I think the Singaporeans’ soul could be recognised not only in their efficiency or in their humour more British that the British. Also in the way they do normally a commitment or a deal. Fran├зois Jullien said that a contract with a Chinese company is always a starting point for a long negotiation, only a phase to temporary balance offer and acceptance. This is not the case of Singapore where – for what I’ve experienced – a deal is a deal, something that has to be honoured in all its details, a final commitment that has to be integrally respected. This difference may seem something secondary but actually it shows a specific cultural difference, a specific approach.
Another powerful point of unity can be the symbolic idea of continuity between city and nature, architecture and garden. The artificial trees combined with the tropical vegetation – which you can see in the “Gardens by the Bay” – can give the idea of a continuously changing city, of a metamorphosis that involves the city and all its communities. The nature in Singapore, more than the symbol of the Lion, can really be the main soul of its inhabitants.
But a part of this, I still have the impression that not everything is perfect in Singapore. When I passed by last time, after I innocently threw a butt in the bushes … not 1 but even 3 officers, representing the 3 main ethnicities, stood up in front of me asking to pay a fine. Is there really such a risk of discrimination that you need 3 officers? When you enter in a conglomerate of restaurants, pubs and massage centres you can see how real the demarcations among different ethnicities are, how people really not speak each other, even if they belong to the same social level. In Europe, in a market for example, you can see normally a different atmosphere where Romanians, Polishes, Italians, Belgians, Moroccans … are very close and even help each other.
These are only personal and subjective impressions, and they have no values. The issues and the paradoxes of the Singaporean classification explained in this article are relevant. The main issue is that the classification based on the ethnicity is not only a demarcation among different cultures but also a system that may decide your social position. In the Plato’s republic, for its definition, things work only if the inhabitants know their social position and they accept it, from their birth. Is it the same case for Singapore?
From the other side I’m not convinced that the liberal democratic traditions such as Canada and Australia should be considered as the ideal system at which Singapore should look. Even if the artificial idea of “race” is no more acceptable (it’s already since long time, since for example the studies of Meier, that it’s scientifically proved that the idea of race cannot categorize the human being), 3 cultures are coexisting in Singapore, with a great heritage and with the immanent strength to promote and potentiate themselves. I agree with a previous comment: why rocking the boat? The liberal democratic tradition is more coherent with a more individualistic society where cultures are more fragmented and without strong boundaries.
History described us the worst régimes on earth.
In Europe were born and implemented fascism, nazism and stalinism… the latter with an asian avatar : maoism.
They are all different from each other…. but have some common ground with forms the matrix of what we call FASCISM, in the generic meaning of the word.
In the matrix, there should be :
– A one and only one ruling party, with tentacular power on the day to day life.
– A powerful and lawless political police which can summon anybody to a military barrack… not for readjusting and lecturing about Thainess and Happiness in the Kingdom. Who is summoned in a fascist state does go out alive, but disappears with or without a puppet trial.
– A messianic and revolutionnary ideology in order to create a New Man, abhoring capitalism, free market, free enterprise and corruption.
– And a charismatic and inspiring leader on the top of the system… duce, f├╝hrer, conducator…
Which is just unconceivable in Thailand because because if a PM would be such a leader, he would be King instead of the King.
Only one PM in Thai history has considered this option : Phibunsongkhram, oscillating between republican feelings and the fancy of being the Napoleon of Thailand.
It proved to be pipe dreams.
So for the sake of History, we can may be make the difference between a fascist state and an autoritarian régime.
Wilhelminian Germany was quite repressive against socialists and social democrats, the big issue then were the anti-socialist laws. Also lese majeste laws were widely used to stifle dissent.
But i agree, it is not a very good fit for the Thai case. But i am equally uncomfortable with the application all of these western frameworks to Thailand’s present situation – including fascism. While, as i have argued, there are many parallels indeed, there are also clear differences.
I believe that we have to wait and see for the outcome. Will this period of open military rule stay permanent? Will it lead to what the military promises – a “Thai style democracy”, or “guided democracy” with limited powers of the then elected parliament and government? Which shape and degree will these limitations be then? Which freedoms will be returned, or will the present repressive policies against any form of dissent be continued?
So, far, i believe that the issues Paul Handley mentioned are indeed the main priority for the military’s course of action, and that once this is solved to the military’s satisfaction, most indicators are that the military will step down from the front seat of power, trying to steer then from the background, from which point the conflict will continue, in one shape or the other.
Or i may be wrong, or suddenly some factors come into play which we have not foreseen. My main point is that the Thai situation is not static enough to really define what we are having now.
I think these comparisons with historic Europe are very useful, both to throw light onto the present Thai situation, and in comparing old Europe with the Thai “living fossil”. I think the amart are fighting a losing battle trying to keep the “living fossil” going because the idea of the State as one big patronage system centred on a monarch only works with a dominantly illiterate population ignorant of the world out of walking distance. It sounds reasonable to them only because it is run the same way as their village is run: for the benefit of the most powerful family. Once ordinary people become literate and acquire some knowledge of the outside world, they prefer to obey rules and idealologies written down in their own language, rather than personalities. The best established route to a system of rules which the bulk of the ordinary people will actually obey is for the rules to be made by representatives which the people elect regularly. It is a system which has brought peaceful coexistence between vast numbers of people to a level unheard of in history. To wish people peace is to wish them electoral democracy.
