The intention of the thought experiment, Nick, is to get you and others to realize what it really means when we acknowledge that TS is not a liberal democrat by any stretch of the imagination.
He does not accept the notion of a parliamentary opposition, hence even after Yingluck won a healthy majority with her own party she had to bring even more “political parties” onside with PT to ensure that nothing “parliamentary” would ever threaten any initiative her government might undertake.
He never accepted the notion of a free press when his electoral majorities looked like providing him with enough power to undermine the CC and EC and to take the RTA and its control of media in Thailand under his own wing through nepotism.
Only after those “independent bodies” were turned into anti-Thaksinite weapons and the RTA once more affirmed its sovereign control of the Thai state did his inability to control media begin to look like a more “soft-handed” approach to media censorship and intimidation.
Having eliminated the “checks and balances” created and/or strengthened by the 97 Constitution Thaksin more or less created a situation where either he was allowed total control over the state or the military would have to step in and re-establish the status quo pre-Thaksin.
I am under no illusion that either coup against TS intended to restore real democracy. That is partly due to my awareness that the people behind these coups have no investment in real democracy and partly due to my conviction that you cannot anyway restore what has never existed.
(I should also probably say at this point that I am still not sure that a Singapore-style “soft dictatorship” under TS might not have been a very good thing for Thailand in many ways. I am sure it would not have been either liberal or ultimately democratic though.)
And if yet another farcical election were to be held with yet another castrated-in-advance Thaksin party winning yet another victory, we still would not have democracy in Thailand.
The army and the amart would still hold sovereignty and even less of the budget would be set free as a sop to the “democrats” of PT and their UDD employees.
Of course there are some Reds who would rather see a liberal democratic state established in Thailand. And there are many Reds who are no longer in love with the Shins. But until there is an alternative to vote for and demonstrate for, they seem to be content to ride along with Thaksin. And that is an error.
Self-destructive realpolitik or what?
And the constant repetition of the solecism that “the Thaksin debate/question” has somehow become old hat and only blinkered old-timers care about it any more?
I can only say “Really, how interesting. And were Radiohead actually cool or just a yuppy marketing phenomenon?”
The slogan “Thaksin thinks, PT acts” was current in 2011, was essential to ensuring the PT base understood that ol’ squareface was still in charge, and is as clear an indication as any that even if some of the “cooler” elements in red shirts have moved beyond Thaksin, PT’s PR professionals know that that is simply not the case for the majority of PT supporters.
I suggest some of these people start looking around for financial support from those who are willing to back the formation of a genuine democratic party. Get some of the profs at Thammasat to risk their tenure and stand for parliament under a banner that includes calling for an end to LM abuses. Get some teachers to run on a platform that includes radical change to the ed system in this country.
I could go on, but can’t be bothered when the UDD/PT-inspired answer will be “But that is just a pipe-dream! Thailand isn’t ready for that!”
These kind of “thought experiments” lead nowhere other than into the madness that befell the Yellow Alliance, in their paranoia that if Thaksin is not stopped by any means he may overthrow the monarchy and cause the demise of Thailand. This was former socialists and liberal democrats justified forming strategic alliances with extreme right wingers and some of the worst gangster politicians in Thailand until they became far worse than Thaksin ever was.
Striking deals and forming compromises is essential part of democracy. When that ability is lost, we will see war. It just depends he nature of the deals, and how inclusive they are in the end. What Thaksin’s main contribution to democratic development in Thailand was is that he was a catalyst in the creation of political awareness by drawing common people into politics. His power derived far more from reliance on the vote than by elite consensus, and in return previously politically mostly apathetic sectors learned of the the power of their vote.
And exactly that empowerment turned into a control mechanism as well – as we could see in the “grang soi” vs. “sud soi” conflict, in which a large part of Thaksin’s Red Shirt support base refused to accept the amnesty bill.
That shows that thinking in absolutes, and limiting the discussion to Thaksin, is faulty as it ignores developments that have taken place, and still are taking place. Also Thaksin is forced to be more aware of his supporters views, and cannot just decide over their heads, or go into “deals” without considering his support base.
My questions to you are: What do you propose instead of application of pressure, negotiations, striking deals and finding compromises? Refuse all engagement, go to the streets and ultimately have a war? How would be your strategic model to develop liberal democracy in Thailand? How are you going to deal with opponents of liberal democracy, of which there are plenty?
