I’ve read most of your stuff, Nick, and I have your two lovely books here on my shelves. And before you started your strawman-making and your hollow handwaving and your dismissive non-arguments, I had a lot of respect for you.
But what really brought me to my new assessment of you as just another Red Farang is your ridiculous repetition of the “internal discourse” nonsense.
I have a lot of respect for ordinary Redshirts. I don’t believe for a moment that you are referring to them when you whisper the “internal discourse” dogwhistle yet again.
I don’t despise anyone involved in the UDD/PT condominium we are discussing (or at least I am).
I just don’t accept that they are leading anyone toward liberal-democracy. It’s that simple.
Like most Red Farang you conveniently forget that that is what this whole thing is about. Either that or your definition of democracy has been bent and shaped to fit the Thai situation.
Of course, you are not alone in this “Thai-style democracy” discourse, and you are welcome to it, but I’ll pass, thanks.
It doesn’t speak to the issue of democratization in Thailand so much as it does to the rearranging of deckchairs on SS Thainess.
Unlike you, I think it best to judge a political party and its stalwart factions by what they do in power and not by what they say amongst themselves when people like you are around.
The records of the various TRT/PPP/PT administrations and their various leaders and proxies stand for themselves. The crass revisionism that people like yourself engage in when pretending that TS was just an example of “imperfect democracy” would be hilarious were it not so disrespectful of so many dead and otherwise damaged individuals.
The history of social-political unrest in Thailand, especially since the 70s, also stands for itself. And it is not the history of the passive apolitical people that you so condescendingly invoke whenever you want us to ignore the reality of TS and his authoritarianism and see him as some sort of alarm clock having woken the sleepers.
I would recommend that you go back and reread what I have said rather than the convenient distortions thereof that you have “responded” to. Think about some of the realities and get over your obsession with “internal discourse”. Familiarize yourself with Thai history pre-Thaksin and pre-you and learn to respect the urge to democracy and popular sovereignty that existed in this country long before Lt.Col. Thaksin started shifting his billions out of telecoms and into a more pure and direct form of power.
You might also want to get over the non-argument of internet halfwits everywhere in suggesting that because there is no “perfect democracy”, anything that gets into power through elections can be called democratic.
A Prime Minister without access to violence is really not proving her “liberalism” by not engaging in violence. I’m sure even you and the RF crowd hereabouts can figure that out for yourselves.
The problem as I see it is having the honesty to admit it.
As one of these last word types (who comes back even after having flounced and twittered “racist!”) you can have the rest of this exchange all to yourself. That way it will look a lot more like what it really has been all along.
Emjay, to be honest – your accusation of me being condescending has been nagging at me. That is a bit of a case of glasshouse and throwing stones. You have been nothing but condescending to the many ordinary Red Shirts who have for years fought for what they believe in, by dismissing them simply as tools of Thaksin (if people support Thaksin, or feel that he represents them best, it is their democratic right to feel that way, and they are to be taken serious and engaged with, and not dismissed, or looked down upon).
The UDD is not just the leadership which you quite obviously despise, but it is hundreds of thousands of ordinary Thais who have organized themselves all over the country. These people are driving the discourse (a evolving discourse you seem to have consistently ignored) as much as the leadership does, if not more so, and have risked and sacrificed much over the past decade, while you followed twitter and read blogs, and condescendingly dismissed the hard work of anyone who disagrees with you, such as simply labeling me as “Red Farang” – an accusation that indeed is highly insulting and ignorant, as you quite obviously have not read much of what i have reported over the past years.
You don’t even have the balls to come out with your insults under your real name, and have to hide behind anonymity…
Thank you very much, Khun Niphon. That has exactly been my point all along. The different incidents of violence have given us a taste what a revolution/civil war would bring us. Not exactly what i would like to see and experience. The PDRC episode was bad enough – even though less dead than in 2010, the quality of the violence was far worse, especially when you look at the many people who were tortured, some even tortured to death. The hatred that was spread through the PDRC has peaked to much higher levels than ever before during the Red/Yellow conflict.