Electoral democracy is taking a beating at the moment because the United States, once its main beacon in the world, is threatening to turn into a black hole. I believe that is not because of a fault with electoral democracy but because of bourgeois fundamentalism. Without sufficient socialist nutrients the organism dies, just as it has done with too much socialism. What is needed is a unified theory, to balance the bourgeois in us, which can never be stamped out without tyranny, with part-time socialist.
By the way Nick, there’s an in appropriate “in” in “Wilhelminian” which makes it feminine.
Also Nick, there is no necessary connection between antisemitism and fascism. The Italian fascist state had been in existence for 16 years before it started persecuting Jews to please Hitler. Persecuting Jews has long been a Christian and Moslem tradition. Albert Einstein regarded Menachem Begin and the precursors of the Likud party as fascists. The term has gone out of fashion in the West these days because it applies to too many allies.
NN, I find “Wilhelminism” not such a good fit for the Thai case from, as I understand, given its preeminence to imperialism (that is aside from its blatant glorification of militarism). But it was not repressive (conservatism yes). “pattiboy” #26 shows the common attitude among the Thai р╕кр╕ер╕┤р╣Ир╕б (salim) or “yellowed” Thais. It is illusion, which neo-fascism is adept at creating; that sense of unity and order — but based on fear, conditioning and repression. As we are told by Prayut: the economy is fine thank you! Another illusion and grand exaggeration. Meanwhile we see corruption and cronyism among military elites and their families worse than ever as laws used to silent critics. In reality (if the reader listens to the working class, many small traders, and peasants) ordinary people are suffering now with have no access to information or have any avenue of complaint. Local administrative structures were replaced with unelected fascist lackeys under the previous DP/ amaat regime. The whole system is now riddled with a misguided royalist notion of autarky, and everyday violence rife (hidden from public consumption). PH #25, agree of course, the problem is indeed at the summit and the rich spoils to one side or the other. What to do? 60%+ (?) of Thais are still seduced and yet to be “cleared eyed” (taa-sawaang р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕З) on these matters.
Let us not forget that Foo-Foo was an ACM! I did not hear that Thong Daeng had a similar or higher status! However, it is possible to promote her even after she had passed away. I am sure, many will miss her dearly.
While there is some sort of superficial relief indeed taking place under ordinary sympathizers of both colors, especially after the enormous stress of the 2013/2014 protests, there is at the same time especially under Red Shirts deep seated disappointment, resentment and anger, and particularly under more involved grassroots activist groups. For the time being there simply is no public space where this can be voiced.
Also under many Yellow Shirts there is quite some disappointment as the coup did not deliver on the expectations and the promises the Yellow leadership made.
However, the lack of Red Shirts protesting on the streets is to a large part also strategic. The strategic model that has been conveyed to the myriad of groups is to sit this out for the time being, and wait for a more opportune time to come out again, if necessary. The Red Shirt analyses is that protesting now would be counter productive, and would only lead to protesters getting killed or imprisoned without any chance to improve the situation. For the time being the Red Shirts observe and occasionally further the continuing and increasing internal conflict in the military/Yellow Alliance (the Rajabhakti Park mess is a perfect case study), while at higher places pressure games and possible negotiations are taking place.
Politics is not over in Thailand, it just is on a temporary break, especially street politics.
It is rather telling when The Nation, Bangkok, in a recent report on the two Burmese migrant workers senentced to death for the murder of David Miller and rape and murder of Hannah Witheridge, the two British backpackers, says:
It is rare for leaders in Nay Pyi Taw to express concern over the fate of citizens who find themselves in trouble abroad. Thailand is home to about three million workers from Myanmar, many of them undocumented migrants, but little attention has been paid to their plight at the hands of our justice system.
So it came as a surprise when General Min wrote to Thai Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan and Supreme Commander Sommai Kaotira over the weekend.
He could have delivered his message in private to Thai top brass, with whom he enjoys friendly relations. That he chose to make his plea public, via his Facebook page and the state-run Global New Light of Myanmar Times, indicates just how seriously Myanmar authorities view this case.”
Ma Ba Tha has joined battle in the ongoing protests. Some protesters have demonstrated outside ASSK’s home calling for action in an apparent bid to undermine her popularity as in the Rohingya issue.
It is both moving and amazing to see so many farang reporters and pundits arguing passionately about thai politics… and nearly no thai voices joining the debate.
Of course NM is a mainly farang venue. Of course thai voices must apply self censorhip…
But may be there is a more disturbing explanation.
What if the people of Thailand, fed up with politicians, corruption and disturbances, was feeling some relief in the current situation ?
