This post is an extension of some thoughts I shared recently on a thread about education, however I felt the content was quite relevant to this thread so I expanded a little below.
Given the fascist nature of the interim constitution and the ‘Appointed puppet drafters only’ methodology being employed to develop the permanent constitution, it can seem quite incredible just how passive and subservient the Thai masses are being under the circumstances.
To provide some context I have to keep reminding myself that Thailand is a country where most grown men and women are so thoroughly brainwashed since childhood, as to their own inferiority compared to the elites, that it is still customary, demanded and acceptable for them to throw themselves at the feet of individuals of certain official rank and crawl around down there for as long as asked, in total subservience without so much as a second thought to their own dignity.
In fact the brain washing is so thorough that photos of such grovelling often become a possession of great family pride.
If you want to be issued your masters degree in Thailand after years of hard work, no problem, the final required task is to grovel your way up to the podium, hands and knees thanks you lowly creature! And don’t forget to pay 3000 baht for the priveledge before you leave. No Im not joking. You have to pay gratitude for the right to grovel at Thai graduation ceremonies.
There’s very few places on earth where brainwashing of the general population into such mindless subservience under a small group of elites has been this complete.
Foreigners often express astonishment that the people dont rise up more staunchly to challenge the current possey of oppressors, but ask yourselves this, is it realistic to expect someone who will humbly grovel for hrs on end at the feet of an elitist in fancy dress to then suddenly stand up and have a moral argument with the same elitist when a political line is crossed?
Its probably not very realistic at all when the boot licker has been conditioned since birth to not even ask him/herself why on earth he/she would stoop to crawl around at someone’s feet in the first place.
It seems to me that this multi generational inferiority conditioning has left a mountain of deeply rooted psychological baggage which goes a long way towards explaining the current rather peculiar status quo, whereby the masses humbly sit back and observe as the elites expertly massacre their rights with a goal of permanency.
Many, maybe even most Thais know deep down in their hearts that what is happening to their human and political rights is indeed heinous, however in my opinion, its the combined intimidation of the military along with the invisible yet equally powerful boundaries erected via the multi generational inferiority conditioning that stops most from taking action to defend their human rights.
There is a massive psychological chasm that needs to be crossed by millions of Thais before meaningful resistance to the selfish goals of the elites will reach a critical mass.
Well, Jaidee, I guess one friendly suggestion deserves another. Get hold of a dictionary and look up the difference between “qualification” and “contradiction”.
When I say that the initial amnesty protests were “more broadly based” than the subsequent Shutdown crowd, I meant just that.
They were “more” broadly based than the very narrow died-in-the-wool Thaksin-hating Yellow crew that ran with Suthep and Luang Poo. But there is a vast difference between that and your belief that “the people” were out in the streets.
A few of the more radical Redshirts and associates criticized the Amnesty Bill in the media, and I think at least Nattawut abstained from voting.
It was heartening to see Sombat gather 5K dissident Reds at Rajprasong to stage a Red protest, aimed at the amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep, but “the people” (Red variety) showed up at Muang Thong with 50K to express their support for the government. They very clearly did not join the larger protests.
I suspect the vast majority of Reds held their breath and their tongues as they struggled with the recognition that their democratically elected government was giving them the finger all the way from Dubai, and that the feckless, arrogant PT were also likely committing political suicide in the process.
So, no, it was not “the people” who stopped the Amnesty Bill, because a great number of “the people” knew that to protest against this fragile administration was to threaten its downfall. The crowds that protested in November were overwhelmingly “yellow”.
Unless, of course, you agree with Suthep’s assessment of what “the people” were up to.
We should all thank the heavens that we were spared rule by Prabowo, who would certainly have subjected us to “brutal machismo” and the even more sinister “superficial pomp.” Indonesia’s poor will gladly suffer evictions as long as they can avoid Prabowo’s unbearable pomp-ful machismo.
Thank you, New Mandala, for your continued insightful analysis.
