An excellent analysis of the current situation, and I think his conclusions are right on the mark. I agree that the powers-that-be “know that such large-scale eviction would likely erode their political legitimacy and lead to widespread resistance.” Therefore, the targets will be those who are easily dispossessed. Sadly, that probably also means we won’t be reading about many more high-profile evictions of resort owners who have encroached on forest land, except for one or two cases pending in Phuket province, which my intuition tells me will continue to be pursued.
Actually, I hope they do “emphasize cases targeting rich absentee encroachers and offer limited land rights to some communities and landless farmers, as they promised last July.” This would indeed make their actions more politically palatable to me, and most people who pay attention to such matters. I remember how good it made me feel to see Gen. Surayud forced to vacate his vacation home he had built illegally on forest land.
I also don’t believe that Prayuth will be successful “at stopping the rubber boom, especially in the North and Northeast” in an effort to shore up rubber prices. Many farmers in the region are turning from rice to rubber tree plantations, including my father-in-law (who is a retired school teacher) in Ubon Ratchatani. He and other relatives made the decision to plant rubber trees based on the fairly recent profitable experiences of their neighbors, and the development of new varieties of rubber trees that are well adapted to grow in the Isaan climate.
The problem at the core of Thai society is it’s “tradition”. Like many other outdated traditions in this world, it needs to change in order for society to progress. For example, why do they still kill rhinos to make traditional Chinese medicine that doesn’t work? If you take the “magic” out of your tradition then it becomes meaningless. There is way too much “magic” in Thai society and very little common sense. Thai society is not complicated, its just full of b.s. We need to let the old ways die out as nature intended it to. Prayuth and friends may claim righteousness, but karma will show the truth.
Yes, the umbrella of Rohingya seems to have subsumed under it Myedu and other non-Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine. But how about Rakhine ethnicity? How come you look so sure about the authenticity of Rakhine identity? How come you are so sure about all 2-3 millions who say in unison that they are Rakhines, pure and unmixed! But in reality, there is no such thing as a pure race! It seems if you are a Buddhist in Rakhine State, you are a Rakhine! That’s it!
Andrew, Nick and others have already eloquently exposed some of the major flaws in Mr. Blaxland’s arguments, so I shall try not to be redundant. Instead, i would like to focus on the strategic rationale raised by Mr. Blaxland – viz, that since Thailand has been a reliable Cold War ally,we should not be critical. As someone has pointed out, this was the same rationale used by Western powers for supporting unsavory dictatorships around the world. Whatever the morality was back then, times have changed in the two decades ; supporting a fascist elite in a society where less than 1% of the society control more than 50 of the wealth ( according to the The Economist) is not only immoral, it is stupid.
What Prayuth and his cronies are trying to create is a permanent fascist state where obedient peasants kow tow to their resplendent rulers in Bangkok. As General Prayuth’s good friend Suthep gloated publicly at a victory celebration after the coup, this undemocratic seizure of power from a democratically elected government was planned for years.
The pretext for the coup was an end to corruption and the need for stability. As Andrew points out,the Thai army is as corrupt as any institution in Thailand, so the replacement of one mafia by another is not a good recipe for reform.
Similarly, while most of us will agree that political stability is good for business it is worth asking what was the source of the instability. As anyone who was in Bangkok earlier this year could see, the instability caused by Suthep and his PDRC cohorts was bought anf paid for by elements in the Bangkok elite. It can come as no surprise, then, when this same elite applauds their own handiwork.
As for the future – well, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the junta has no interest in either reconciliation or democracy. Their primary focus has been crushing all remnants of the Shinawatra legacy, and using the draconian LM laws to crush even a whiff of dissent.
Short term, it may therefore appear to the untrained eye that ” order has been restored”. However, the junta has granted itself absolute power not based on rule of law, but based on a martial law written in 1908. This absolute power may be temporarily exhilarating – General Prayuth is free to interrupt populat soap operas whenever he wants with his long-winded speeches. And when people complain, he is free to decree that soap operas are the root of all social evil, and that he will rewrite them himself – presumably with happy endings every thirty seconds.
As Lord Acton told us, ” Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and we have already witnessed a series of spectacular miscues by the junta on the world stage – most recently after the tragic murders of the British tourists on Khao Tao. General Prayuth is starting to get a reputation as a bumbling buffoon in the General Idi Amin Dada style. To say that he is unprepared for his position as absolute dictator would be an understatement – but who is going to tell him when he makes a mistake? As a Thai general, he is only familiar with one way communication. Imperator fiat.