After all, it is the whole thai political world which committed suicide two years ago .
Some with the blunder of amnesty and the incapacity of implementing law and order… the others with chaos in Bangkok, rejecting the electoral process and begging the army to stage a coup !
So we have now a country experiencing the state of NO POLITICAL LIFE. And the thai people does not seem so dismayed about it .
(There is no political life when nobody has access to TV, safe generals in civilian clothes)
Life goes on, there are no demonstrations anymore in Bangkok, nobody dies (which is not the case in a fascist state) , reds and yellows stay at home.
Remain some academics -in exile or not- and some farang reporters and pundits… the last Mohicans who still believe passionately in politics !
While some of the points you raised i cannot respond to, i would like to mention though that calling this Prayut’s dictatorship is not entirely correct. He may be the Prime Minister and supposed leader of the coup, but he is not the driving force. The coup group, or Yellow Alliance is not a monolithic entity either, but made up of converging and at the same time competing groups and factions of vested interest within the traditional elites, who are more or less only unified by their fear of Thaksin and the Red Shirts, and not much else (and yes, weakness is more a characteristic of them than strength).
Therefore already the leadership principle so necessary to fascism is not really applicable to Thailand’s present situation, regardless Prayut’s attempts of posturing as such, which are more PR stunts than real attempts to fortify his power, and which he only has to a certain degree in the first place.
So far all indications are that the coup group will not perpetuate the coup forever, but will try to establish some form of “guided democracy”, or “Thai style democracy”, or however else one may call that warped system of semi-dictatorship, in which government and parliament will have very limited powers. But whatever it is, it isn’t fascism.
Wilheliminian militarism’s effect on German society was not just the drive for colonialism, but also the militarization of German society where the military was important in all aspects of German life, and a military service and rank became almost a necessity to advance in society. In this internal aspect there are parallels. But yes, it is a somewhat weak comparison, as is the the fascism model applied to Thailand.
Do we have to use frames that are only partially applicable to describe the present situation in Thailand, especially when so much of what is going on is lacking any transparency and any attempt of analyses is like fishing in the dark (beyond the factors you mentioned)?
And in this case particularly, where the framework is driven more by activist zealotry than by sound analyses based on data?
Jim Taylor sets a great framework for viewing the current Thai situation and is right for arguing to call out the government’s behavior for what it is. And people here like hrk make good points about how well or not the term fascist applies, especially on the qualities of Prayut vs the iconic fascist leader.
But all of this needs to be done with a great asterisk that is being neglected. Prayut’s dictatorship has come as a placeholder until the great unknown, the succession, takes place. And after that something else is promised and hoped for. That’s what many in the elite, many diplomats, and others at least hope. Some perhaps will want him to continue, and be happy with a strongman regime. But many are expecting, as the junta has promised and then stalled, a return to elected government.
Evidence supporting that and against the classic fascist model is the lack of any drive for anything to improve the country beyond stifling criticism of the monarchy, its generals and its dogs. Despite the well-known challenges the country faces, in education, upgrading the workforce, building competitiveness vis a vis its neighbors, producing a vision for improving the lives of the people, the Prayut government has offered nothing. Even under dictator Suchinda there was somewhat of a reform and advance agenda, which helped with infrastructure.
(That I think is the weakness of the aphichon argument for the Prayut dictatorship: I would guess everyone knows he is not doing a good job of leading the country anywhere; he is only there to manage somehow the royal handover.)
Prayut himself is hardly a visionary leader, and it seems the repeated postponement of elections tracks expectations of how long before succession comes. Where others see a powerful leader I see a lot of weakness. And that itself is dangerous given the possibility that the next king might try to get his own guy in charge, potential for real fascism.
So you have to analyze Prayut’s government in the context of the succession waiting game. For me it is much more a “national security state” but of course that has many of the aspects of fascism.
As for Nick Nostitz’s invocation of Wilhelmian militarism, there seems to be much less in common. We see intensified military organization for internal security, and some “toys for the boys” big equipment purchase plans, but hardly the kind of mobilization to make the military or the Thai state a force amongst its neighbors, nor any type of expansionist/colony-building. Moreover there is no concerted economic buildup. Lest one point to the pivot to China, this is all from a distinct point of weakness and lack of confidence.
Thanks Christine Gray for a really interesting post and one provoking some good discussion.
And now that Thong Daeng has gone to sleep in that great kennel in the sky it is bizarre to see that the Bangkok Post must follow its article http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/809248/hm-king-favourite-pet-dog-dies
with the increasingly common notice “The discussion board on this article has been turned off, because commenting on the above issue may cause legal dispute.”
Of course we are all waiting to see now if the palace will let Thong Daeng pass with lesser funeral rites than ACM Foo-Foo
Respect is a two-way street Jim. Your insistence that nobody on the red side engaged in violent attacks in 2010 and 2013/4 is untenable, and your dismissal of journalists who know otherwise as naive or ignorant is arrogant and disrespectful. You seem to be wedded to a simplistic black-and-white moral framework, where one side is utterly blameless and the other side totally evil. This kind of approach is fine for Hollywood movies but not very sensible when applied to the real world. Ironically the ultra-royalists also view the struggle in the same simplistic terms, but with the roles reversed and the reds cast as the villains. The reality is of course much more nuanced.