My hopes are beginning to be raised about what General Prayuth and the NCPO may achieve :
First – at least they are making moves towards greater income equality – eg. re. such long over-due reforms, as inheritance and land tax : http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/427398/ncpo-pushing-inheritance-tax-law
Second – long over-due GENUINE equality between the regions, if not de-centralisation or federation. For example, they’ve adopted Professor Chai-Anan’s very sensible proposal that every province – jangwat – have ONE representative to the NLA, i.e. 77 regional representatives to the NLA, representing each province.
It’s early days, but it now seems to me General Prayuth is making a good start to reform.
Thank you SteveCM I think I’ve got it now,
Thaksin had a lot of unaccountable money sloshing around after his term as minister and deputy PM.
Ah well the generals don’t have to worry about anything like that they are not going to reveal their assets to anyone before of after their turn at the trough.
Thaksin was a minister (including Foreign Minister & Deputy Prime Minister) in governments from 1994 – i.e. before TRT’s 2001 election win and the ensuing assets trial.
Well said Jaidee … I agree with what you and others can speak …. e.g. “Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
тАХ Howard Zinn … it’s difficult to do what is right in Thailand now because doing so results in military detention, perhaps brutalisation, and perhaps death. This is Thailand now.
We know that Thaksin concealed some of his assets.
Could someone explain how Thaksin would benefit from this? I know I’m a bit thick, but surely he would benefit more if he overstated his assets then when he topped up his bank account from illegal sources it wouldn’t show.
Can someone explain to an old duffer?
Pakatan is not only inimical to Malaysian progress, it is inimical to member parties. Pakatan is worse than a bad marriage; it is a devil’s den created not in heaven. Anwar Ibrahim and Hadi Awang and Lim Kit Siang and Wan Azizah and Khalid Ibrahim have nothing whatsoever in common, other than advancing their own interests. The notion that the Islamic zealot Hadi Awang would associate with the secular Lim Kit Siang, reflects very poorly on the immature state of Malaysian politics. This ridiculous cabal must be ended now. Anwar is finished, but doesn’t get it. PAS wants an Islamic State and Hudud, but pretends it doesn’t. PKR is so divided ideologically, it is embarrassing. The notion that Hadi would approve Puan Wan Azizah as MB for Selangor is a ruse, and anyone does not see that Hadi Awang did not become a feminist overnight, is a fool. UMNO will never be beaten by a useless Pakatan consortium of incompetent parties, that range from barely Shaf’i Islam (more like Hanbali Islam) at one end to a total agnostic at the other. Anwar’s failure to pick a successor, and his manipulation of his own wife and daughter is reprehensible. Sham trials do not make a man a saint (just ask Kassim Ahmad, who had a sham trial and never claimed to be a saint, but is as close to one, as Malaysia has). Pakatan is done; is useless; and should end once and for all. DAP will never get Malay votes and PAS will never get moderate Malay and many non-Malay votes. PKR, in principle, is the only party that can take on a possible UMNO candidate like Zahid Hamidi (very aggressive and bigoted) or a Hishamuddin Tun Hussein (less aggressive and also less competent than many). Let’s get real and stop all this Pakatan Sandiwara, which is draining Malaysia. In case you haven’t noticed, Malaysia is becoming more Islamic and more divisive, and the gap between zealots and moderates is growing. Pakatan cannot solve this problem, and never could. It is very simple: Puan Wan Azizah is competent, but PAS will never agree to a woman in Putrajaya and I doubt any UMNO-appointed Ulama council will, either. Nobody in DAP can win Malay votes. Tok Aziz and Hadi Awang are inimical to the Constitution and a moderate Malaysia. Anwar’s selfish belief he is Allah’s gift to Malaysia, is only exceeded by Mahathir’s equal belief. There is one and only one chance and this is it: PKR must appoint Muhammad Nizar Jamaluddin as head of PKR and as PKR candidate to run against PAS, DAP and UMNO/BN. Nizar should leave PAS and join Wan Azizah wear he belongs. Nizar is the most honest politician in Malaysia (maybe tied with PKR’s Baru Bian, a good man, but as a non-Malay Bumiputera, has little chance in Putrayaja). Nizar has multicultural parentage, is so popular, that he is friends with members of ALL parties (UMNO not so sure
