I have always known that there are many ‘standards’ of Democracy. Just as people have different ‘puke’ thresholds for leaders who misbehave, so do people have different standards of how ‘true democracy’ must be measured.
But your standard of democracy ’21Jan’ is what provokes a coup, not mine. Election is only the first hurdle to be an accepted elected leader. After the election, the elected must always earn his mandate . . not be repeated elections but by upholding constitutional ethiquetes and maintaining and upholding the rule of law. Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – – repeated reelection will legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.
Taxi Driver your poster #30 was your best! I never imagine you Taxi Driver for such great sense of humour – – the first mention of ‘saviour’ already got me giggling, by the second mention of ‘saviour’ and Thaksin in the same breath, I was gasping for breath because I I could help nor stop myself from roaring with laughter for many minutes.
To anon: Hopefully, those wives were also beautiful and charming, besides being economically enlightened. 🙂
To Bearling: In a modern economy, “equitable sharing of benefits” in practice sounds like a social state to me.
Part of the charm of “sufficiency economy” is that, suddenly, all sort of things are subsumed under it, things that previously would stand alone, or in the ordinary economy textbook context.
[…] Back in July, Andrew Walker posted a short review of Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles.┬ This book continues to atract a great deal of interest.┬ Anybody keen to quickly come up to speed on the issues it raises could do worse than trawl through these New Mandala posts.┬ Over the past week or more,┬ Andrew’s review┬ has seen a lot of traffic, and a number of fresh comments about the book have been posted.┬ […]
So here we are, fretting about succession because we have allowed ourselves to become reliant on a one-person institution to be our saviour from potential tyrants. We, the entire country, the Thai nation, have let ourselves become hostage to “key man risk”. This is all the more diappointing given we all knew, and have known for decades, how unfit to reign the next “key man” is.
And here’s the rub: in 2006 we killed off the only other potential saviour that could have stepped into the shoes of the one-man institution to mitigate our exposure to key man risk: democracy. We cheered on the generals and their tanks, stupidly believing that we were getting rid of an unpopular prime minister. The truth is, we were giving away our only “saviour” – i.e. our own power – hard fought for over the decades since 1974. Now we can only “hope” that the generals will act not in self-interest but in the national interest. Ahhh, how trusting we Thais are in the virtue of our generals, despite a long history of treatment they dished out to us, and their grotesquely corrupt & immoral track record. Why do we keep on letting the generals take control? Why?
The King is very rich. Thai Baht 3,000,000,000 is also tax-free.
It’s a real pity for poor Thai people. The rich keeps telling us to follow the Sufficient Economic Policy. Between the line is that the rich doesn’t want poor people to have more economic power.
“Let the people be poor and uneducated, they will be very obedient and easy to be controlled.” That’s the unspoken opinion from the blue blood and the anti-Taksin groups.
It is not surprising that South Africa would have sided with China in the Security Council vote regarding Myanmar. Not only is China one of South Africa’s most important trade partners, but it is, more importantly, a crucial politicl ally. South Africa has great aspirations to a permanent seat on the Security Council: China has the potential to be highly influential in this regard, if SA plays its cards right. Furthermore, China, as a leader amongst developing countries, is important to South Africa in boosting its own status amongst developing countries, as well as being a mouthpiece for developing country interests. Hence, South Africa needs China within the international political arena and will therefore tread carefully within the Security Council. It is unlikely that we will witness South Africa voting against China’s interests.
If by locating “HIV/AIDS in the lap of the impoverished” you mean “blaming the impoverished for HIV/AIDS”, then nothing is further from my view. HIV/AIDS is an illness caused by a virus, not by the poor.
Perhaps your question was directed more at wanting me to explain why I think there is a link between poverty and HIV/AIDS. An argument for this link is made very forcefully by Paul Farmer in “Pathologies of Power” “Aids and Accusation” and “Infections and Inequalities”. If you are interested in these questions, I suggest you consult these works directly. For the sake of responding to your question though Nirut, I give this potted summary.