What now? The dog is no more. It has fallen off the perch, ceased to be, gone to greet its maker. We can hope that the Royal Household announcement and funeral will provide more insights into the human world of palace intrigue.
Jim, this arrogant disregard and disrespect for journalists you show here is more than annoying. Several of us were shot, injured and even killed, and risked much during our coverage.
First of all – all of us long term journalists who have dealt with the Red/Yellow conflict have built long term relationships with the Red Shirt leadership (relationships with the Yellow leadership was always more difficult, and over the years deteriorated for most journalists the more anti-foreign media they turned), which is an absolute necessity to work this subject matter.
In my case, many of the Red Shirt leaders i have known for almost ten years now, have seen them, and still see them regularly, and in times of protests i have seen them on a daily base. In 2010, in the night from May 18 to May 19 i sat for several hours, for example, with Jatuporn and Nattawut behind the stage while they waited for a call from the government to respond to the last ditch negotiation efforts by the senate group (a call that never came). In 2009 i photographed when Weng and Nattawut were arrested. The night before i had dinner with Veera Musikapong after he prayed behind the stage when all collapsed. A few hours before Surachai Sae Dan was arrested for Lese Majeste violations i sat with him at Sanam Luang, chatted with him and took his picture. When Somyot was arrested i was called and able to go to the cells and permitted to take his picture inside his cell and had a brief talk with him. I have know Gotee long before he became so well known, visited his radio station many times.
I know the drivers, their body guards and their assistants of most of the main leaders.
I have known many of the Red Shirt guards for years – which happens when you follow a social mass movement from the moment is began after the 2006 coup. I have seen some them go into prison, followed their court cases, and seen them go out of prison again (at least the ones who did not receive long sentences). I have known many ordinary protesters since the Sanam Luang era, some even from the pre-2006 coup days when they camped out at Chatuchak. With some of them i was under fire on several occasions over the years. I have seen people go into hiding, come back and go back again into hiding. In some cases i have even known people who turned from ordinary protesters into armed militants because of their experiences during the protests. And therefore i can clearly state that these people were NOT agent provocateur. Whatever one may think about their decision to use violence is beside the point – it is utter disrespect towards their humanity and ability to make decisions for themselves and to simply dismiss them as such just because it does not suit a pre-framed analyses which is ultimately faulty.
You do confuse spies that were detained by Red Shirts – i have seen that countless times, both real and mistaken ones – with armed militants who were especially in 2010 shielded by their support networks from journalists and even ordinary protesters, and were seen only rarely and in the most dangerous places. After April 10 when they came out in the open for the first time, mostly not even at the barricades, but at night beyond the barricades in no man’s territory between the lines. Just because you may not have seen them does not mean that they do not exist.
I have worked for magazines such as Spiegel and Stern not just as a photographer, but also as translator/consultant/fixer/interviewer because of my long term relationship with protesters and leaders of both camps (Yellow only until late November 2013, when all came crashing down). That is how i made my money. Countless academics and students have contacted me because of my obsessive reporting on the Red/Yellow conflict, and my almost constant presence and contacts. I do not think that i need to list the names – they are almost all who have done field research on this subject matter. I have been able to learn much from them, and i hope they have been able to learn some from my experiences.
The only person who i have never met, been in any contact with, or even know anyone who has met with is you. Not even some of the UDD leaders who i asked if they have heard about you. Your attempts to dismiss me, and my colleagues, here are a miserable tactic to pull yourself up, especially as they come from a person nobody i am aware off has ever met.
And yes, i am more than aware that the Red Shirts are not a homogeneous movement, and over time has evolved and diversified massively. And part of that reality is also that while the majority of the Red Shirts are peaceful citizens who want to express their political views via elections there are some groups who do believe in a form of occasional violent struggle – the armed militants you dismiss as agent provocateur. At least follow the logic of your own arguments, please.
I would rather see your data published here than your opinions, as should be expected from academics. But that is all we get here from you – biased opinion, arrogant summary dismissals of an entire profession and no supportive data whatsoever.
AMM 21.2, on the contrary, I welcome comment but keep it focused on the piece and relevant matters. Facts are hard to substantiate because of the lack of freedoms and censorship in a fascist state, so I would ask that you have some respect for those views which do not fit your own concise world instead of shooting the author.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A state of madness
Pattiboy – WHY is it “inconcievable” ? If instead of your PM, there is a fascist king ?
Searching for Singapore’s soul
I think the Singaporeans’ soul could be recognised not only in their efficiency or in their humour more British that the British. Also in the way they do normally a commitment or a deal. Fran├зois Jullien said that a contract with a Chinese company is always a starting point for a long negotiation, only a phase to temporary balance offer and acceptance. This is not the case of Singapore where – for what I’ve experienced – a deal is a deal, something that has to be honoured in all its details, a final commitment that has to be integrally respected. This difference may seem something secondary but actually it shows a specific cultural difference, a specific approach.