Given the present social and political configurations in Thailand any attempt of a “revolution” would be exceedingly bloody and result in a highly asymmetric conflict scenario where the most likely outcome would be a prolonged insurgency. Just imagine a situation such as in the deep south, only much wider spread. And if the highly unlikely situation arises that some parts of the military would split and join that “revolution”, the blood toll would be even worse. Not exactly a very democratic scenario.
Additionally, while up till now a majority (or plurality) of the electorate has voted Red in national elections, i very much doubt that it would tolerate or support a prolonged insurgency. Lets not forget please – these people are normal citizens who want what most people all over the world want: go to work, raise their children, have security and elect the government they feel represents them best.
Thailand is not in a situation where an extremely repressive dictatorship controls its population by brute force, leaving the people no other choice than rising up. The present junta has been too smart to fall into such a trap. We still have the same general fault lines between Red and Yellow, and the military still enjoys wide support. Even though increasing sectors of Yellow are disappointed with the junta (esp. on economic issues) – the meme of the “Thaksin system” will ensure their continued support (unless the economy really goes down the drain).
Khun Nick’s comments about the cost of lives in revolution come from someone who has seen political violence here first hand. A peaceful change is most welcome, but will take time and be more like evolution. Where has real fast revolution taken place without bloodshed? Look at “revolutions” in Cambodia, China, Russia, even France. All seemed justified by abuses by authoritarians, but all led to lots of killings and most to even worse authoritarians. Don’t wish that on us.
Thank you for your comment. I agree there should be freedom of expression and no problem with comments being largely unedited. But for articles posted on New Mandala, there should be some quality. Perhaps standard should be similar to what newspapers use for their op/ed page. Your comment on military officers is reasonable — expressing different possibilities and explaining why liberal officers have not come forth. This is quite better than the original post which states speculation and opinion as fact and leaves unclear whether some statements are literal or metaphor.
I think Michael Aung-Thwin is a lot more “Westernised” than Suu Kyi. Anyway, “Sinicisation” and not “Westernisation” is what’s causing problems in Burma, but the West did misjudge Suu Kyi’s true character. She is a very ambitious woman with a huge ego and is definitely not a Mother Theresa type (notwithstanding all the accolades she received from the West)
By the way, half of my ancestors were born within a 20 mile radius of Pyinmana (Nypyitaw didn’t exist in those days).
A historical factoid: before the British granted independence, they actually thought about restoring the monarchy in Burma by anointing the Prince of Pyinmana to be the new King ( instead of negotiating Burma’s independence with Aung San, Suu Kyi’s dad)
Well Burma would have “grown up” very differently (more like Thailand?)
Wonder..how secure this website is to protect the users from Thailand. And I also have a suggestion for this website..the posts should be editable by its owner.
If the Thai Prince or anyone inherits the throne, Thai monarchy will be survived longer than 3 years for sure..as people who surround the monarchy will not let it fall easily…it means their power and wealth too!
It is surprising that he said “5 or 10 years”. I was expecting about 20 years, given uncompromising attitude of the opposition.
I am not arguing for a utopia commonly featured on communist posters. But in the past twenty years, how far would Myanmar have progressed if the opposition (and the world) understood, and had sympathy for, the views and arguments of those in the military. We don’t see any attempt by Burmese opposition to ease military fears of civilian politics. Every time we hear the same tales about kicking the military out. Much of the 2008 constitution was already completed in 1995, but opposition MPs walked out, threatened Nuremberg-style trials, and asked for sanctions. In the 17-years standoff, cronies grew wealth and deeply entrenched in the economy, Pagan was haphazardly restored, dissents were sent to prisons and people became poorer. Yet NLD ended up accepting the same constitution in 2012.