Farmer is an anthropologist and a medical doctor. He informs us that since 1995 it has been evident that antiretroviral “drug cocktails” can dramatically cut mortality and virtually wipe out mother-to-child transmission. Populations on ARV also experience LOWER INFECTION RATES. But these drugs are costly: around $1500 a year for each patient when Farmer was writing. They also require infrastructure (refrigeration, electricity). The development industry saw ARVs as wasteful, as not “sustainable”, and not “cost-effective”. Farmer asks why is it “sustainable” for the sick in the US and Europe to use these drugs, but not “sustainable” for poor people in the Third World to use them? Farmer reports on a program he ran distributing ARV in Haiti. It was a success. More people came to be tested because it was no longer seen as a death sentence or a stigma to have HIV/AIDS. He argues that, around the world, models that ignore treatment are destined to fail. Yet, prevention-only models are repeatedly the only assistance on offer to the Third World.
Farmer argues that poverty is a major risk factor for HIV/AIDS. If you are poor, you are more likely to be infected, less likely to receive care, more likely to die of a preventable complication. These risks are multiplied if you are poor and also a woman. HIV/AIDS is an epidemic of poverty.
Farmer argues that the severity of the epidemic in the Third World is attributable directly to a miserly distribution of resources. ARVs can reduce transmission rates and provide hope to the ill. He anticipates the response of development workers – that ARV drugs are too expensive. Farmer acknowledges that the medications are too expensive – but asks what that means: that the medicines should not be given to the poor? Or that the price should come down? The basic question is: is health a commodity? Or is it a right? Farmer argues that it is a right.
I doubt it was his intention to call for union-friendly laws and labour rights. An extensive welfare system also isn’t really an intricate part of being self-sufficient.
I am curious though – which policies would qualify as “self-sufficient” and at the same time lead to “equitable sharing of economic benefits”?
I must agree with polo & taxi driver – divisions and problems may not occur the day after the transition, but they will occur. We should remember that even Rama IX’s position was rather tenuous until the mid 50’s/early 60’s when he teamed up with Sarit to create the present Rama IX cult, helped along by massive US funding to thwart the supposedly advancing Communist threat. It’s unlikely that that sort of confluence of events and circumstances would be repeated – Thailand is not nearly in the same position regarding the “international terrorism threat” that it was in regarding the “Communist threat” – probably Jordan is in that position now.
Besides, V’s reputation is well ingrained, as opposed to IX in the 1950’s, when he was still new, relatively unknown & unsullied, and therefore could create his own repuation from scratch. Regardless of how many charity flights he pilots, I doubt people are going to forget about his past behavior.
S is simply not strong enough to stand up to the forces that are going to be pushing her around, IMHO.
I struggle to think of any smooth transition from a near-universally revered leader when the successor has not been clearly selected and accepted. Even when selected, it’s tough. Consider the aftermath of Mohammed’s death – it split the new Islamic faith between those who followed his family vs. those who followed his advisors. This is the orgin of the Sunni/Shiite split and they’re still fighting 1,500 years later.
Solving the succession issue isn’t about individuals, it’s about process and mechanism, in other words, stable political insitutions accepted by the people. Thailand’s efforts to create this have been as weak and shortsighted as Thaksin’s rural development programs – all window dressing to pleast the masses with little substance that ultimately becomes apparent and causes problems.
thanakarn, you don’t get it, don’t you. Democracy is ALWAYS about vote-buying one way or another. Vichai might be shocked but it is most of the time the personal benefit that let people vote and almost never some noble attitude: The middle-class votes for tax-deductions and infrastructure-projects and the upper class (most probably) for the politicians which they can influence (buy) most easily. If you have children you might vote green and if you are working-class you might vote socialist / social-democrat. You cannot blame the poor for voting with their pockets, because everyone is doing it (and that the poor sold their votes in Thailand directly for years is only due to the fact that they had the impression – at least until the arrival of the populist policies of TRT – that this would be the only gain they could get from elections because no party cared about their interests) Let me cite Ajarn Thongchai at the end who makes a valid point when he says:”Democracy anywhere in the world is never a rule of the educated, the smarter, the urban, or the better-informed. It is a rule by popular mandate. No matter if/ how ignorant people are, the elected government has the rights to rule. It is true that democracy does not mean only election. But election is THE ultimate and unviolable source of legitimacy to rule. The higher moral or good ethics is not. The higher education is not. The better access to information is not. Nor are weapons or any unelected aristocrats.”