Another powerful point of unity can be the symbolic idea of continuity between city and nature, architecture and garden. The artificial trees combined with the tropical vegetation – which you can see in the “Gardens by the Bay” – can give the idea of a continuously changing city, of a metamorphosis that involves the city and all its communities. The nature in Singapore, more than the symbol of the Lion, can really be the main soul of its inhabitants.
But a part of this, I still have the impression that not everything is perfect in Singapore. When I passed by last time, after I innocently threw a butt in the bushes … not 1 but even 3 officers, representing the 3 main ethnicities, stood up in front of me asking to pay a fine. Is there really such a risk of discrimination that you need 3 officers? When you enter in a conglomerate of restaurants, pubs and massage centres you can see how real the demarcations among different ethnicities are, how people really not speak each other, even if they belong to the same social level. In Europe, in a market for example, you can see normally a different atmosphere where Romanians, Polishes, Italians, Belgians, Moroccans … are very close and even help each other.
These are only personal and subjective impressions, and they have no values. The issues and the paradoxes of the Singaporean classification explained in this article are relevant. The main issue is that the classification based on the ethnicity is not only a demarcation among different cultures but also a system that may decide your social position. In the Plato’s republic, for its definition, things work only if the inhabitants know their social position and they accept it, from their birth. Is it the same case for Singapore?
From the other side I’m not convinced that the liberal democratic traditions such as Canada and Australia should be considered as the ideal system at which Singapore should look. Even if the artificial idea of “race” is no more acceptable (it’s already since long time, since for example the studies of Meier, that it’s scientifically proved that the idea of race cannot categorize the human being), 3 cultures are coexisting in Singapore, with a great heritage and with the immanent strength to promote and potentiate themselves. I agree with a previous comment: why rocking the boat? The liberal democratic tradition is more coherent with a more individualistic society where cultures are more fragmented and without strong boundaries.
A state of madness
History described us the worst régimes on earth.
In Europe were born and implemented fascism, nazism and stalinism… the latter with an asian avatar : maoism.
They are all different from each other…. but have some common ground with forms the matrix of what we call FASCISM, in the generic meaning of the word.
In the matrix, there should be :
– A one and only one ruling party, with tentacular power on the day to day life.
– A powerful and lawless political police which can summon anybody to a military barrack… not for readjusting and lecturing about Thainess and Happiness in the Kingdom. Who is summoned in a fascist state does go out alive, but disappears with or without a puppet trial.
– A messianic and revolutionnary ideology in order to create a New Man, abhoring capitalism, free market, free enterprise and corruption.
– And a charismatic and inspiring leader on the top of the system… duce, f├╝hrer, conducator…
Which is just unconceivable in Thailand because because if a PM would be such a leader, he would be King instead of the King.
Only one PM in Thai history has considered this option : Phibunsongkhram, oscillating between republican feelings and the fancy of being the Napoleon of Thailand.
It proved to be pipe dreams.
So for the sake of History, we can may be make the difference between a fascist state and an autoritarian régime.
A state of madness
Wilhelminian Germany was quite repressive against socialists and social democrats, the big issue then were the anti-socialist laws. Also lese majeste laws were widely used to stifle dissent.
But i agree, it is not a very good fit for the Thai case. But i am equally uncomfortable with the application all of these western frameworks to Thailand’s present situation – including fascism. While, as i have argued, there are many parallels indeed, there are also clear differences.
I believe that we have to wait and see for the outcome. Will this period of open military rule stay permanent? Will it lead to what the military promises – a “Thai style democracy”, or “guided democracy” with limited powers of the then elected parliament and government? Which shape and degree will these limitations be then? Which freedoms will be returned, or will the present repressive policies against any form of dissent be continued?
So, far, i believe that the issues Paul Handley mentioned are indeed the main priority for the military’s course of action, and that once this is solved to the military’s satisfaction, most indicators are that the military will step down from the front seat of power, trying to steer then from the background, from which point the conflict will continue, in one shape or the other.
Or i may be wrong, or suddenly some factors come into play which we have not foreseen. My main point is that the Thai situation is not static enough to really define what we are having now.
A state of madness
I think these comparisons with historic Europe are very useful, both to throw light onto the present Thai situation, and in comparing old Europe with the Thai “living fossil”. I think the amart are fighting a losing battle trying to keep the “living fossil” going because the idea of the State as one big patronage system centred on a monarch only works with a dominantly illiterate population ignorant of the world out of walking distance. It sounds reasonable to them only because it is run the same way as their village is run: for the benefit of the most powerful family. Once ordinary people become literate and acquire some knowledge of the outside world, they prefer to obey rules and idealologies written down in their own language, rather than personalities. The best established route to a system of rules which the bulk of the ordinary people will actually obey is for the rules to be made by representatives which the people elect regularly. It is a system which has brought peaceful coexistence between vast numbers of people to a level unheard of in history. To wish people peace is to wish them electoral democracy.