“All means were used to mass parliamentary following. Ministerial positions were promised, money was lavishly used to buy up the MPs, autonomous States were bargained, and “special” concessions such as formation of racial battalions in the army, and removal of immigration and customs checks in smuggling areas, were promised. In short, both factions tried to sell the country to serve their purposes; and only the price differed, one selling at a cheaper bargain than the other.” –Guardian Sein Lwin writing about the split of AFPFL, The Split Story, The Guardian, 1959
The events of 1958, and threats of Shan states to secede from the Union, forever shocked the military. DASSK was in India, and then in Europe, and did not experience how close the country her father gave life for was to secession. We can see from speeches that her way of thinking, which is a reflection of her Oxford PPE degree, is more suited to Roman Republic style power struggles than Myanmar politics. Many ethnic politicians, ex-commanders who retired from politics, and academics like Dr. Kyaw Yin Hlaing and Michael Aung-Thwin, who worked with her, also made the same observation: “She was too Westernized”. The generals are no saints. Some like the late U Aung Thaung may be excessively greedy. But many are also sincere. In fact, 1/3 of NLD senior members like U Tin Oo are ex-military commanders. We shouldn’t buy the narratives that those who came out military become saints but those who are in are devils.
I’m really glad to see that my work on Thailand has not been in vain. A few years ago everybody ignored the succession. Now it has become openly discussed, and that can only be a good thing. My only criticism of this article is that it omits one essential point – the main reason the succession is so contentious is that the monarch controls a massive fortune of more than $30 billion. In such circumstances, it’s easy to understand why there is a secret war over who becomes the next monarch.
K.Niphon your demand for the highest standards of editorial control and management is fine in principal but in the case of assertions about the palace and control, how exactly would such facts be obtained?
You have an entire country and system that mitigates against any real information or discussion being available of disclosed in any direct and useful way. It would be an offense for anyone in Thailand to go on the record and state that Bhumipol has any role in politics.
To hold editors to a standard that you do could be seen as simply an attempt to limit discussion on a topic in which discussion is actively and viciously inhibited by the current rulers.
Is it really your position that people drawing their own conclusions and expressing an opinion on what they think is the situation should be muzzled because they can’t prove their assertions?
He didn’t say Malaysians are “stupid” and you shouldn’t try putting words in his mouth. The word he used is “hugely gullible”, and his targets are obvious.
Thank you and job well done with this article. I agree fully, and I still believe that Mahathir had a worse record in rule; from oppression of media, jailing of counterparts, removal of constitutional safeguards. But to Malaysians, 42 bil is all they see right now.
And they still think Proton, mega-projects are things we should be proud of. Let’s just add a number here: RM 972 billion. Petronas’ total revenue since its inception up to end 2013. What’s left? 27 bil. Who lost more money again?
Dear Manjit, Malaysians are not that stupid. Najib is only accountable to the Umno Malays, mostly rural ones. No alternative media expose or opposition MPs’ (like Tony Pua) can affect his support base, except Mahathir’s. Yes, many believe worst had happened in Mahatir’s era. Yes, evidence is just a print-out away (by Bank Negara Malaysia). It is obvious nothing meaningful could be done as long as he is in the PM office. What else beside Mahathir?? Street demo with huge non-Malay participation? But no one want to risk another racial confrontation.
I agree with almost everything Rose has written, but not so much the two last paragraphs. We have seen how much trouble royalists have given elected governments. There is no reason why that would not continue. The least that needs to be done is to exile any potential pretenders to the throne, as well as other key royalists (they are all rich enough to go to Monaco). Also, the Thais having kowtowed to a bunch of goons for their entire history, any period of greatness for them can only be in the future.
Well, what a splendidly intelligent response by *newmandalacensors*. The jingoism highlights the commentator’s sheer brilliance, not to mention his or her racist ilk. It must be a Malaysian, well-schooled in the art of nasty racism, courtesy of his or her Umno mentors. And they’re a highly intelligent lot, too, aren’t they?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A tale of two cities in Myanmar
Buddha was a “Kalar”, no?
Thailand will never have democracy unless…
I’ve read most of your stuff, Nick, and I have your two lovely books here on my shelves. And before you started your strawman-making and your hollow handwaving and your dismissive non-arguments, I had a lot of respect for you.
But what really brought me to my new assessment of you as just another Red Farang is your ridiculous repetition of the “internal discourse” nonsense.
I have a lot of respect for ordinary Redshirts. I don’t believe for a moment that you are referring to them when you whisper the “internal discourse” dogwhistle yet again.
I don’t despise anyone involved in the UDD/PT condominium we are discussing (or at least I am).