Anon is disturbed that Princess Sarindhorn, instead of the Prince, will inherit the throne. I was expecting that. I am sure that very scenario would disturb Republican and a lot of these anti-monoarchy camp.
Because the Princiess is much loved by the Thai people and if she inherits could ensure that the Thai monarchy remain an institution maybe for another century.
I see it and if I see it, you can be sure that a lot of level-headed men around HMK could see that too.
I told you Republican that the monarchy would probably outlast our lifetimes and maybe that of our children and that to me will be good for Thailand.
Taxi Driver has identified a major problem – the military.
It seems attending military academy is a prerequisite for being PM. There also seems to be some code that says if you get into a position of power, you have a duty to promote (enrich) others in the same Class (year) as you were.
Another major problem is corruption, not only the military, but in the police, bureaucracy and in business.
As for succession, the most important thing is that the next monarch has the respect of the general population.
That’s bad news for the prince, because even if he has reached a level of maturity and wisdom that makes him worthy of the position, his past actions and the thai ‘rumour mill’ have meant that he does not have the necessary respect in the community.
So, in the scenario that the princess was annointed as the next monarch:
– If the prince has attained maturity and wisdom, then he will understand the situation and there should be no problem from him, and hopefully he can control his backers.
– If he does take action then it would also prove that he was not worthy of being the monarch.
I would expect that such discussions should already have been held or are taking place now, and hopefully HMK can explain to the prince that he can still make a worthwhile contribution, without being the monarch.
There could still be trouble caused by one clique feeling they are missing out on power (and the loot), but that would just be ‘business as usual’ in Thailand.
At least now that Thaksin is no longer PM, he is available to be president should the need arise 🙂
I think a lot of Thais are having wet dreams that she’ll marry the ever popular King Jigme of Nepal, adopt Ong Pa as her daughter, and start the first pan-asian self-sufficient national-happiness royal family 🙂
Absolutely. Other nations should just sit back whilst people suffer under oppressive regimes. We have no moral or legal obligation to do anything so why bother? People get the government they deserve, right?
Anon #18: That scenario doesn’t save the monarchy for decades. Sirindhor is 51 and quite fat. Overweightedness is a key factor to early death. So she might not have 20 years to go. Meanwhile, with the prince’s line gone, and Sirindhorn not having children/heirs, for the whole of her reign peole will be worrying, jockeying and perhaps fighting to see which of the thousands of King Mongkut descendants — and that’s alot of sleazy families — would get the throne. Or perhaps the Bunnags will get back together. Who knows? And therein lies the problem: uncertainty for the throne, in fact no future known beyond Sirindhorn, would generate havoc. What do you think brought Thaksin to Thailand.
As for taxi driver #20, it wouldn’t take the CNS and constitutions to start a problem. The first time the prince is pushed to intervene on one side or another would fuel a problem, for two reasons: his judgment is habitually bad, and secondly, there are people who would look for a chance to show how vulnerable he is by starting a fight.
Vichai, you are living in a fantasy land. If S becomes the next monarch, do you think that V, who has been promised the crown for the past 30 years, will simply say “Congratulations!” and retire to a life of whoring? The only reason the King hasn’t appointed S as successor already is because if he did so, he would be signing a death sentence for his own daughter.
HMK Bhumibol Adulyadej has been a failure.
For all the love and respect that the Thai people have for him, he has failed to guarantee a succession that will not result in violence and chaos.
[…] New Mandala highlights South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s remarks on his government’s vote against the US and British backed UN Security Council resolution on Myanmar. Preetam Rai […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
One vote, one value
I truly grasp your meaning ’21Jan’.
I have always known that there are many ‘standards’ of Democracy. Just as people have different ‘puke’ thresholds for leaders who misbehave, so do people have different standards of how ‘true democracy’ must be measured.