Electoral democracy is taking a beating at the moment because the United States, once its main beacon in the world, is threatening to turn into a black hole. I believe that is not because of a fault with electoral democracy but because of bourgeois fundamentalism. Without sufficient socialist nutrients the organism dies, just as it has done with too much socialism. What is needed is a unified theory, to balance the bourgeois in us, which can never be stamped out without tyranny, with part-time socialist.
By the way Nick, there’s an in appropriate “in” in “Wilhelminian” which makes it feminine.
Also Nick, there is no necessary connection between antisemitism and fascism. The Italian fascist state had been in existence for 16 years before it started persecuting Jews to please Hitler. Persecuting Jews has long been a Christian and Moslem tradition. Albert Einstein regarded Menachem Begin and the precursors of the Likud party as fascists. The term has gone out of fashion in the West these days because it applies to too many allies.
The Tatmadaw in a democracy
The link to Ma Ba Tha doesn’t work, sorry. Here it is – http://www.irrawaddy.com/burma/heated-rhetoric-at-koh-tao-verdict-protest-in-rangoon.html
A state of madness
NN, I find “Wilhelminism” not such a good fit for the Thai case from, as I understand, given its preeminence to imperialism (that is aside from its blatant glorification of militarism). But it was not repressive (conservatism yes). “pattiboy” #26 shows the common attitude among the Thai р╕кр╕ер╕┤р╣Ир╕б (salim) or “yellowed” Thais. It is illusion, which neo-fascism is adept at creating; that sense of unity and order — but based on fear, conditioning and repression. As we are told by Prayut: the economy is fine thank you! Another illusion and grand exaggeration. Meanwhile we see corruption and cronyism among military elites and their families worse than ever as laws used to silent critics. In reality (if the reader listens to the working class, many small traders, and peasants) ordinary people are suffering now with have no access to information or have any avenue of complaint. Local administrative structures were replaced with unelected fascist lackeys under the previous DP/ amaat regime. The whole system is now riddled with a misguided royalist notion of autarky, and everyday violence rife (hidden from public consumption). PH #25, agree of course, the problem is indeed at the summit and the rich spoils to one side or the other. What to do? 60%+ (?) of Thais are still seduced and yet to be “cleared eyed” (taa-sawaang р╕Хр╕▓р╕кр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕З) on these matters.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Let us not forget that Foo-Foo was an ACM! I did not hear that Thong Daeng had a similar or higher status! However, it is possible to promote her even after she had passed away. I am sure, many will miss her dearly.
A state of madness
While there is some sort of superficial relief indeed taking place under ordinary sympathizers of both colors, especially after the enormous stress of the 2013/2014 protests, there is at the same time especially under Red Shirts deep seated disappointment, resentment and anger, and particularly under more involved grassroots activist groups. For the time being there simply is no public space where this can be voiced.
Also under many Yellow Shirts there is quite some disappointment as the coup did not deliver on the expectations and the promises the Yellow leadership made.
However, the lack of Red Shirts protesting on the streets is to a large part also strategic. The strategic model that has been conveyed to the myriad of groups is to sit this out for the time being, and wait for a more opportune time to come out again, if necessary. The Red Shirt analyses is that protesting now would be counter productive, and would only lead to protesters getting killed or imprisoned without any chance to improve the situation. For the time being the Red Shirts observe and occasionally further the continuing and increasing internal conflict in the military/Yellow Alliance (the Rajabhakti Park mess is a perfect case study), while at higher places pressure games and possible negotiations are taking place.
Politics is not over in Thailand, it just is on a temporary break, especially street politics.
The Tatmadaw in a democracy
It is rather telling when The Nation, Bangkok, in a recent report on the two Burmese migrant workers senentced to death for the murder of David Miller and rape and murder of Hannah Witheridge, the two British backpackers, says:
It is rare for leaders in Nay Pyi Taw to express concern over the fate of citizens who find themselves in trouble abroad. Thailand is home to about three million workers from Myanmar, many of them undocumented migrants, but little attention has been paid to their plight at the hands of our justice system.
So it came as a surprise when General Min wrote to Thai Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan and Supreme Commander Sommai Kaotira over the weekend.
He could have delivered his message in private to Thai top brass, with whom he enjoys friendly relations. That he chose to make his plea public, via his Facebook page and the state-run Global New Light of Myanmar Times, indicates just how seriously Myanmar authorities view this case.”
Ma Ba Tha has joined battle in the ongoing protests. Some protesters have demonstrated outside ASSK’s home calling for action in an apparent bid to undermine her popularity as in the Rohingya issue.
A state of madness
It is both moving and amazing to see so many farang reporters and pundits arguing passionately about thai politics… and nearly no thai voices joining the debate.
Of course NM is a mainly farang venue. Of course thai voices must apply self censorhip…
But may be there is a more disturbing explanation.