I just don’t accept that they are leading anyone toward liberal-democracy. It’s that simple.
Like most Red Farang you conveniently forget that that is what this whole thing is about. Either that or your definition of democracy has been bent and shaped to fit the Thai situation.
Of course, you are not alone in this “Thai-style democracy” discourse, and you are welcome to it, but I’ll pass, thanks.
It doesn’t speak to the issue of democratization in Thailand so much as it does to the rearranging of deckchairs on SS Thainess.
Unlike you, I think it best to judge a political party and its stalwart factions by what they do in power and not by what they say amongst themselves when people like you are around.
The records of the various TRT/PPP/PT administrations and their various leaders and proxies stand for themselves. The crass revisionism that people like yourself engage in when pretending that TS was just an example of “imperfect democracy” would be hilarious were it not so disrespectful of so many dead and otherwise damaged individuals.
The history of social-political unrest in Thailand, especially since the 70s, also stands for itself. And it is not the history of the passive apolitical people that you so condescendingly invoke whenever you want us to ignore the reality of TS and his authoritarianism and see him as some sort of alarm clock having woken the sleepers.
I would recommend that you go back and reread what I have said rather than the convenient distortions thereof that you have “responded” to. Think about some of the realities and get over your obsession with “internal discourse”. Familiarize yourself with Thai history pre-Thaksin and pre-you and learn to respect the urge to democracy and popular sovereignty that existed in this country long before Lt.Col. Thaksin started shifting his billions out of telecoms and into a more pure and direct form of power.
You might also want to get over the non-argument of internet halfwits everywhere in suggesting that because there is no “perfect democracy”, anything that gets into power through elections can be called democratic.
A Prime Minister without access to violence is really not proving her “liberalism” by not engaging in violence. I’m sure even you and the RF crowd hereabouts can figure that out for yourselves.
The problem as I see it is having the honesty to admit it.
As one of these last word types (who comes back even after having flounced and twittered “racist!”) you can have the rest of this exchange all to yourself. That way it will look a lot more like what it really has been all along.
Ciao!
Thailand will never have democracy unless…
Emjay, to be honest – your accusation of me being condescending has been nagging at me. That is a bit of a case of glasshouse and throwing stones. You have been nothing but condescending to the many ordinary Red Shirts who have for years fought for what they believe in, by dismissing them simply as tools of Thaksin (if people support Thaksin, or feel that he represents them best, it is their democratic right to feel that way, and they are to be taken serious and engaged with, and not dismissed, or looked down upon).
The UDD is not just the leadership which you quite obviously despise, but it is hundreds of thousands of ordinary Thais who have organized themselves all over the country. These people are driving the discourse (a evolving discourse you seem to have consistently ignored) as much as the leadership does, if not more so, and have risked and sacrificed much over the past decade, while you followed twitter and read blogs, and condescendingly dismissed the hard work of anyone who disagrees with you, such as simply labeling me as “Red Farang” – an accusation that indeed is highly insulting and ignorant, as you quite obviously have not read much of what i have reported over the past years.
You don’t even have the balls to come out with your insults under your real name, and have to hide behind anonymity…
Thailand will never have democracy unless…
Thank you very much, Khun Niphon. That has exactly been my point all along. The different incidents of violence have given us a taste what a revolution/civil war would bring us. Not exactly what i would like to see and experience. The PDRC episode was bad enough – even though less dead than in 2010, the quality of the violence was far worse, especially when you look at the many people who were tortured, some even tortured to death. The hatred that was spread through the PDRC has peaked to much higher levels than ever before during the Red/Yellow conflict.
Given the present social and political configurations in Thailand any attempt of a “revolution” would be exceedingly bloody and result in a highly asymmetric conflict scenario where the most likely outcome would be a prolonged insurgency. Just imagine a situation such as in the deep south, only much wider spread. And if the highly unlikely situation arises that some parts of the military would split and join that “revolution”, the blood toll would be even worse. Not exactly a very democratic scenario.