As a result, the future for Thailand is anything but sustainable. The massive social divisions linger simmering just beneath the surface, and the populace are hardly going to forget this military betrayal of their very democratically elected government led by Yingluck.
As has been pointed out, Yingluck made every effort to compromise and accomodate the opposition, only to be rewarded with a very unconstitutional putsch.
In rush to embrace his old military cronies, Mr. Blaxland has forgotten the X factor – the Thai people. When they take over , we cannot expect them to be as forgiving as Yingluck. As John LeCarre put it, ” When the Thai gets crossed, he starts killing…”
Unless there is a highly unlikely change in the course set by the junta. there will be a lot of scores settled when the roof caves in as this thoroughly corrupt absolute dictatorship runs the country into the ground.
As a fellow veteran of East Timor, I am surprised that Mr. Blaxland seems to have forgotten the legacy of the notorious Indonesian dictator General Suharto..
Prayuth might be taking a cue from the Burmese junta generals next door. Like them, he is even wearing civilian clothes more often.
“Discipline-flourishing Democracy with Thai characteristics”? lol
Overall, this seems a very good article by Dr. Blaxland – especially it’s call for us farang to be very wary of misunderstanding, and thereby judging, Thailand through our own prisms.But to NOT do so is an extremely difficult intellectual – even emotional – task.
Apart from obvious cirticisms of Blaxland on points of detail, raised by MacGregor Marshall, Nostitz, etc. – eg. that Thai coups ARE usually bloodless (though rarely their pre-math and after-math, I would argue), there’s two broader fundamental flaws in Blaxland’s over-all argument : namely 1) his treatment of “Thailand” – rather than Siam – as some sort of take-for-granted unified entity, and ditto his view of the military. Having lived in Isaarn, and then taught in Bangkok where Isaarn kids were regularly discriminated against, I very much doubt both Blaxland’s assumptions, on these two issues.
But some seem to be more concerned that returning fighters will re-enter Indonesia not as members of a terrorist organisation bent on committing mass murder, but as representatives of a foreign state.
……………..
An enduring point. Some Indonesian politicians supported Jihad in Maluku and Poso. Some supported JI. Some no doubt now sympathise with IS or AQ and it would be good to know who among them still support Jihad within the framework of NKRI as well as the transnationals. And call them out for it. But it didn’t need the rest of the post to pad it out.
A large and continuing part of the problem in the Australian academia since the contemporary rise of Islamicism has been the utter failure of secular analysts to understand Theist thinking. A single Christian Indonesian ‘Islamolog’ with experience teaching in peak Islamic educational institutions is worth more than all the atheist ONA types. How can you task others to answer questions, estimate and predict trends when you don’t even understand how Theists think?
Rather than secular academics interpreting all things Caliphate for a secular readership, NM could do something really useful like inviting the Australian founder of HT in Indonesia, Abdurrahman al Bagdhadi, to contribute a written explanation.
It offers no new ideas or views on the coup and, in fact, just replicates existing dominant ideas on the coup that are circulating in Thailand.
It doesn’t really provoke much new thinking as all the responses are just repeating the same fact-based arguments that have been made for years.
I suppose you could argue that such voices need to be disseminated in order to be countered but this piece does have the air of NM trying to stir up a debate by allowing extremist positions to be stated but, instead of a debate, this just ends up as an echo chamber.
Be great to see a piece where one of the assembled anti-coup commentators actually comes up with some semblance of an idea about what steps Thailand should now take to
A) bring down the coup
B) create a sustainable democracy
C) defend that democracy.
compare ‘previous’ coup to the ‘present’ coup!?…are you making joke?…
Coup, to me, should never even ‘exist’! I have voting right. Millions Thais have their voting right! We’d voted for many times and will always be waiting for. Although today, coup forces people to shut their mouth, quietly captured them one by one.
Respect majority vote!! People will never rest arguing on the army/whistle mob’s selection for us the ‘best’ and ‘decent’ man with zero corruption!! cause we’ve never seen one.
Andrew has already addressed several points that are terribly wrong with this article. There are more to address.
1) on the question of the amnesty bill – while the introduction of the bill was without doubt authoritarian, it nevertheless has been withdrawn soon after as a result of strong resistance of both the opposition and of the government allied UDD. It is furthermore a entirely polemic point to simply state the old Democrat Part Mantra suggesting that the only reason for this amnesty bill were Thaksin’s return. It ignores the more than two years of secret negotiations that have led to the amnesty bill in the first place.
