “birthday’s wife” at the pool.So ashame,how they do such the thing.She will be the next queen of Thailand.Too bad for the country.
Don’t be too upset by the PAD demonstrations, Republican, because to quote Lleij Samuel Schwartz: “healthy democracy is constantly in a state of “cold” civil war; it is from this dynamism that change and progress come.”
Therefore the PAD should be congratulated for making a contribution.
Back to Thaksin:
One the one hand you lament his demise – blame PAD, the monarchy, certain academics (both Thai & foreign), and even SOAS, NTSC, FCCT.
Yet on the other hand you confess you believe Thaksin to be ‘a superlative politician, a brilliant strategist, and nothing if not far-sighted’ in planning and executing a modified Finland Plan.
Was Thaksin a victim, or a brilliant strategist? – please make up you mind.
“….. identify potential development projects should Australia have decided to re-engage with Burma. My brief was to find projects that did not provide support for the military regime. Of course, this was very nearly impossible. But the mission was interesting for the insights it provided into the nature of the regime’s paranoia, rigid control and ignorance. I think the outcome was some training for Burmese officials in Rangoon but I think it also convinced some aid officials and maybe some politicians that providing openings for “reform” in Burma was not going to be as easy as they had imagined.”… Professor Hewison
The outcome was the idea of “Human Rights Training” and subsequently “Regional Security Training” offered to the Burmese Junta. They were perhaps the most bizarre and silly and simply made the Australian government a laughing stock! It was also a waste of tax payer money.
The Australian government could look into delivering openings for “reform” via cheaper, effective and far reaching means. DFAT should think about making use of Radio Australia and AsiaPacificTV to deliver “Human Rights” and “Regional Security Training” to the entire Burmese populace and not just the military regime. Even if the training of the human rights to the military offcials been a success, it would not do any good to the people who also need to understand what human right means for them.
Many Australian expats as well as DFAT staff living in the South East Asia, have bemoaned the fact that the lost of Radio Australia’s voice in this region has left a vacuum.
If not a direct ‘opening’ to reform, I am sure many will agree with me that a Burmese language radio service to Burma could wield an enormous influence to the sieged mentality within the Burmese military regime. The Australian government could start with information, this will lead to understanding and gradual trust, it could then go into training and education, which is one of the best things Australia could offer.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A loose cannon in the “war room”
So, the date of the general election has been announced -Dec. 23, if I heard correctly. Any party which advertises itself as a proxy TRT is going to do well in the NE. So, I wonder, what’s a hypocritical, self- serving politician to do? Will they turn round and say, ‘well Taksin wasn’t as bad as we’ve been telling you. In fact, really I rather liked the man.’
The other question of course is whether the military have done enough to ensure that this time the election will produce the ‘correct’ result.
Talk on “Democracy and Patronage in Thailand”
I wonder what Republican thinks of the FCCT now?
Last night: “If you choose to host Palace propagandists giving eulogies about the king can this be taken to mean that the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand supports royalist dictatorship?”
A loose cannon in the “war room”
LLS: I’m not so sure that’s the pay-back that Republican has in mind.
I think Jakrapob’s declaration that someone has to ‘pay’ for what has happened is an ominous warning should they ever get back into power.
BTW, the ‘spoils system’ looks like business as usual in Thailand (still looks offensive to me).
Samak Sundaravej
Jeru,
Maybe that’s what they want. My understanding was that TRT only moved to PPP as insurance in case the constitution failed and they would have needed to be registered with a political party in the event that the 1997 version was returned.
Now that the new constitution doesn’t require a 90 day membership period, everything is up in the air. Politicians can move to any party they want. Maybe PPP is a temporary stand in giving Samak an opportunity to rant a bit while the rest of them sort out a more permanent situation.
All parties now, are just lists of name of people who may or may not be with them at election time. This is especially true for Ruam Jai Thai, Machima, PPP, and other new ones.
All politicans are waiting to see how it shakes out and who can deliver. I would be surprised if there are not massive defections from all of these. Machima and RJT were just plays on the military staying strong going into the election.
With their drubbing in the constitutional vote, that card is looking harder to play. Is Machima really going to retain 100 electable candidates who are willing to stand in Isaan on a pro-military platform?