about). He is close to Tok Aziz, but he is well-liked by Lim, and the reason he is well liked is because he was an excellent and fair MB of Perak, before he was illegally removed by UMNO and the Sultan, to which he responded with grace and dignity, a rare commodity in Malaysia. I will say it once, and I hope I am heard, NO ONE but Nizar (and, if non-Malays were allowed, Baru Bian) can beat the strong-willed Zahid, a likely candidate for UMNO in GE 14. Any other opposition choice is a pipe dream, for anyone who knows anything about Zahid Hamidi, a man who has a passion for leather jackets and motorcycles (think Malaysian West Side Story). If anyone in their right mind thinks Pakatan can beat UMNO’s worst candidate, they need a long vacation. PAS may join UMNO anyway. If Puan Wan Azizah is reading this, tell your husband he is done, and woo Nizar Jamaluddin until you are exhausted, and ask Nurul to help you.
THIS will possibly lead to the placement of a competent, humane, multicultural, intelligent, honest and objective Prime Minister in Putrajaya; anything short of Nizar, will hand UMNO another victory, and you heard it here first. Pakatan must split and PKR must grow up and end Anwar’s boisterous, yet destructive, reign over PKR.
It is time form fresh blood and I have identified which blood type PKR needs. The best DAP can do, is support PKR’s efforts informally, and the best PAS can do, is keep quiet and stop pushing (along with some Malay NGOs) Malaysian into a SE Asian version of Turkey, Pakistan or, worse, Saudi Arabia or Qatar (with all the Malay freelance Jihadists going back and forth). It is time for the opposition to stop silly Sandiwara shows, grow up and pick a good candidate. I have identified that candidate. Tunku is gone, as is most of Malaysia’s civility, but in Nizar, you will find that civility and integrity, still exists. ACT NOW.
“……there is likely to be less fighting around the country as all other armed groups, none of which are themselves democratic and many of which are not
even caring about the people they are supposed to represent, would take various business deals, superficial power sharing and customary lies and false promises from the military government.
As there will definitely be more to go around this time, the involved parties will be more than satisfied. The question of Federal States will be forgotten.
There will be more employment opportunities for the majority of the population with large
numbers of the people currently in foreign countries coming back to Burma. There will be easier communication and travel within Burma and Asia as a prime requirement for successful trade.
At what price
To get there, Burmese people will be required to give up all the freedom they currently enjoy however restricted under the military. They would not recognise it, until it is lost. Where people live and what people eat and what people do will be dictated by multi-national companies according to their ever shifting global strategy and their needs. All rural land will be occupied and turned to smoke belching, soil destroying factories leaving behind graveyards of damage whenever the economic wind changes. One of the most diverse virgin forests left on earth with many inhabitant animal species not even catalogued will be gone in record time. All
traditional farm lands will be mechanised. Every single possible mineral including gems and rare earth mineral will be dug up, further destroying the land and at the same time poisoning it. Rich coastal fishing grounds will turn into toxic algae bloom giving full time occupation for Environment Protection NGO’s.
Social disruption will be unimaginable. As the minimum wage, which around the world has reduced in real terms, is going to be further cut for the unskilled labour force, people will be having to work two or three jobs of meagre salaries to make ends meet with prevalent marital and family disintegration. Farmers currently walking to their fields carefree will have to take a 10 dollar equivalent ride from urban slums to their factories for the new employment. These newly landless majority Burmese (people living in Burma) forced to seek employment in the factories in urban area will also be exposed to the usual urban ills of social indifference and callousness, crimes-petty and violent, pollution, drug addiction and prostitution.