2) In the same way the few sentences regarding the drug war are polemic, and completely leave out the more uncomfortable fact that this was not just Thaksin’s policy, but a combined effort of ALL sectors of power in Thailand (i don’t want to be anymore specific, but relevant evidence is widely available as long as one looks). Many of Thaksin’s opponents have played very active and supportive roles in the drug war, including in the killings.
3) the mantra that both sides, government and opposition, have been at a deadlock, with no side willing to compromise, is factually wrong. Fact is, that the government has offered almost every compromise that was legally and democratically possible.
– the government has withdrawn the amnesty bill
– the government has, faced with continued protests, dissolved parliament and called new elections
– the government has pledged to introduce after elections independent reform councils, to adhere to the reforms, and to call new elections as soon as these reforms have been completed
The PDRC and the Democrat Party however have not compromised on one single issue and rejected every single offer of compromise by the government. Their primary demands were not even constitutionally backed, such as the government stepping down before elections. Another such dubious demand was the PDRC’s very liberal interpretation of article 3 and 7 of the constitution. And before anyone compares the 2010 Red Shirt protests and the PDRC protests – the demands in 2010 were constitutional: dissolution of parliament and new elections.
4) as to reforms, especially concerning police. So far, the efforts of reforming the police after the coup have exhausted themselves in replacing the top ranked officers with officers close to Suthep and the military. These officers have neither any backing in the force, nor have they been chosen by professional standards.
If i may cite an example here: 10 months ago, and 5 months ago, i have filed legal cases against the PDRC. In the case of 10 months ago, when i was beaten up, there is more than sufficient video and photo evidence available on the incident. Even though repeated request by the UN to proceed with these cases quickly – not a single case has moved a millimeter. These cases are deeply buried, and sources within the force have explained me that the new generals are protecting the PDRC leader i have filed the case against, and that i cannot expect these cases to see the light of day until the political situation changes. This is quite a clear example that we have no police reform whatsoever, but that far worse cronyism in the upper ranks of the force have been introduced after the coup.
5) As to rule of law. Even today the court’s assessment is regularly cited, that the PDRC rally was ‘peaceful’. Which it quite obviously wasn’t. In that spirit, no effort is made anymore at all to arrest known PDRC gunmen, such as several of the shooters of the Laksi incident who were photographed and filmed with the faces clearly recognizable.
There would be a lot more to say regarding the staffing of the NLA (mostly soldiers), and the NRC (very prominent roles of rabid Thaksin opponents who have been on PAD/Siam Sammakhi/Pitak Siam/PDRC stages.
This speaks for itself.
“Before many in the West react in horror at this apparent anti-democratic ‘outrage’ with its echoes across the border in Myanmar, it would be wise to reflect on the experience of two paragons of democratic virtue – Britain and Canada – both of which retain appointed upper houses of parliament. Their experience should provide a salutary caution against patronisingly and disdainfully dismissing suggestions for a partially appointed legislature.”
Also “wise” and “salutary” that Dr Blaxland take pause to reflect on the UK’s Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949 – which expressly confer supremacy on the elected House of Commons. While Canada doesn’t enshrine the principle in equivalent Acts, the enduring convention achieves the same result for their own House of Commons.
May I suggest less hyperbole and more attention to salient facts (however inconvenient they may be)?
AIW – I stand corrected. Just checked a minute ago and the link was ‘unblocked’. An indication of just how hit and miss the authorities are in their attempts to ban ‘questionable’ material. That’s at least one thing we can be thankful for – official ineptitude.
Sadly this also extends to such things as the tenth rate performance by the police in dealing with the Koh Tao murders.
I completely agree with Andrew mcGregor Marshall’s criticism of Blaxland’s preposterous analysis. Prayudh’s antidemocratic coup is outrageous and unjustifiable. We must support the Thai people and oppose this junta of criminals and stooges
Largely agree with Andrew, but one other point is about the Appointed Senate:
“With Yingluck’s removal, the largely appointed Senate decided in a high-handed manner to appoint an alternative prime minister without consulting Yingluck’s side of politics. Had that appointment proceeded who knows how much the country would have been torn with dissension, but pundits reckon the prospects were dire. Prayuth, knowing of the distribution of weapons and discovery of arms caches, acted pre-emptively to avoid a descent into far greater bloodshed than had already been witnessed.