Additionally, while up till now a majority (or plurality) of the electorate has voted Red in national elections, i very much doubt that it would tolerate or support a prolonged insurgency. Lets not forget please – these people are normal citizens who want what most people all over the world want: go to work, raise their children, have security and elect the government they feel represents them best.
Thailand is not in a situation where an extremely repressive dictatorship controls its population by brute force, leaving the people no other choice than rising up. The present junta has been too smart to fall into such a trap. We still have the same general fault lines between Red and Yellow, and the military still enjoys wide support. Even though increasing sectors of Yellow are disappointed with the junta (esp. on economic issues) – the meme of the “Thaksin system” will ensure their continued support (unless the economy really goes down the drain).
And so, the game of chess continues…
Thailand will never have democracy unless…
Khun Nick’s comments about the cost of lives in revolution come from someone who has seen political violence here first hand. A peaceful change is most welcome, but will take time and be more like evolution. Where has real fast revolution taken place without bloodshed? Look at “revolutions” in Cambodia, China, Russia, even France. All seemed justified by abuses by authoritarians, but all led to lots of killings and most to even worse authoritarians. Don’t wish that on us.
Thailand will never have democracy unless…
Mr. England,
Thank you for your comment. I agree there should be freedom of expression and no problem with comments being largely unedited. But for articles posted on New Mandala, there should be some quality. Perhaps standard should be similar to what newspapers use for their op/ed page. Your comment on military officers is reasonable — expressing different possibilities and explaining why liberal officers have not come forth. This is quite better than the original post which states speculation and opinion as fact and leaves unclear whether some statements are literal or metaphor.
Is Naypyitaw growing up?
I think Michael Aung-Thwin is a lot more “Westernised” than Suu Kyi. Anyway, “Sinicisation” and not “Westernisation” is what’s causing problems in Burma, but the West did misjudge Suu Kyi’s true character. She is a very ambitious woman with a huge ego and is definitely not a Mother Theresa type (notwithstanding all the accolades she received from the West)
By the way, half of my ancestors were born within a 20 mile radius of Pyinmana (Nypyitaw didn’t exist in those days).
A historical factoid: before the British granted independence, they actually thought about restoring the monarchy in Burma by anointing the Prince of Pyinmana to be the new King ( instead of negotiating Burma’s independence with Aung San, Suu Kyi’s dad)
Well Burma would have “grown up” very differently (more like Thailand?)
A tale of two cities in Myanmar
#6.1
Rather surprised not claiming Pegu/Bago is found by the Kalar instead of The Mon.
Political implications of Thailand’s royal succession
Wonder..how secure this website is to protect the users from Thailand. And I also have a suggestion for this website..the posts should be editable by its owner.
If the Thai Prince or anyone inherits the throne, Thai monarchy will be survived longer than 3 years for sure..as people who surround the monarchy will not let it fall easily…it means their power and wealth too!
Is Naypyitaw growing up?
It is surprising that he said “5 or 10 years”. I was expecting about 20 years, given uncompromising attitude of the opposition.
I am not arguing for a utopia commonly featured on communist posters. But in the past twenty years, how far would Myanmar have progressed if the opposition (and the world) understood, and had sympathy for, the views and arguments of those in the military. We don’t see any attempt by Burmese opposition to ease military fears of civilian politics. Every time we hear the same tales about kicking the military out. Much of the 2008 constitution was already completed in 1995, but opposition MPs walked out, threatened Nuremberg-style trials, and asked for sanctions. In the 17-years standoff, cronies grew wealth and deeply entrenched in the economy, Pagan was haphazardly restored, dissents were sent to prisons and people became poorer. Yet NLD ended up accepting the same constitution in 2012.