But your standard of democracy ’21Jan’ is what provokes a coup, not mine. Election is only the first hurdle to be an accepted elected leader. After the election, the elected must always earn his mandate . . not be repeated elections but by upholding constitutional ethiquetes and maintaining and upholding the rule of law. Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – – repeated reelection will legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Taxi Driver your poster #30 was your best! I never imagine you Taxi Driver for such great sense of humour – – the first mention of ‘saviour’ already got me giggling, by the second mention of ‘saviour’ and Thaksin in the same breath, I was gasping for breath because I I could help nor stop myself from roaring with laughter for many minutes.
General Surayud pitches 2007 as “year of great reforms”
To anon: Hopefully, those wives were also beautiful and charming, besides being economically enlightened. 🙂
To Bearling: In a modern economy, “equitable sharing of benefits” in practice sounds like a social state to me.
Part of the charm of “sufficiency economy” is that, suddenly, all sort of things are subsumed under it, things that previously would stand alone, or in the ordinary economy textbook context.
The King Never Smiles?
[…] Back in July, Andrew Walker posted a short review of Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles.┬ This book continues to atract a great deal of interest.┬ Anybody keen to quickly come up to speed on the issues it raises could do worse than trawl through these New Mandala posts.┬ Over the past week or more,┬ Andrew’s review┬ has seen a lot of traffic, and a number of fresh comments about the book have been posted.┬ […]
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
So here we are, fretting about succession because we have allowed ourselves to become reliant on a one-person institution to be our saviour from potential tyrants. We, the entire country, the Thai nation, have let ourselves become hostage to “key man risk”. This is all the more diappointing given we all knew, and have known for decades, how unfit to reign the next “key man” is.
And here’s the rub: in 2006 we killed off the only other potential saviour that could have stepped into the shoes of the one-man institution to mitigate our exposure to key man risk: democracy. We cheered on the generals and their tanks, stupidly believing that we were getting rid of an unpopular prime minister. The truth is, we were giving away our only “saviour” – i.e. our own power – hard fought for over the decades since 1974. Now we can only “hope” that the generals will act not in self-interest but in the national interest. Ahhh, how trusting we Thais are in the virtue of our generals, despite a long history of treatment they dished out to us, and their grotesquely corrupt & immoral track record. Why do we keep on letting the generals take control? Why?
The King Never Smiles?
The King is very rich. Thai Baht 3,000,000,000 is also tax-free.
It’s a real pity for poor Thai people. The rich keeps telling us to follow the Sufficient Economic Policy. Between the line is that the rich doesn’t want poor people to have more economic power.
“Let the people be poor and uneducated, they will be very obedient and easy to be controlled.” That’s the unspoken opinion from the blue blood and the anti-Taksin groups.
The Burmese veto aftermath and dictators’ friends
It is not surprising that South Africa would have sided with China in the Security Council vote regarding Myanmar. Not only is China one of South Africa’s most important trade partners, but it is, more importantly, a crucial politicl ally. South Africa has great aspirations to a permanent seat on the Security Council: China has the potential to be highly influential in this regard, if SA plays its cards right. Furthermore, China, as a leader amongst developing countries, is important to South Africa in boosting its own status amongst developing countries, as well as being a mouthpiece for developing country interests. Hence, South Africa needs China within the international political arena and will therefore tread carefully within the Security Council. It is unlikely that we will witness South Africa voting against China’s interests.
The rich don’t go to prison, and the poor don’t go to hospital
Dear Nirut,
If by locating “HIV/AIDS in the lap of the impoverished” you mean “blaming the impoverished for HIV/AIDS”, then nothing is further from my view. HIV/AIDS is an illness caused by a virus, not by the poor.
Perhaps your question was directed more at wanting me to explain why I think there is a link between poverty and HIV/AIDS. An argument for this link is made very forcefully by Paul Farmer in “Pathologies of Power” “Aids and Accusation” and “Infections and Inequalities”. If you are interested in these questions, I suggest you consult these works directly. For the sake of responding to your question though Nirut, I give this potted summary.