I’ll leave the labeling of “good” and “bad” to the Yellows and their identical moralizing twins on the other side.
My contention is that Thaksin is not a democrat, does not behave like a democrat in office, either personally or through Skype and family connections, and that a democratic movement that is tied to someone who would squash liberal democracy in a trice if it would benefit him to do so is delusional at best and cynical and perverse at worst.
If someone would care to address that, it might make for an interesting disagreement.
This essay just repeats over-used cliches without providing any new insight.
“Doublespeak” is language that “deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.” Prayut and his team are not guilty of “doublespeak” because they give every indication that they thoroughly believe in what they are doing.
Prayut’s coup brought peace to Thailand after nearly a decade of violent street protests. Furthermore, the doom and gloom, apocalypse now Thailand predictions of Andrew MacGregor and others is all the more reason to extend Prayut’s stay so that this predicted apocalypse does not actually happen.
One function of the military is internal security and this certainly became a necessity after non-stop street protests with no end in sight, particularly when the police were not up to stopping wholesale occupation of central Bangkok by protest groups. “Attitude adjustment” was in fact exactly that, peaceful attitude adjustment, no more protests, even protests protesting the order to stop protesting, rather exemplary seeing that most military regimes choose long-term imprisonment, torture or state sanctioned murder of the sort that occurred under Thaksin at Krue Se, Tak Bai and during the so-called War on Drugs killing spree.
How well Prayut, as a career soldier, has done in governing civilians after attaining the one main goal of peace in Thailand is certainly debatable. Like the regimes that came before it, it continues to lack transparency and continues to be driven by what could only be likened to backwards and reactionary public opinion (Chalerm was a master of this, as in his idea to catch up on the backlog of executions after decades of effectively no death penalty which BTW was true reform but not from the people), but in this respect, it is in no way unique.
As for “reform”, isn’t it blatantly obvious that all sorts of reforms are needed from police reform, to curb regular extortion of suspects, bribery and protection money typically paid for gambling and prostitution, to sangha reform, to put in place modern accounting systems so there is accountability as to what use the annual billions of donations are put to and that this money doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. Not to mention preventing one family, the Shinawatra clan from claiming a lock stock and barrel monopoly on power, after which they stack the police, the courts, government agencies, the army, eliminate independent agencies and cement control for the several decades of Thai Rak Thai control that Thaksin initially had in mind, thereby creating something that no one could mistake for not being an “amat”.
As for “resource grabs”, read the newspaper please, these are a permanent fixture of life in Thailand, being done by anyone with enough power, wealth or by anyone who can get away with (examples infinitum available upon request).
Emjay (#43)has concluded that Thaksin is without doubt a bad thing. Because reliable information is so scarce, I have not been able to work that out with any degree of certainty. One conclusion that I have reached is about the royalists: the better Thaksin was for Thailand, the more they would hate him.
Yo, herder! My comments were intended to be lighthearted and vaguely humorous. Sorry.
But I will say this: your sense of the success of Korean democratic activism is very different from that of an old friend of mine.
Of course, as a committed Marxist student organizer who spent a total of 4 years in S. Korean prisons for her sins, she might have a warped perspective. Her feeling was, and I share it, that it was the Buddhist/Confucian strain in Korean culture that they were fighting against in their attempts to unseat the dictators.
As you may or may not know, S Korea is more Christian than Buddhist in terms of population. And back when it mattered (and presumably when the day comes that it will matter again) the Catholics were on the side of democracy while the Evangelicals (with their roots deep in American culture) were, predictably, not.
With your predilection for spinning the cloth of “democratic development” out of the threads of Thaksinite electoralism you are obviously far more adapted to Thai traditional thinking than I.
My hat is off to you, sir.
But I will stick with my preference for the liberal limits on democracy and my overwhelming sense that pretending Thaksinite administrations have done anything for democracy is as debilitating to Thai democracy as is the reliance on coups to provide the checks and balances otherwise absent in Thai political reality.
I suggest this as a thought experiment: imagine how Thailand would be had TS managed to strike a deal with the right elements in the RTA/Palace cabal?
Then thank our lucky stars his greed is so overwhelming of his political sense!