With much of the social structure gone with change of power in family hierarchy according to the earning, basic culture as well as communal culture will be lost forever. These have been the exact experience in Latin American countries in the last 20 years. http://www.prb.org/Source/ 58.1PopulDynamicsLatinAmer.pdf
And these things will happen with no prior knowledge or understanding by the majority of people who are going to be affected. One has to remember that the current social system has survived in the same slow, happy state for at least a millennium. Recent military interference causing hardship needs be removed. But what in store is not that, it is wholesale destruction of
the current social structure.”
Emjay at least we can agree on the fact that Thaksin is and always has been far from the ideal beacon of democratic light.
However I find your message somewhat confused. Here’s an example, first you were ‘astounded’ that I would do something so outrageous as to call the broad based group of protesters who halted the amnesty bill ‘The people’. Ok Noted.
Then you immediately go on to state that ‘Without a doubt, the initial protests were more broadly based than the subsequent Shut down protesters’.
Hmmmm? Just for the record. Its quite clear that I was referring to the amnesty bill protesters who came from many camps and not the shut down protesters who had a different set of goals, motivations and overall protester demographic.
So Emjay, you immediately went from being ‘astounded’ that I would call the diverse amnesty bill protesters ‘the people’ to stating that the people who stopped the amnesty bill were a ‘broadly based’ group. ???? Is that logical for you?
You then went further to point out that Thaksin was betraying the red shirts with the amnesty bill. That’s true, he was, which is precisely why staunch red shirts were amongst the protesters who brought down the amnesty bill. They were really peeved that their friends would be left to rot in jail while Thaksin walked free.
So when I refer to a ‘broadly based’ (your own words) group of protesters that in fact included yellow shirts, red shirts, and tens of thousands of non aligned citizens who just felt the amnesty was wrong as ‘The people’ why on earth would you be so Astounded?
You then take what I consider an astounding step of accusing me of ‘sleight of hand rhetoric’ for referring to what was clearly a politically diverse group of protesters ‘the people’.
Emjay, perhaps you can enlighten me as to the appropriate term for a politically diverse group of human beings representing nearly all tiers of Thai society and political camps who were protesting the proposed amnesty bill? Should I have called them yellow shirts because that extremely wealthy group funded and controlled the stage?
Also, a friendly suggestion, try responding without immediately contradicting your own statement in the next sentence. You might find that’s best left to others.
With all these obscure arguments, are you trying to say that the Military has the Buddha given right to “rule” Thailand? Write a constitution as it pleases them? AND you consider them more legitimate than an elected Govt?
For me, anytime somebody holds a gun to my head for no other reason than to tell me what to do, and how to live, IT IS WRONG (sorry NM for the caps) – hat goes for the Thai Military or ISIS in Iraq / Syria now
Jaidee: It’s hard to know where to begin, so I’ll begin with your “yes, we tortured a few folks” moment.
“Yes, torture probably did occur under Yingluck’s administration, as it also appears to under the fascists. However it is only under the democratic system that there is any hope at all for the elite to be held accountable for such actions.”
The first TS administration was directly responsible for a series of violations of human rights, from attempts to muzzle the press to more than one thousand extrajudicial executions. The people of Thailand returned that government in a landslide, not exactly an advertisement for the efficacy of “democratic accountability”. TS himself made it clear that neither “democracy” nor human rights were “goals” for his administration, at one point enunciating the principle that an elected government is above the law, at least as far as human rights abuses are concerned.
We often give lip-service to the notion that TS is not and has never been a champion of liberal-democratic values or procedures, but then go on to make arguments and indulge in bloated rhetoric that forget, ignore or simply deny that very thing. The first time many of us became aware of the CC was when they made the blatantly corrupt decision to allow TS to sit in government despite his concealment of assets. I suppose many now would salute that particular piece of CC dissembling as a defense of democracy rather than condemning it for what it was: the first in a series of “fascist” manipulations of the checks and balances to ensure that democratic outcomes are also their outcomes.