What would their slogan be? “I know you hate the military and the constitution, but I’m a really good guy”?
We’re back to horse trading and horse trading season doesn’t start for a few more months now.
Boys in black
I find this volume plus the more recent “Militia Redux: Or Sor and the Revival of Paramilitarism in Thailand (White Lotus, Bangkok, 2007).” extremely useful and unique at getting at the largely **untransparent functionings of government institutions in the provinces**, the forestry department and police being two other important institutions. These books provide a valuable institutional history and background that is extremely difficult to piece together from Thai sources by oneself, if this is not your speciality. Hopefully they will cover the other militias in the border area one day, the Aw-paw-pa-lo, Chaw-paw-po-lo (rough attempt at transliteration). To get this background info after first being familiar with the anecdotal-hearsay tales surrounding militia operations from locals, Matthew McDaniel, and personal experience is enlightening (whoops, not the Buddhist kind).
Samak Sundaravej
From latest news … Samak and PPP may be both short-lived.
It appears that Samak & PPP may have already violated the election laws by their steadfast and unashamed declaration that they are Thaksin-TRT nominees because that is like confession they will be agents for an outlaw and an an outlawed party.
A loose cannon in the “war room”
Re: nganadeeleg>
Well, if the “pay-back” only consists of cabinet, police, and army shuffles combined with a little
income redistribution…err…”social justice” to the villagers up in the Northeast, then I would say that’s fairly harmless. It would be nothing more offensive than the “spoils system” of the U.S.If the “pay-back” he’s thinking of consists of dragging yellowshirts from their homes and hanging them from the nearest lamppost, then, of course not.
BTW… I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the PAD in the other thread.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
“Nor is he by royal convention in a position to answer or respond to these critics…”
i.e. because he is bound to act in an indirect manner. Comparisons with other examples of failed institutions of kingship show why. Take the recently deposed Nepalese king Gyanendra:
“During his early years on the throne, Gyanendra sought to exercise full control over the government.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyanendra_of_Nepal
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.
“Without His Majesty’s guiding hand, we would not be where we are today – a nation which has invariably demonstrated its inner strength, political resilience, social harmony and economic dynamism – a trait which has enabled the Thais to survive many a threat and misfortune in their long history.”
The main intellectual dividing line seems to the resurgence of royal power after 1976. If Thailand had taken the socialist route of Burma would it have been more or less well off? I would say no.
Perhaps there are other possible counterfactual histories, but I sure would like to hear them. IMHO HMK held the state together in the context of very divisive globalisation that was happening even then and is happening once again today.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
While we are trying to hold Thaksin, the military, the monarchy, the urban middle class, PAD, poor farmers…etc…etc… accountable for holding back democracy in Thailand, it pays to remember the old maxim:
“Isaan elects the government, Bangkok overthrows it”
It is the poorest part of the country and it’s patronage politics Vs. the wealthiest and its “democracy is not just the vote” and this seemingly irreconciliable differences will continue to define and influence Thai democracy and politics.
All the so-called ‘key players’ have always assessed, polled the popular sentiments (particularlyclearly so in the mobile-phone, internet era) and either responded to and/or exploited it.
This is a societal phenomenon (but, yes, in response to one man – Thaksin’s actions in the past seven years) – and let us see it for what it is.
King denies royal rumour
Historicus, it is just what mainstream society is – ‘star’ obssessed (whether they are singers, popstars, hi-sos, politicians etc.). And it’s no different here in Australia from America, Thailand – or anywhere. The labels people put the ‘same’ news in different societies simply reflect their socio-economic, cultural subjectivities.
Whether we’d readily admit or not, we yearn for these news (and I’m not talking about ‘truths’ here) and the media – mainstream or underground – will readily feed it to us (if we haven’t already been on the lookout). The fact that is is posted on this blog and that we are discussing it already says a lot…
A loose cannon in the “war room”
…‘ Thaksin cracked his head’ in which case your comment is rather pro-War on Drugs
Definitely out of context, but never mind. Metaphentamine head, crack head, coke head, wise-ass, ignorant fool, etc. all relatively the same meaning.