…
Thailand’s constitution is scheduled to be written prior to elections anticipated in October 2015. It is likely that in the bicameral political model employed – one that echoes the Westminster constitutional-monarchy model familiar to countries of the former British Empire – the senate will be largely an appointed body.
Before many in the West react in horror at this apparent anti-democratic ‘outrage’ with its echoes across the border in Myanmar, it would be wise to reflect on the experience of two paragons of democratic virtue – Britain and Canada – both of which retain appointed upper houses of parliament.”
1. So on one hand, Blaxland views that the Senate was planning to act in a heavy-handed manner & this would result would have been chaos & Prayuth acted to prevent this, but then on the other hand, he says that the West should not patronisingly and disdainfully dismiss suggestions for a partially appointed legislature. Doesn’t he see the flaw in his argument?
2. Senate powers in the UK and Canada are limited, more so in the UK. They cannot remove a PM, they don’t have all these powers to appoint independent bodies, the judiciary etc. In both countries, the Senate is appointed by the PM (to be accurate, they are appointed by the Governor-General, but this is upon the advice on the PM). In Thailand, this is not the case at all. There is no sign that this is going to change. In fact, we may move from a partially-appointed to a fully-appointed Senate.
The author is correct to state that condemning Thailand and the coup-makers is counterproductive for Western governments and their objectives, both political and financial.
However, his attempts to provide moral justifications for tacitly or otherwise supporting the coup, is at best disingenuous and at worst ignorant. The divisions in Thai society are still present, they are simply being suppressed at the moment.
The current administration is not a benevolent nonpartisan one reuniting Thailand, it is a dictatorship attempting to secure a total domination victory for one side at the expense of the other. Personally, I fear for the future.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
The technical term for what I am talking about is “history”. It is also widely referred to as “the past”.
Any further questions?
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
<<Thailand was a semi-colony of Britain from the mid-19th century to the WW2,
What on earth are you talking about?
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
<< Like them, he is even wearing civilian clothes more often.
It would be interesting to hear your theory about why he does this. I'm baffled, personally.
Forest evictions under Prayuth?
An excellent analysis of the current situation, and I think his conclusions are right on the mark. I agree that the powers-that-be “know that such large-scale eviction would likely erode their political legitimacy and lead to widespread resistance.” Therefore, the targets will be those who are easily dispossessed. Sadly, that probably also means we won’t be reading about many more high-profile evictions of resort owners who have encroached on forest land, except for one or two cases pending in Phuket province, which my intuition tells me will continue to be pursued.
Actually, I hope they do “emphasize cases targeting rich absentee encroachers and offer limited land rights to some communities and landless farmers, as they promised last July.” This would indeed make their actions more politically palatable to me, and most people who pay attention to such matters. I remember how good it made me feel to see Gen. Surayud forced to vacate his vacation home he had built illegally on forest land.
I also don’t believe that Prayuth will be successful “at stopping the rubber boom, especially in the North and Northeast” in an effort to shore up rubber prices. Many farmers in the region are turning from rice to rubber tree plantations, including my father-in-law (who is a retired school teacher) in Ubon Ratchatani. He and other relatives made the decision to plant rubber trees based on the fairly recent profitable experiences of their neighbors, and the development of new varieties of rubber trees that are well adapted to grow in the Isaan climate.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
The problem at the core of Thai society is it’s “tradition”. Like many other outdated traditions in this world, it needs to change in order for society to progress. For example, why do they still kill rhinos to make traditional Chinese medicine that doesn’t work? If you take the “magic” out of your tradition then it becomes meaningless. There is way too much “magic” in Thai society and very little common sense. Thai society is not complicated, its just full of b.s. We need to let the old ways die out as nature intended it to. Prayuth and friends may claim righteousness, but karma will show the truth.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Yes, the umbrella of Rohingya seems to have subsumed under it Myedu and other non-Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine. But how about Rakhine ethnicity? How come you look so sure about the authenticity of Rakhine identity? How come you are so sure about all 2-3 millions who say in unison that they are Rakhines, pure and unmixed! But in reality, there is no such thing as a pure race! It seems if you are a Buddhist in Rakhine State, you are a Rakhine! That’s it!