One should remember that the first commander-in-chief of the “Tatmadaw” right after Independence (before Ne Win) was an ethnic Karen named Smith Dun and when the Karens rebelled, it was the Chin regiments who helped Ne Win fight the KNDO. History is easily forgotten!
By the way, The Light Infantry Divisions 77, 66, 88, … (Burmese are very superstitious about numbers!) also seem to have some fans nowadays!
You are jumping to conclusions without making the effort to read what i say. Are you on purpose trying to misunderstand me?
No, when i state that democracy is a process of development then i do state the nature of democracy, and as i said, that will remain and does so in every democratic country in the world. When i state that structures and institutions in Thailand have not changed yet in Thailand than this is a matter of fact, and when i state that major developments have made in regards to political awareness in people’s minds than this is a very positive statement, and does not as you interpret, that people are not ready.
It means that there is still much resistance by very powerful anti-democratic forces who refuse to adapt structures and institutions, as we have seen when the last government attempted to change parts of the constitution. It also means that it needs the right strategies in order to achieve that. The pipe dream of middle class liberals forming a new party that somehow miraculously wins at ballot boxes, forms a government, and changes these structures and institutions is fantasy and not strategy.
Don’t you think that this has not been discussed and debated in both Red and Yellow circles?
The PAD has tried to form their own political party, and it destroyed the PAD as a social movement. And yes, i am aware that the New Politics Party was not a social liberal democratic party, but that is not the point. In a democracy you will have parties with many different positions and ideologies, and some will not be social liberal in their position. A democracy is not a one party system. The point is that they did not realize that they still depended on their alliance with the Democrat Party.
The UDD has discussed that option many times, in particular during the amnesty bill conflict, and came to the conclusion that they will not be able yet to compete in the conditions that yet prevail in Thailand and that regardless their conflict with the PT, they will have to still be allied with the PT. This question was publicly addressed by Nattawuth at the Bueng Gum stage – which for many reasons was one of the most important events in the history of the UDD.
And no, i am not saying that you have to “spend time with your homies in the UDD/PT world to have valid insights and opinions regarding the state of democratization in Thailand”.
What i am saying is that you have to, given the lack of good local reporting, follow the Red Shirts’ (both UDD and free Red Shirts) discourse before you make judgements about them. Because what i am reading here from you sounds exactly like the rants of grumpy old men who write letters to the editor.
And i am sorry, when you state that:
“That position is very old, very smug, very condescending, and very much a part of the standard repertoire of the very people you would like to appear to oppose.
No wonder you saw PAD’s party as sharing your democratic desires.”
…then how else am i supposed to understand this that you accuse me of being a Yellow Shirt? You could not be much clear that that.
I am an older guy who grew up in Burma a long time ago, so my views are perhaps a bit outdated, but it is true that during the last 2 decades, the Chinese iron grip on the Burmese economy, especially smuggling of natural resources, has caused a lot of damage, politically, economically and above all, ecologically in the country of my ancestors. When I talk to overseas Chinese (in the West), they just say: “China is very good at exploiting corrupt regimes, so what’s wrong about that?”
In any case, there are probably as many recent “illegal” Chinese immigrants in Burma as “illegal Bengalis”. However rich Chinese “business immigrants” can afford to bribe corrupt Burmese officials to get some kind of ID in Burma.
Whether all these anti-Muslim sentiments in Burma are instigated by pro-Chinese elements in Burma to deflect attention from the Chinese economic stranglehold is perhaps a bit far-fetched, but that first incident (of a rape and murder of a Rakhaing girl) that sparked these recent riots happened near Kyaukphru (that’s the Rakhaing pronunciation and some of my ancestors are from there!) which coincidentally or not, is where the Chinese have an oil terminal and are planning to build naval facilities. As I pointed out above China has big geo-strategic “hegemonical” plans (one belt one road as Xi calls it) in Asia as you can see from the islands they are building in the South China Seas.
By the way, Khin Nyunt does have some Chinese blood, like many upper-class people in Burma (although Kim is more a Korean name!)
The editor of the BIN document this commenter refers to was presumably Muhammad AS Hikam, who was minister for technology in Gus Dur’s administration.
I suspect that Jokowi is conducting a more nationalist foreign policy because that’s what his ideological preference is. One doesn’t have the impression Jokowi, who is not even sure where Sukarno was born, has burned much midnight oil examining Indonesia’s recent diplomatic record in order to work out his own priorities.