What if the people of Thailand, fed up with politicians, corruption and disturbances, was feeling some relief in the current situation ?
After all, it is the whole thai political world which committed suicide two years ago .
Some with the blunder of amnesty and the incapacity of implementing law and order… the others with chaos in Bangkok, rejecting the electoral process and begging the army to stage a coup !
So we have now a country experiencing the state of NO POLITICAL LIFE. And the thai people does not seem so dismayed about it .
(There is no political life when nobody has access to TV, safe generals in civilian clothes)
Life goes on, there are no demonstrations anymore in Bangkok, nobody dies (which is not the case in a fascist state) , reds and yellows stay at home.
Remain some academics -in exile or not- and some farang reporters and pundits… the last Mohicans who still believe passionately in politics !
A state of madness
While some of the points you raised i cannot respond to, i would like to mention though that calling this Prayut’s dictatorship is not entirely correct. He may be the Prime Minister and supposed leader of the coup, but he is not the driving force. The coup group, or Yellow Alliance is not a monolithic entity either, but made up of converging and at the same time competing groups and factions of vested interest within the traditional elites, who are more or less only unified by their fear of Thaksin and the Red Shirts, and not much else (and yes, weakness is more a characteristic of them than strength).
Therefore already the leadership principle so necessary to fascism is not really applicable to Thailand’s present situation, regardless Prayut’s attempts of posturing as such, which are more PR stunts than real attempts to fortify his power, and which he only has to a certain degree in the first place.
So far all indications are that the coup group will not perpetuate the coup forever, but will try to establish some form of “guided democracy”, or “Thai style democracy”, or however else one may call that warped system of semi-dictatorship, in which government and parliament will have very limited powers. But whatever it is, it isn’t fascism.
Wilheliminian militarism’s effect on German society was not just the drive for colonialism, but also the militarization of German society where the military was important in all aspects of German life, and a military service and rank became almost a necessity to advance in society. In this internal aspect there are parallels. But yes, it is a somewhat weak comparison, as is the the fascism model applied to Thailand.
Do we have to use frames that are only partially applicable to describe the present situation in Thailand, especially when so much of what is going on is lacking any transparency and any attempt of analyses is like fishing in the dark (beyond the factors you mentioned)?
And in this case particularly, where the framework is driven more by activist zealotry than by sound analyses based on data?
A state of madness
Jim Taylor sets a great framework for viewing the current Thai situation and is right for arguing to call out the government’s behavior for what it is. And people here like hrk make good points about how well or not the term fascist applies, especially on the qualities of Prayut vs the iconic fascist leader.
But all of this needs to be done with a great asterisk that is being neglected. Prayut’s dictatorship has come as a placeholder until the great unknown, the succession, takes place. And after that something else is promised and hoped for. That’s what many in the elite, many diplomats, and others at least hope. Some perhaps will want him to continue, and be happy with a strongman regime. But many are expecting, as the junta has promised and then stalled, a return to elected government.
Evidence supporting that and against the classic fascist model is the lack of any drive for anything to improve the country beyond stifling criticism of the monarchy, its generals and its dogs. Despite the well-known challenges the country faces, in education, upgrading the workforce, building competitiveness vis a vis its neighbors, producing a vision for improving the lives of the people, the Prayut government has offered nothing. Even under dictator Suchinda there was somewhat of a reform and advance agenda, which helped with infrastructure.
(That I think is the weakness of the aphichon argument for the Prayut dictatorship: I would guess everyone knows he is not doing a good job of leading the country anywhere; he is only there to manage somehow the royal handover.)
Prayut himself is hardly a visionary leader, and it seems the repeated postponement of elections tracks expectations of how long before succession comes. Where others see a powerful leader I see a lot of weakness. And that itself is dangerous given the possibility that the next king might try to get his own guy in charge, potential for real fascism.
So you have to analyze Prayut’s government in the context of the succession waiting game. For me it is much more a “national security state” but of course that has many of the aspects of fascism.
As for Nick Nostitz’s invocation of Wilhelmian militarism, there seems to be much less in common. We see intensified military organization for internal security, and some “toys for the boys” big equipment purchase plans, but hardly the kind of mobilization to make the military or the Thai state a force amongst its neighbors, nor any type of expansionist/colony-building. Moreover there is no concerted economic buildup. Lest one point to the pivot to China, this is all from a distinct point of weakness and lack of confidence.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Thanks Christine Gray for a really interesting post and one provoking some good discussion.
And now that Thong Daeng has gone to sleep in that great kennel in the sky it is bizarre to see that the Bangkok Post must follow its article http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/809248/hm-king-favourite-pet-dog-dies
with the increasingly common notice “The discussion board on this article has been turned off, because commenting on the above issue may cause legal dispute.”
Of course we are all waiting to see now if the palace will let Thong Daeng pass with lesser funeral rites than ACM Foo-Foo
Madness and loyalty in Thailand
Not exactly a fact, counselor, but perhaps that escapes you. Are you really a bkk lawyer? I would never hire you.