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Andrew, Nick and others have already eloquently exposed some of the major flaws in Mr. Blaxland’s arguments, so I shall try not to be redundant. Instead, i would like to focus on the strategic rationale raised by Mr. Blaxland – viz, that since Thailand has been a reliable Cold War ally,we should not be critical. As someone has pointed out, this was the same rationale used by Western powers for supporting unsavory dictatorships around the world. Whatever the morality was back then, times have changed in the two decades ; supporting a fascist elite in a society where less than 1% of the society control more than 50 of the wealth ( according to the The Economist) is not only immoral, it is stupid.
What Prayuth and his cronies are trying to create is a permanent fascist state where obedient peasants kow tow to their resplendent rulers in Bangkok. As General Prayuth’s good friend Suthep gloated publicly at a victory celebration after the coup, this undemocratic seizure of power from a democratically elected government was planned for years.
The pretext for the coup was an end to corruption and the need for stability. As Andrew points out,the Thai army is as corrupt as any institution in Thailand, so the replacement of one mafia by another is not a good recipe for reform.
Similarly, while most of us will agree that political stability is good for business it is worth asking what was the source of the instability. As anyone who was in Bangkok earlier this year could see, the instability caused by Suthep and his PDRC cohorts was bought anf paid for by elements in the Bangkok elite. It can come as no surprise, then, when this same elite applauds their own handiwork.
As for the future – well, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the junta has no interest in either reconciliation or democracy. Their primary focus has been crushing all remnants of the Shinawatra legacy, and using the draconian LM laws to crush even a whiff of dissent.
Short term, it may therefore appear to the untrained eye that ” order has been restored”. However, the junta has granted itself absolute power not based on rule of law, but based on a martial law written in 1908. This absolute power may be temporarily exhilarating – General Prayuth is free to interrupt populat soap operas whenever he wants with his long-winded speeches. And when people complain, he is free to decree that soap operas are the root of all social evil, and that he will rewrite them himself – presumably with happy endings every thirty seconds.
As Lord Acton told us, ” Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and we have already witnessed a series of spectacular miscues by the junta on the world stage – most recently after the tragic murders of the British tourists on Khao Tao. General Prayuth is starting to get a reputation as a bumbling buffoon in the General Idi Amin Dada style. To say that he is unprepared for his position as absolute dictator would be an understatement – but who is going to tell him when he makes a mistake? As a Thai general, he is only familiar with one way communication. Imperator fiat.
As a result, the future for Thailand is anything but sustainable. The massive social divisions linger simmering just beneath the surface, and the populace are hardly going to forget this military betrayal of their very democratically elected government led by Yingluck.
As has been pointed out, Yingluck made every effort to compromise and accomodate the opposition, only to be rewarded with a very unconstitutional putsch.
In rush to embrace his old military cronies, Mr. Blaxland has forgotten the X factor – the Thai people. When they take over , we cannot expect them to be as forgiving as Yingluck. As John LeCarre put it, ” When the Thai gets crossed, he starts killing…”
Unless there is a highly unlikely change in the course set by the junta. there will be a lot of scores settled when the roof caves in as this thoroughly corrupt absolute dictatorship runs the country into the ground.
As a fellow veteran of East Timor, I am surprised that Mr. Blaxland seems to have forgotten the legacy of the notorious Indonesian dictator General Suharto..
Thai Studies in Australia, redux
He took quite a few wives, I believe. A hundred or so, it is said.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Prayuth might be taking a cue from the Burmese junta generals next door. Like them, he is even wearing civilian clothes more often.
“Discipline-flourishing Democracy with Thai characteristics”? lol
VIDEO: 2014 Indonesia Update Conference
so what was the unflattering foto of Prabowo Ed used?
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Overall, this seems a very good article by Dr. Blaxland – especially it’s call for us farang to be very wary of misunderstanding, and thereby judging, Thailand through our own prisms.But to NOT do so is an extremely difficult intellectual – even emotional – task.
Apart from obvious cirticisms of Blaxland on points of detail, raised by MacGregor Marshall, Nostitz, etc. – eg. that Thai coups ARE usually bloodless (though rarely their pre-math and after-math, I would argue), there’s two broader fundamental flaws in Blaxland’s over-all argument : namely 1) his treatment of “Thailand” – rather than Siam – as some sort of take-for-granted unified entity, and ditto his view of the military. Having lived in Isaarn, and then taught in Bangkok where Isaarn kids were regularly discriminated against, I very much doubt both Blaxland’s assumptions, on these two issues.