I doubt in particular that he has objectively analysed the impact of his predecessor’s ‘thousand friends, no enemies’ doctrine. For example, SBY withdrew his ambassador from Saudi Arabia a few years ago in protest over the execution of an Indonesian, a step that Jokowi declined to take earlier this year. Maybe it is Jokowi, not SBY, who was afraid of making Saudi Arabia an ‘enemy’.
Jokowi may have concluded that SBY failed to turn Indonesia into the ‘great power’ that he, Jokowi, wants it to become. This is a goal of which Sukarno, wherever he was born, would have approved. In the early 1960s, he once told an NU politician that of the two big construction sites in Jakarta, the National Monument and the Istiqlal Mosque, the former had to have priority. This was so that foreigners flying over it in the years to come would know that Indonesians formed a ‘bangsa besar’.
Considering the situation in Thailand one is faced with a real dilemma with regards to the appropriate response: whether one should avoid the country like the plague and boycott its export, thereby increasing the unemployment and misery of the poor, or somehow engage with the country locally and internationally.It appears that ony external international pressure could have any results though of a very limited nature and time consuming.
There is another more famous person living in exile in England who writes profically on Thailand. With dual nationality he escaped Thailand before being charged with LM.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Do you ‘like’ the Tatmadaw?
One could easily substitute Thailand’s NCPO for Tatmadaw in paragraph two!
Royal resilience and Thai dictatorship
I think I figured out the gold problem. Now we know where all the gold in Fort Knox has gone off to. ?? US hasn’t audited since 1986. Who knows?
Listen in to the 2015 Myanmar/Burma Update
Hi Matt
Unfortunately the recording of the communal violence panel was corrupted and I have not been able to salvage it.
However, I do have a copy of U Kyaw Min’s address to the audience, which I have added to the playlist.
Sincere apologies for any disappointment.
All the best,
James
Making sense of Myanmar’s borderland conflicts
Hi John
Thanks for the tip. All tracks are now downloadable as well.
Enjoy!
James
Democracy worship in Thailand
The intention of the thought experiment, Nick, is to get you and others to realize what it really means when we acknowledge that TS is not a liberal democrat by any stretch of the imagination.
He does not accept the notion of a parliamentary opposition, hence even after Yingluck won a healthy majority with her own party she had to bring even more “political parties” onside with PT to ensure that nothing “parliamentary” would ever threaten any initiative her government might undertake.
He never accepted the notion of a free press when his electoral majorities looked like providing him with enough power to undermine the CC and EC and to take the RTA and its control of media in Thailand under his own wing through nepotism.
Only after those “independent bodies” were turned into anti-Thaksinite weapons and the RTA once more affirmed its sovereign control of the Thai state did his inability to control media begin to look like a more “soft-handed” approach to media censorship and intimidation.
Having eliminated the “checks and balances” created and/or strengthened by the 97 Constitution Thaksin more or less created a situation where either he was allowed total control over the state or the military would have to step in and re-establish the status quo pre-Thaksin.
I am under no illusion that either coup against TS intended to restore real democracy. That is partly due to my awareness that the people behind these coups have no investment in real democracy and partly due to my conviction that you cannot anyway restore what has never existed.
(I should also probably say at this point that I am still not sure that a Singapore-style “soft dictatorship” under TS might not have been a very good thing for Thailand in many ways. I am sure it would not have been either liberal or ultimately democratic though.)
And if yet another farcical election were to be held with yet another castrated-in-advance Thaksin party winning yet another victory, we still would not have democracy in Thailand.
The army and the amart would still hold sovereignty and even less of the budget would be set free as a sop to the “democrats” of PT and their UDD employees.
Of course there are some Reds who would rather see a liberal democratic state established in Thailand. And there are many Reds who are no longer in love with the Shins. But until there is an alternative to vote for and demonstrate for, they seem to be content to ride along with Thaksin. And that is an error.
Self-destructive realpolitik or what?
And the constant repetition of the solecism that “the Thaksin debate/question” has somehow become old hat and only blinkered old-timers care about it any more?
I can only say “Really, how interesting. And were Radiohead actually cool or just a yuppy marketing phenomenon?”