Farmer is an anthropologist and a medical doctor. He informs us that since 1995 it has been evident that antiretroviral “drug cocktails” can dramatically cut mortality and virtually wipe out mother-to-child transmission. Populations on ARV also experience LOWER INFECTION RATES. But these drugs are costly: around $1500 a year for each patient when Farmer was writing. They also require infrastructure (refrigeration, electricity). The development industry saw ARVs as wasteful, as not “sustainable”, and not “cost-effective”. Farmer asks why is it “sustainable” for the sick in the US and Europe to use these drugs, but not “sustainable” for poor people in the Third World to use them? Farmer reports on a program he ran distributing ARV in Haiti. It was a success. More people came to be tested because it was no longer seen as a death sentence or a stigma to have HIV/AIDS. He argues that, around the world, models that ignore treatment are destined to fail. Yet, prevention-only models are repeatedly the only assistance on offer to the Third World.
Farmer argues that poverty is a major risk factor for HIV/AIDS. If you are poor, you are more likely to be infected, less likely to receive care, more likely to die of a preventable complication. These risks are multiplied if you are poor and also a woman. HIV/AIDS is an epidemic of poverty.
Farmer argues that the severity of the epidemic in the Third World is attributable directly to a miserly distribution of resources. ARVs can reduce transmission rates and provide hope to the ill. He anticipates the response of development workers – that ARV drugs are too expensive. Farmer acknowledges that the medications are too expensive – but asks what that means: that the medicines should not be given to the poor? Or that the price should come down? The basic question is: is health a commodity? Or is it a right? Farmer argues that it is a right.
General Surayud pitches 2007 as “year of great reforms”
Social Market Economy?
I doubt it was his intention to call for union-friendly laws and labour rights. An extensive welfare system also isn’t really an intricate part of being self-sufficient.
I am curious though – which policies would qualify as “self-sufficient” and at the same time lead to “equitable sharing of economic benefits”?
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
I must agree with polo & taxi driver – divisions and problems may not occur the day after the transition, but they will occur. We should remember that even Rama IX’s position was rather tenuous until the mid 50’s/early 60’s when he teamed up with Sarit to create the present Rama IX cult, helped along by massive US funding to thwart the supposedly advancing Communist threat. It’s unlikely that that sort of confluence of events and circumstances would be repeated – Thailand is not nearly in the same position regarding the “international terrorism threat” that it was in regarding the “Communist threat” – probably Jordan is in that position now.
Besides, V’s reputation is well ingrained, as opposed to IX in the 1950’s, when he was still new, relatively unknown & unsullied, and therefore could create his own repuation from scratch. Regardless of how many charity flights he pilots, I doubt people are going to forget about his past behavior.
S is simply not strong enough to stand up to the forces that are going to be pushing her around, IMHO.
I struggle to think of any smooth transition from a near-universally revered leader when the successor has not been clearly selected and accepted. Even when selected, it’s tough. Consider the aftermath of Mohammed’s death – it split the new Islamic faith between those who followed his family vs. those who followed his advisors. This is the orgin of the Sunni/Shiite split and they’re still fighting 1,500 years later.
Solving the succession issue isn’t about individuals, it’s about process and mechanism, in other words, stable political insitutions accepted by the people. Thailand’s efforts to create this have been as weak and shortsighted as Thaksin’s rural development programs – all window dressing to pleast the masses with little substance that ultimately becomes apparent and causes problems.
One vote, one value
thanakarn, you don’t get it, don’t you. Democracy is ALWAYS about vote-buying one way or another. Vichai might be shocked but it is most of the time the personal benefit that let people vote and almost never some noble attitude: The middle-class votes for tax-deductions and infrastructure-projects and the upper class (most probably) for the politicians which they can influence (buy) most easily. If you have children you might vote green and if you are working-class you might vote socialist / social-democrat. You cannot blame the poor for voting with their pockets, because everyone is doing it (and that the poor sold their votes in Thailand directly for years is only due to the fact that they had the impression – at least until the arrival of the populist policies of TRT – that this would be the only gain they could get from elections because no party cared about their interests) Let me cite Ajarn Thongchai at the end who makes a valid point when he says:”Democracy anywhere in the world is never a rule of the educated, the smarter, the urban, or the better-informed. It is a rule by popular mandate. No matter if/ how ignorant people are, the elected government has the rights to rule. It is true that democracy does not mean only election. But election is THE ultimate and unviolable source of legitimacy to rule. The higher moral or good ethics is not. The higher education is not. The better access to information is not. Nor are weapons or any unelected aristocrats.”