A state of madness
Respect is a two-way street Jim. Your insistence that nobody on the red side engaged in violent attacks in 2010 and 2013/4 is untenable, and your dismissal of journalists who know otherwise as naive or ignorant is arrogant and disrespectful. You seem to be wedded to a simplistic black-and-white moral framework, where one side is utterly blameless and the other side totally evil. This kind of approach is fine for Hollywood movies but not very sensible when applied to the real world. Ironically the ultra-royalists also view the struggle in the same simplistic terms, but with the roles reversed and the reds cast as the villains. The reality is of course much more nuanced.
A state of madness
corrective #18, typo/ ICJ should have been ICC
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
What now? The dog is no more. It has fallen off the perch, ceased to be, gone to greet its maker. We can hope that the Royal Household announcement and funeral will provide more insights into the human world of palace intrigue.
A state of madness
Jim, this arrogant disregard and disrespect for journalists you show here is more than annoying. Several of us were shot, injured and even killed, and risked much during our coverage.
First of all – all of us long term journalists who have dealt with the Red/Yellow conflict have built long term relationships with the Red Shirt leadership (relationships with the Yellow leadership was always more difficult, and over the years deteriorated for most journalists the more anti-foreign media they turned), which is an absolute necessity to work this subject matter.
In my case, many of the Red Shirt leaders i have known for almost ten years now, have seen them, and still see them regularly, and in times of protests i have seen them on a daily base. In 2010, in the night from May 18 to May 19 i sat for several hours, for example, with Jatuporn and Nattawut behind the stage while they waited for a call from the government to respond to the last ditch negotiation efforts by the senate group (a call that never came). In 2009 i photographed when Weng and Nattawut were arrested. The night before i had dinner with Veera Musikapong after he prayed behind the stage when all collapsed. A few hours before Surachai Sae Dan was arrested for Lese Majeste violations i sat with him at Sanam Luang, chatted with him and took his picture. When Somyot was arrested i was called and able to go to the cells and permitted to take his picture inside his cell and had a brief talk with him. I have know Gotee long before he became so well known, visited his radio station many times.
I know the drivers, their body guards and their assistants of most of the main leaders.
I have known many of the Red Shirt guards for years – which happens when you follow a social mass movement from the moment is began after the 2006 coup. I have seen some them go into prison, followed their court cases, and seen them go out of prison again (at least the ones who did not receive long sentences). I have known many ordinary protesters since the Sanam Luang era, some even from the pre-2006 coup days when they camped out at Chatuchak. With some of them i was under fire on several occasions over the years. I have seen people go into hiding, come back and go back again into hiding. In some cases i have even known people who turned from ordinary protesters into armed militants because of their experiences during the protests. And therefore i can clearly state that these people were NOT agent provocateur. Whatever one may think about their decision to use violence is beside the point – it is utter disrespect towards their humanity and ability to make decisions for themselves and to simply dismiss them as such just because it does not suit a pre-framed analyses which is ultimately faulty.
You do confuse spies that were detained by Red Shirts – i have seen that countless times, both real and mistaken ones – with armed militants who were especially in 2010 shielded by their support networks from journalists and even ordinary protesters, and were seen only rarely and in the most dangerous places. After April 10 when they came out in the open for the first time, mostly not even at the barricades, but at night beyond the barricades in no man’s territory between the lines. Just because you may not have seen them does not mean that they do not exist.
I have worked for magazines such as Spiegel and Stern not just as a photographer, but also as translator/consultant/fixer/interviewer because of my long term relationship with protesters and leaders of both camps (Yellow only until late November 2013, when all came crashing down). That is how i made my money. Countless academics and students have contacted me because of my obsessive reporting on the Red/Yellow conflict, and my almost constant presence and contacts. I do not think that i need to list the names – they are almost all who have done field research on this subject matter. I have been able to learn much from them, and i hope they have been able to learn some from my experiences.
The only person who i have never met, been in any contact with, or even know anyone who has met with is you. Not even some of the UDD leaders who i asked if they have heard about you. Your attempts to dismiss me, and my colleagues, here are a miserable tactic to pull yourself up, especially as they come from a person nobody i am aware off has ever met.
And yes, i am more than aware that the Red Shirts are not a homogeneous movement, and over time has evolved and diversified massively. And part of that reality is also that while the majority of the Red Shirts are peaceful citizens who want to express their political views via elections there are some groups who do believe in a form of occasional violent struggle – the armed militants you dismiss as agent provocateur. At least follow the logic of your own arguments, please.
I would rather see your data published here than your opinions, as should be expected from academics. But that is all we get here from you – biased opinion, arrogant summary dismissals of an entire profession and no supportive data whatsoever.
A state of madness
AMM 21.2, on the contrary, I welcome comment but keep it focused on the piece and relevant matters. Facts are hard to substantiate because of the lack of freedoms and censorship in a fascist state, so I would ask that you have some respect for those views which do not fit your own concise world instead of shooting the author.