The slogan “Thaksin thinks, PT acts” was current in 2011, was essential to ensuring the PT base understood that ol’ squareface was still in charge, and is as clear an indication as any that even if some of the “cooler” elements in red shirts have moved beyond Thaksin, PT’s PR professionals know that that is simply not the case for the majority of PT supporters.
I suggest some of these people start looking around for financial support from those who are willing to back the formation of a genuine democratic party. Get some of the profs at Thammasat to risk their tenure and stand for parliament under a banner that includes calling for an end to LM abuses. Get some teachers to run on a platform that includes radical change to the ed system in this country.
I could go on, but can’t be bothered when the UDD/PT-inspired answer will be “But that is just a pipe-dream! Thailand isn’t ready for that!”
And as I have already said, I disagree.
Democracy worship in Thailand
These kind of “thought experiments” lead nowhere other than into the madness that befell the Yellow Alliance, in their paranoia that if Thaksin is not stopped by any means he may overthrow the monarchy and cause the demise of Thailand. This was former socialists and liberal democrats justified forming strategic alliances with extreme right wingers and some of the worst gangster politicians in Thailand until they became far worse than Thaksin ever was.
Striking deals and forming compromises is essential part of democracy. When that ability is lost, we will see war. It just depends he nature of the deals, and how inclusive they are in the end. What Thaksin’s main contribution to democratic development in Thailand was is that he was a catalyst in the creation of political awareness by drawing common people into politics. His power derived far more from reliance on the vote than by elite consensus, and in return previously politically mostly apathetic sectors learned of the the power of their vote.
And exactly that empowerment turned into a control mechanism as well – as we could see in the “grang soi” vs. “sud soi” conflict, in which a large part of Thaksin’s Red Shirt support base refused to accept the amnesty bill.
That shows that thinking in absolutes, and limiting the discussion to Thaksin, is faulty as it ignores developments that have taken place, and still are taking place. Also Thaksin is forced to be more aware of his supporters views, and cannot just decide over their heads, or go into “deals” without considering his support base.
My questions to you are: What do you propose instead of application of pressure, negotiations, striking deals and finding compromises? Refuse all engagement, go to the streets and ultimately have a war? How would be your strategic model to develop liberal democracy in Thailand? How are you going to deal with opponents of liberal democracy, of which there are plenty?
Democracy worship in Thailand
I’ll leave the labeling of “good” and “bad” to the Yellows and their identical moralizing twins on the other side.
My contention is that Thaksin is not a democrat, does not behave like a democrat in office, either personally or through Skype and family connections, and that a democratic movement that is tied to someone who would squash liberal democracy in a trice if it would benefit him to do so is delusional at best and cynical and perverse at worst.
If someone would care to address that, it might make for an interesting disagreement.
Listen in to the 2015 Myanmar/Burma Update
Thanks Matt
I’ll look into it and get it fixed as soon as possible. Watch this space.
All the best
James
Listen in to the 2015 Myanmar/Burma Update
Many thanks, great that these are up. Track 6 is only 9 seconds long however – are we missing the actual file?
The Thai junta’s doublespeak
This essay just repeats over-used cliches without providing any new insight.
“Doublespeak” is language that “deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.” Prayut and his team are not guilty of “doublespeak” because they give every indication that they thoroughly believe in what they are doing.
Prayut’s coup brought peace to Thailand after nearly a decade of violent street protests. Furthermore, the doom and gloom, apocalypse now Thailand predictions of Andrew MacGregor and others is all the more reason to extend Prayut’s stay so that this predicted apocalypse does not actually happen.
One function of the military is internal security and this certainly became a necessity after non-stop street protests with no end in sight, particularly when the police were not up to stopping wholesale occupation of central Bangkok by protest groups. “Attitude adjustment” was in fact exactly that, peaceful attitude adjustment, no more protests, even protests protesting the order to stop protesting, rather exemplary seeing that most military regimes choose long-term imprisonment, torture or state sanctioned murder of the sort that occurred under Thaksin at Krue Se, Tak Bai and during the so-called War on Drugs killing spree.
How well Prayut, as a career soldier, has done in governing civilians after attaining the one main goal of peace in Thailand is certainly debatable. Like the regimes that came before it, it continues to lack transparency and continues to be driven by what could only be likened to backwards and reactionary public opinion (Chalerm was a master of this, as in his idea to catch up on the backlog of executions after decades of effectively no death penalty which BTW was true reform but not from the people), but in this respect, it is in no way unique.