Why Indonesia banned ISIS
But some seem to be more concerned that returning fighters will re-enter Indonesia not as members of a terrorist organisation bent on committing mass murder, but as representatives of a foreign state.
……………..
An enduring point. Some Indonesian politicians supported Jihad in Maluku and Poso. Some supported JI. Some no doubt now sympathise with IS or AQ and it would be good to know who among them still support Jihad within the framework of NKRI as well as the transnationals. And call them out for it. But it didn’t need the rest of the post to pad it out.
A large and continuing part of the problem in the Australian academia since the contemporary rise of Islamicism has been the utter failure of secular analysts to understand Theist thinking. A single Christian Indonesian ‘Islamolog’ with experience teaching in peak Islamic educational institutions is worth more than all the atheist ONA types. How can you task others to answer questions, estimate and predict trends when you don’t even understand how Theists think?
Rather than secular academics interpreting all things Caliphate for a secular readership, NM could do something really useful like inviting the Australian founder of HT in Indonesia, Abdurrahman al Bagdhadi, to contribute a written explanation.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Don’t really get why NM published this piece.
It’s not empirical or factually correct.
It offers no new ideas or views on the coup and, in fact, just replicates existing dominant ideas on the coup that are circulating in Thailand.
It doesn’t really provoke much new thinking as all the responses are just repeating the same fact-based arguments that have been made for years.
I suppose you could argue that such voices need to be disseminated in order to be countered but this piece does have the air of NM trying to stir up a debate by allowing extremist positions to be stated but, instead of a debate, this just ends up as an echo chamber.
Be great to see a piece where one of the assembled anti-coup commentators actually comes up with some semblance of an idea about what steps Thailand should now take to
A) bring down the coup
B) create a sustainable democracy
C) defend that democracy.
Echo chambers and back-slapping avail us nothing.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
compare ‘previous’ coup to the ‘present’ coup!?…are you making joke?…
Coup, to me, should never even ‘exist’! I have voting right. Millions Thais have their voting right! We’d voted for many times and will always be waiting for. Although today, coup forces people to shut their mouth, quietly captured them one by one.
Respect majority vote!! People will never rest arguing on the army/whistle mob’s selection for us the ‘best’ and ‘decent’ man with zero corruption!! cause we’ve never seen one.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Andrew has already addressed several points that are terribly wrong with this article. There are more to address.
1) on the question of the amnesty bill – while the introduction of the bill was without doubt authoritarian, it nevertheless has been withdrawn soon after as a result of strong resistance of both the opposition and of the government allied UDD. It is furthermore a entirely polemic point to simply state the old Democrat Part Mantra suggesting that the only reason for this amnesty bill were Thaksin’s return. It ignores the more than two years of secret negotiations that have led to the amnesty bill in the first place.
2) In the same way the few sentences regarding the drug war are polemic, and completely leave out the more uncomfortable fact that this was not just Thaksin’s policy, but a combined effort of ALL sectors of power in Thailand (i don’t want to be anymore specific, but relevant evidence is widely available as long as one looks). Many of Thaksin’s opponents have played very active and supportive roles in the drug war, including in the killings.
3) the mantra that both sides, government and opposition, have been at a deadlock, with no side willing to compromise, is factually wrong. Fact is, that the government has offered almost every compromise that was legally and democratically possible.
– the government has withdrawn the amnesty bill
– the government has, faced with continued protests, dissolved parliament and called new elections
– the government has pledged to introduce after elections independent reform councils, to adhere to the reforms, and to call new elections as soon as these reforms have been completed
The PDRC and the Democrat Party however have not compromised on one single issue and rejected every single offer of compromise by the government. Their primary demands were not even constitutionally backed, such as the government stepping down before elections. Another such dubious demand was the PDRC’s very liberal interpretation of article 3 and 7 of the constitution. And before anyone compares the 2010 Red Shirt protests and the PDRC protests – the demands in 2010 were constitutional: dissolution of parliament and new elections.
4) as to reforms, especially concerning police. So far, the efforts of reforming the police after the coup have exhausted themselves in replacing the top ranked officers with officers close to Suthep and the military. These officers have neither any backing in the force, nor have they been chosen by professional standards.