“All means were used to mass parliamentary following. Ministerial positions were promised, money was lavishly used to buy up the MPs, autonomous States were bargained, and “special” concessions such as formation of racial battalions in the army, and removal of immigration and customs checks in smuggling areas, were promised. In short, both factions tried to sell the country to serve their purposes; and only the price differed, one selling at a cheaper bargain than the other.” –Guardian Sein Lwin writing about the split of AFPFL, The Split Story, The Guardian, 1959
The events of 1958, and threats of Shan states to secede from the Union, forever shocked the military. DASSK was in India, and then in Europe, and did not experience how close the country her father gave life for was to secession. We can see from speeches that her way of thinking, which is a reflection of her Oxford PPE degree, is more suited to Roman Republic style power struggles than Myanmar politics. Many ethnic politicians, ex-commanders who retired from politics, and academics like Dr. Kyaw Yin Hlaing and Michael Aung-Thwin, who worked with her, also made the same observation: “She was too Westernized”. The generals are no saints. Some like the late U Aung Thaung may be excessively greedy. But many are also sincere. In fact, 1/3 of NLD senior members like U Tin Oo are ex-military commanders. We shouldn’t buy the narratives that those who came out military become saints but those who are in are devils.
Political implications of Thailand’s royal succession
If only it could be openly discussed in Thailand, which is the only place where it would make the slightest difference.
Political implications of Thailand’s royal succession
I’m really glad to see that my work on Thailand has not been in vain. A few years ago everybody ignored the succession. Now it has become openly discussed, and that can only be a good thing. My only criticism of this article is that it omits one essential point – the main reason the succession is so contentious is that the monarch controls a massive fortune of more than $30 billion. In such circumstances, it’s easy to understand why there is a secret war over who becomes the next monarch.
Thailand will never have democracy unless…
K.Niphon your demand for the highest standards of editorial control and management is fine in principal but in the case of assertions about the palace and control, how exactly would such facts be obtained?
You have an entire country and system that mitigates against any real information or discussion being available of disclosed in any direct and useful way. It would be an offense for anyone in Thailand to go on the record and state that Bhumipol has any role in politics.
To hold editors to a standard that you do could be seen as simply an attempt to limit discussion on a topic in which discussion is actively and viciously inhibited by the current rulers.
Is it really your position that people drawing their own conclusions and expressing an opinion on what they think is the situation should be muzzled because they can’t prove their assertions?
Dear Malaysia: Mahathir is no messiah
Some things or most things in Malaysia will never change, especially racism and corruuption.
Dear Malaysia: Mahathir is no messiah
He didn’t say Malaysians are “stupid” and you shouldn’t try putting words in his mouth. The word he used is “hugely gullible”, and his targets are obvious.
Dear Malaysia: Mahathir is no messiah
Thank you and job well done with this article. I agree fully, and I still believe that Mahathir had a worse record in rule; from oppression of media, jailing of counterparts, removal of constitutional safeguards. But to Malaysians, 42 bil is all they see right now.
And they still think Proton, mega-projects are things we should be proud of. Let’s just add a number here: RM 972 billion. Petronas’ total revenue since its inception up to end 2013. What’s left? 27 bil. Who lost more money again?
Dear Malaysia: Mahathir is no messiah
Dear Manjit, Malaysians are not that stupid. Najib is only accountable to the Umno Malays, mostly rural ones. No alternative media expose or opposition MPs’ (like Tony Pua) can affect his support base, except Mahathir’s. Yes, many believe worst had happened in Mahatir’s era. Yes, evidence is just a print-out away (by Bank Negara Malaysia). It is obvious nothing meaningful could be done as long as he is in the PM office. What else beside Mahathir?? Street demo with huge non-Malay participation? But no one want to risk another racial confrontation.
Malaysia’s opposition is not dead: Nik Nazmi
Yes, indeed, UMNO is no vacant lot, but a lot of garbage.
The Republic of Siam?
I agree with almost everything Rose has written, but not so much the two last paragraphs. We have seen how much trouble royalists have given elected governments. There is no reason why that would not continue. The least that needs to be done is to exile any potential pretenders to the throne, as well as other key royalists (they are all rich enough to go to Monaco). Also, the Thais having kowtowed to a bunch of goons for their entire history, any period of greatness for them can only be in the future.
Malaysia’s opposition is not dead: Nik Nazmi
Well, what a splendidly intelligent response by *newmandalacensors*. The jingoism highlights the commentator’s sheer brilliance, not to mention his or her racist ilk. It must be a Malaysian, well-schooled in the art of nasty racism, courtesy of his or her Umno mentors. And they’re a highly intelligent lot, too, aren’t they?