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Anon is disturbed that Princess Sarindhorn, instead of the Prince, will inherit the throne. I was expecting that. I am sure that very scenario would disturb Republican and a lot of these anti-monoarchy camp.
Because the Princiess is much loved by the Thai people and if she inherits could ensure that the Thai monarchy remain an institution maybe for another century.
I see it and if I see it, you can be sure that a lot of level-headed men around HMK could see that too.
I told you Republican that the monarchy would probably outlast our lifetimes and maybe that of our children and that to me will be good for Thailand.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Taxi Driver has identified a major problem – the military.
It seems attending military academy is a prerequisite for being PM. There also seems to be some code that says if you get into a position of power, you have a duty to promote (enrich) others in the same Class (year) as you were.
Another major problem is corruption, not only the military, but in the police, bureaucracy and in business.
As for succession, the most important thing is that the next monarch has the respect of the general population.
That’s bad news for the prince, because even if he has reached a level of maturity and wisdom that makes him worthy of the position, his past actions and the thai ‘rumour mill’ have meant that he does not have the necessary respect in the community.
So, in the scenario that the princess was annointed as the next monarch:
– If the prince has attained maturity and wisdom, then he will understand the situation and there should be no problem from him, and hopefully he can control his backers.
– If he does take action then it would also prove that he was not worthy of being the monarch.
I would expect that such discussions should already have been held or are taking place now, and hopefully HMK can explain to the prince that he can still make a worthwhile contribution, without being the monarch.
There could still be trouble caused by one clique feeling they are missing out on power (and the loot), but that would just be ‘business as usual’ in Thailand.
At least now that Thaksin is no longer PM, he is available to be president should the need arise 🙂
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
I think a lot of Thais are having wet dreams that she’ll marry the ever popular King Jigme of Nepal, adopt Ong Pa as her daughter, and start the first pan-asian self-sufficient national-happiness royal family 🙂
Tutu on South Africa’s Burma vote
Absolutely. Other nations should just sit back whilst people suffer under oppressive regimes. We have no moral or legal obligation to do anything so why bother? People get the government they deserve, right?
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Anon #18: That scenario doesn’t save the monarchy for decades. Sirindhor is 51 and quite fat. Overweightedness is a key factor to early death. So she might not have 20 years to go. Meanwhile, with the prince’s line gone, and Sirindhorn not having children/heirs, for the whole of her reign peole will be worrying, jockeying and perhaps fighting to see which of the thousands of King Mongkut descendants — and that’s alot of sleazy families — would get the throne. Or perhaps the Bunnags will get back together. Who knows? And therein lies the problem: uncertainty for the throne, in fact no future known beyond Sirindhorn, would generate havoc. What do you think brought Thaksin to Thailand.
As for taxi driver #20, it wouldn’t take the CNS and constitutions to start a problem. The first time the prince is pushed to intervene on one side or another would fuel a problem, for two reasons: his judgment is habitually bad, and secondly, there are people who would look for a chance to show how vulnerable he is by starting a fight.
General Surayud pitches 2007 as “year of great reforms”
You Germans must have learned sufficiency and moderation from your Thai wives…. 🙂
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Vichai, you are living in a fantasy land. If S becomes the next monarch, do you think that V, who has been promised the crown for the past 30 years, will simply say “Congratulations!” and retire to a life of whoring? The only reason the King hasn’t appointed S as successor already is because if he did so, he would be signing a death sentence for his own daughter.
HMK Bhumibol Adulyadej has been a failure.
For all the love and respect that the Thai people have for him, he has failed to guarantee a succession that will not result in violence and chaos.
Tutu on South Africa’s Burma vote
[…] New Mandala highlights South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s remarks on his government’s vote against the US and British backed UN Security Council resolution on Myanmar. Preetam Rai […]
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Thais should learn to not accept the military’s role in politics. The military is the real problem in Thailand.