If i may cite an example here: 10 months ago, and 5 months ago, i have filed legal cases against the PDRC. In the case of 10 months ago, when i was beaten up, there is more than sufficient video and photo evidence available on the incident. Even though repeated request by the UN to proceed with these cases quickly – not a single case has moved a millimeter. These cases are deeply buried, and sources within the force have explained me that the new generals are protecting the PDRC leader i have filed the case against, and that i cannot expect these cases to see the light of day until the political situation changes. This is quite a clear example that we have no police reform whatsoever, but that far worse cronyism in the upper ranks of the force have been introduced after the coup.
5) As to rule of law. Even today the court’s assessment is regularly cited, that the PDRC rally was ‘peaceful’. Which it quite obviously wasn’t. In that spirit, no effort is made anymore at all to arrest known PDRC gunmen, such as several of the shooters of the Laksi incident who were photographed and filmed with the faces clearly recognizable.
There would be a lot more to say regarding the staffing of the NLA (mostly soldiers), and the NRC (very prominent roles of rabid Thaksin opponents who have been on PAD/Siam Sammakhi/Pitak Siam/PDRC stages.
This speaks for itself.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
“Before many in the West react in horror at this apparent anti-democratic ‘outrage’ with its echoes across the border in Myanmar, it would be wise to reflect on the experience of two paragons of democratic virtue – Britain and Canada – both of which retain appointed upper houses of parliament. Their experience should provide a salutary caution against patronisingly and disdainfully dismissing suggestions for a partially appointed legislature.”
Also “wise” and “salutary” that Dr Blaxland take pause to reflect on the UK’s Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949 – which expressly confer supremacy on the elected House of Commons. While Canada doesn’t enshrine the principle in equivalent Acts, the enduring convention achieves the same result for their own House of Commons.
May I suggest less hyperbole and more attention to salient facts (however inconvenient they may be)?
Captain Nat and the wheels of Thai justice
AIW – I stand corrected. Just checked a minute ago and the link was ‘unblocked’. An indication of just how hit and miss the authorities are in their attempts to ban ‘questionable’ material. That’s at least one thing we can be thankful for – official ineptitude.
Sadly this also extends to such things as the tenth rate performance by the police in dealing with the Koh Tao murders.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
I completely agree with Andrew mcGregor Marshall’s criticism of Blaxland’s preposterous analysis. Prayudh’s antidemocratic coup is outrageous and unjustifiable. We must support the Thai people and oppose this junta of criminals and stooges
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Largely agree with Andrew, but one other point is about the Appointed Senate:
“With Yingluck’s removal, the largely appointed Senate decided in a high-handed manner to appoint an alternative prime minister without consulting Yingluck’s side of politics. Had that appointment proceeded who knows how much the country would have been torn with dissension, but pundits reckon the prospects were dire. Prayuth, knowing of the distribution of weapons and discovery of arms caches, acted pre-emptively to avoid a descent into far greater bloodshed than had already been witnessed.
…
Thailand’s constitution is scheduled to be written prior to elections anticipated in October 2015. It is likely that in the bicameral political model employed – one that echoes the Westminster constitutional-monarchy model familiar to countries of the former British Empire – the senate will be largely an appointed body.
Before many in the West react in horror at this apparent anti-democratic ‘outrage’ with its echoes across the border in Myanmar, it would be wise to reflect on the experience of two paragons of democratic virtue – Britain and Canada – both of which retain appointed upper houses of parliament.”
1. So on one hand, Blaxland views that the Senate was planning to act in a heavy-handed manner & this would result would have been chaos & Prayuth acted to prevent this, but then on the other hand, he says that the West should not patronisingly and disdainfully dismiss suggestions for a partially appointed legislature. Doesn’t he see the flaw in his argument?
2. Senate powers in the UK and Canada are limited, more so in the UK. They cannot remove a PM, they don’t have all these powers to appoint independent bodies, the judiciary etc. In both countries, the Senate is appointed by the PM (to be accurate, they are appointed by the Governor-General, but this is upon the advice on the PM). In Thailand, this is not the case at all. There is no sign that this is going to change. In fact, we may move from a partially-appointed to a fully-appointed Senate.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
The author is correct to state that condemning Thailand and the coup-makers is counterproductive for Western governments and their objectives, both political and financial.
However, his attempts to provide moral justifications for tacitly or otherwise supporting the coup, is at best disingenuous and at worst ignorant. The divisions in Thai society are still present, they are simply being suppressed at the moment.
The current administration is not a benevolent nonpartisan one reuniting Thailand, it is a dictatorship attempting to secure a total domination victory for one side at the expense of the other. Personally, I fear for the future.