As for “reform”, isn’t it blatantly obvious that all sorts of reforms are needed from police reform, to curb regular extortion of suspects, bribery and protection money typically paid for gambling and prostitution, to sangha reform, to put in place modern accounting systems so there is accountability as to what use the annual billions of donations are put to and that this money doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. Not to mention preventing one family, the Shinawatra clan from claiming a lock stock and barrel monopoly on power, after which they stack the police, the courts, government agencies, the army, eliminate independent agencies and cement control for the several decades of Thai Rak Thai control that Thaksin initially had in mind, thereby creating something that no one could mistake for not being an “amat”.
As for “resource grabs”, read the newspaper please, these are a permanent fixture of life in Thailand, being done by anyone with enough power, wealth or by anyone who can get away with (examples infinitum available upon request).
Making sense of Myanmar’s borderland conflicts
Hi James – thanks for posting on Soundcloud.
Just a thought – you could boost the reach by making them downloadable. Just an option when you upload.
Appreciate the posting!
Democracy worship in Thailand
Emjay (#43)has concluded that Thaksin is without doubt a bad thing. Because reliable information is so scarce, I have not been able to work that out with any degree of certainty. One conclusion that I have reached is about the royalists: the better Thaksin was for Thailand, the more they would hate him.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Yo, herder! My comments were intended to be lighthearted and vaguely humorous. Sorry.
But I will say this: your sense of the success of Korean democratic activism is very different from that of an old friend of mine.
Of course, as a committed Marxist student organizer who spent a total of 4 years in S. Korean prisons for her sins, she might have a warped perspective. Her feeling was, and I share it, that it was the Buddhist/Confucian strain in Korean culture that they were fighting against in their attempts to unseat the dictators.
As you may or may not know, S Korea is more Christian than Buddhist in terms of population. And back when it mattered (and presumably when the day comes that it will matter again) the Catholics were on the side of democracy while the Evangelicals (with their roots deep in American culture) were, predictably, not.
Democracy worship in Thailand
What’s a grumpy old man to say, Nick.
With your predilection for spinning the cloth of “democratic development” out of the threads of Thaksinite electoralism you are obviously far more adapted to Thai traditional thinking than I.
My hat is off to you, sir.
But I will stick with my preference for the liberal limits on democracy and my overwhelming sense that pretending Thaksinite administrations have done anything for democracy is as debilitating to Thai democracy as is the reliance on coups to provide the checks and balances otherwise absent in Thai political reality.
I suggest this as a thought experiment: imagine how Thailand would be had TS managed to strike a deal with the right elements in the RTA/Palace cabal?
Then thank our lucky stars his greed is so overwhelming of his political sense!
Do you ‘like’ the Tatmadaw?
One should remember that the first commander-in-chief of the “Tatmadaw” right after Independence (before Ne Win) was an ethnic Karen named Smith Dun and when the Karens rebelled, it was the Chin regiments who helped Ne Win fight the KNDO. History is easily forgotten!
By the way, The Light Infantry Divisions 77, 66, 88, … (Burmese are very superstitious about numbers!) also seem to have some fans nowadays!
Democracy worship in Thailand
You are jumping to conclusions without making the effort to read what i say. Are you on purpose trying to misunderstand me?
No, when i state that democracy is a process of development then i do state the nature of democracy, and as i said, that will remain and does so in every democratic country in the world. When i state that structures and institutions in Thailand have not changed yet in Thailand than this is a matter of fact, and when i state that major developments have made in regards to political awareness in people’s minds than this is a very positive statement, and does not as you interpret, that people are not ready.
It means that there is still much resistance by very powerful anti-democratic forces who refuse to adapt structures and institutions, as we have seen when the last government attempted to change parts of the constitution. It also means that it needs the right strategies in order to achieve that. The pipe dream of middle class liberals forming a new party that somehow miraculously wins at ballot boxes, forms a government, and changes these structures and institutions is fantasy and not strategy.
Don’t you think that this has not been discussed and debated in both Red and Yellow circles?
The PAD has tried to form their own political party, and it destroyed the PAD as a social movement. And yes, i am aware that the New Politics Party was not a social liberal democratic party, but that is not the point. In a democracy you will have parties with many different positions and ideologies, and some will not be social liberal in their position. A democracy is not a one party system. The point is that they did not realize that they still depended on their alliance with the Democrat Party.