Samak Sundaravej
I did a quick search of the FEER archive from 1972 to 1980, and there is remarkably little on Samak. There are 5-6 stories that are interesting and that relate to Samak and his right-wing politics, fear of a Vietnamese invasion, expelling a foreign journalist, etc. (and I could post these if people are interested) but no interviews or anything that might reveal his deeper thoughts, if he has them.
Boys in black
Just to blow my own horn for a moment, a report I did last year for World Vision on human trafficking across the Lao-Thai border is now publicly available for download here:
http://www.no-trafficking.org/content/Reading_Rooms/reading_rooms_pdf/world%20vision%20trafficking%20report.doc
It is chiefly a literature review and summary of available data, aiming to highlight gaps where further research and/or intervention is needed. WRT police and army groups like this, I would say that they do little if anything to prevent true “trafficking”, instead preferring to spend their time extorting accumulated wages from returnee (illegal) migrant workers.
King denies royal rumour
Is Tongdaeng the dog that HM adopted off the streets of Bangkok? I seem to remember that that led to a lot of stray dogs being adopted, or at least better treated. At the time it was also taken as a metaphor for the King’s “leading by example” approach which was contrasted unfavourably with Thaksin’s governance approach. I guess the CP rumours explain this story, but is it being used as a symbol for anything else?
Boys in black
Great, another bunch of shake-down artists migrant workers have to bribe.
Is this the same military unit that was forcing Hmong refugees to return to Laos last year?
Thailand’s crown prince
Dear Thai Friends,
I had seen the vedio “birthday’s wife” at the pool.So ashame,how they do such the thing.She will be the next queen of Thailand.Too bad for the country.
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
Don’t be too upset by the PAD demonstrations, Republican, because to quote Lleij Samuel Schwartz: “healthy democracy is constantly in a state of “cold” civil war; it is from this dynamism that change and progress come.”
Therefore the PAD should be congratulated for making a contribution.
Back to Thaksin:
One the one hand you lament his demise – blame PAD, the monarchy, certain academics (both Thai & foreign), and even SOAS, NTSC, FCCT.
Yet on the other hand you confess you believe Thaksin to be ‘a superlative politician, a brilliant strategist, and nothing if not far-sighted’ in planning and executing a modified Finland Plan.
Was Thaksin a victim, or a brilliant strategist? – please make up you mind.
A loose cannon in the “war room”
Lleij S- S-: So do you consider the ‘pay-back’ referred to by Republican to be part of the dynamism for healthy change & progress?
Interview with Professor Kevin Hewison – Part One
“….. identify potential development projects should Australia have decided to re-engage with Burma. My brief was to find projects that did not provide support for the military regime. Of course, this was very nearly impossible. But the mission was interesting for the insights it provided into the nature of the regime’s paranoia, rigid control and ignorance. I think the outcome was some training for Burmese officials in Rangoon but I think it also convinced some aid officials and maybe some politicians that providing openings for “reform” in Burma was not going to be as easy as they had imagined.”… Professor Hewison
The outcome was the idea of “Human Rights Training” and subsequently “Regional Security Training” offered to the Burmese Junta. They were perhaps the most bizarre and silly and simply made the Australian government a laughing stock! It was also a waste of tax payer money.
The Australian government could look into delivering openings for “reform” via cheaper, effective and far reaching means. DFAT should think about making use of Radio Australia and AsiaPacificTV to deliver “Human Rights” and “Regional Security Training” to the entire Burmese populace and not just the military regime. Even if the training of the human rights to the military offcials been a success, it would not do any good to the people who also need to understand what human right means for them.
Many Australian expats as well as DFAT staff living in the South East Asia, have bemoaned the fact that the lost of Radio Australia’s voice in this region has left a vacuum.
If not a direct ‘opening’ to reform, I am sure many will agree with me that a Burmese language radio service to Burma could wield an enormous influence to the sieged mentality within the Burmese military regime. The Australian government could start with information, this will lead to understanding and gradual trust, it could then go into training and education, which is one of the best things Australia could offer.
Samak Sundaravej
Here is Part 1 looking at Samak up until 1992.