The UDD has discussed that option many times, in particular during the amnesty bill conflict, and came to the conclusion that they will not be able yet to compete in the conditions that yet prevail in Thailand and that regardless their conflict with the PT, they will have to still be allied with the PT. This question was publicly addressed by Nattawuth at the Bueng Gum stage – which for many reasons was one of the most important events in the history of the UDD.
And no, i am not saying that you have to “spend time with your homies in the UDD/PT world to have valid insights and opinions regarding the state of democratization in Thailand”.
What i am saying is that you have to, given the lack of good local reporting, follow the Red Shirts’ (both UDD and free Red Shirts) discourse before you make judgements about them. Because what i am reading here from you sounds exactly like the rants of grumpy old men who write letters to the editor.
And i am sorry, when you state that:
“That position is very old, very smug, very condescending, and very much a part of the standard repertoire of the very people you would like to appear to oppose.
No wonder you saw PAD’s party as sharing your democratic desires.”
…then how else am i supposed to understand this that you accuse me of being a Yellow Shirt? You could not be much clear that that.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to China
I am an older guy who grew up in Burma a long time ago, so my views are perhaps a bit outdated, but it is true that during the last 2 decades, the Chinese iron grip on the Burmese economy, especially smuggling of natural resources, has caused a lot of damage, politically, economically and above all, ecologically in the country of my ancestors. When I talk to overseas Chinese (in the West), they just say: “China is very good at exploiting corrupt regimes, so what’s wrong about that?”
In any case, there are probably as many recent “illegal” Chinese immigrants in Burma as “illegal Bengalis”. However rich Chinese “business immigrants” can afford to bribe corrupt Burmese officials to get some kind of ID in Burma.
Whether all these anti-Muslim sentiments in Burma are instigated by pro-Chinese elements in Burma to deflect attention from the Chinese economic stranglehold is perhaps a bit far-fetched, but that first incident (of a rape and murder of a Rakhaing girl) that sparked these recent riots happened near Kyaukphru (that’s the Rakhaing pronunciation and some of my ancestors are from there!) which coincidentally or not, is where the Chinese have an oil terminal and are planning to build naval facilities. As I pointed out above China has big geo-strategic “hegemonical” plans (one belt one road as Xi calls it) in Asia as you can see from the islands they are building in the South China Seas.
By the way, Khin Nyunt does have some Chinese blood, like many upper-class people in Burma (although Kim is more a Korean name!)
Making waves
The editor of the BIN document this commenter refers to was presumably Muhammad AS Hikam, who was minister for technology in Gus Dur’s administration.
I suspect that Jokowi is conducting a more nationalist foreign policy because that’s what his ideological preference is. One doesn’t have the impression Jokowi, who is not even sure where Sukarno was born, has burned much midnight oil examining Indonesia’s recent diplomatic record in order to work out his own priorities.
I doubt in particular that he has objectively analysed the impact of his predecessor’s ‘thousand friends, no enemies’ doctrine. For example, SBY withdrew his ambassador from Saudi Arabia a few years ago in protest over the execution of an Indonesian, a step that Jokowi declined to take earlier this year. Maybe it is Jokowi, not SBY, who was afraid of making Saudi Arabia an ‘enemy’.
Jokowi may have concluded that SBY failed to turn Indonesia into the ‘great power’ that he, Jokowi, wants it to become. This is a goal of which Sukarno, wherever he was born, would have approved. In the early 1960s, he once told an NU politician that of the two big construction sites in Jakarta, the National Monument and the Istiqlal Mosque, the former had to have priority. This was so that foreigners flying over it in the years to come would know that Indonesians formed a ‘bangsa besar’.
Royal resilience and Thai dictatorship
Considering the situation in Thailand one is faced with a real dilemma with regards to the appropriate response: whether one should avoid the country like the plague and boycott its export, thereby increasing the unemployment and misery of the poor, or somehow engage with the country locally and internationally.It appears that ony external international pressure could have any results though of a very limited nature and time consuming.
Royal resilience and Thai dictatorship
There is another more famous person living in exile in England who writes profically on Thailand. With dual nationality he escaped Thailand before being charged with LM.