Next up is your rather astounding claim that “the people successfully stopped” the YL administration from passing the amnesty bill, when in fact it was the very “people” who went on to “provoke” the coup (your “fascists) who led that minority uprising.
Without a doubt, the initial protests were more broadly based than the subsequent Shutdown performance, but to separate “the people” from “the fascists” in this particular case is just sleight-of-hand rhetoric.
Thaksin was on the verge of betraying his popular mandate, the electorate in general, and more pointedly, the hundreds of thousands of Redshirts who fought and watched some of their members die to defend TS and democracy.
I have supported the Reds for the past six years, engaging in endless, fruitless debates with people over all of the standard issues that divide the “reds” from the “yellows”, Thai and foreign alike. Like many, I got very tired of the constant cry of the yellows that we were TS supporters, that we loved TS, or even the ridiculous charge that we were paid by TS.
Supporting and attempting to promote in whatever small way the right of the Thai people to elect their leaders is not the same thing as “loving TS”, but pretending that repeatedly electing TS is somehow equivalent to creating democratic governance in Thailand is a pernicious falsehood that does nothing to promote the cause of liberal-democracy here.
As a life-long lefty I recognize the ancient, discredited strategy of not criticizing the Soviet Union for its horrors because it would ultimately weaken the case of socialism everywhere in the constant equating of criticisms of TS with support for the anti-democratic forces in Thailand. It was a politically moronic and ethically void strategy then and it is the same now, here in Thailand.
Had the “checks and balances” established by the vastly overrated ’97 Constitution functioned in the way that liberal notion suggests they should, TS would never have been allowed to take his seat in government and it is impossible to know where we would be at this moment insofar as Thai democracy is concerned.
One of the real “checks and balances” in Thailand, the only one that operates in the corrupt environment that is the upper echelons of Thai society, is now running the show without any legal, constitutional barriers to whatever they wish to do.
Which means of course that the only real “checks and balances” they will encounter will have to come from the people in the streets, once they have leaders to take them there. Those of us who support democracy in Thailand can only hope it won’t be the same group of hypocritical opportunists who take up the mantle once again.
Constitution? That is the Thai constitution right there. And it is no less real for being unwritten.
“She Man”? That’s a good one!
Anyway I agree with you that a lot of “blue-eyed” NGO’s, academics and most politicians in the West are pretty naive about Burma. They don’t know too much about Burma’s history. The only book they might have read is Thant Myint-U’s, who grew up in the West, didn’t learn Burmese in school and his books are more or less “clip and paste” stuff with some self-aggrandising personal biographies of his ancestors.
I’ve been working at a University in the West for almost 40 years now and I’ve seen how young kids (students) are trained (almost brain-washed?) in the soft social science subjects (I do hard-core science) It’s all black and white pheromonic ideology, feel-good social conscience, no hard historical facts, no field trips or even interviewing people who really know. You just have to learn how to use buzzwords like stakeholder, self-empowerment, ethnic cleansing, IDP, LDC (which is not an LCD) etc. Well you have to “please” your thesis supervisors to get funding, no?
The stories that Burmese ex-pat dissidents tell are of course very biased, if not totally made-up, since these people are often seeking political asylum, refugee status, financial support or even a cheap Ph.D.thesis (on something related to “Myanmar”, not Burma anymore!) so that they can get a good job and live in some poshy neighbourhood in some Western country. Look at all the different groupings that Burmese dissidents have all over the world and who is funding them. An interesting topic for a social-media researcher who speaks Burmese would be to do a cluster analysis or simply just “entangle” all the links and friends and friends of friends and likes on Burmese Facebook pages. It’s quite astonishing what I observed about two years ago, not just what they say but also who is connected to whom etc. In those days Burmese were a bit too naive (or perhaps they want to show off) so their FB pages were not protected at all.
I do agree that Thailand is no more democratic than Burma. Besides, it’s clear that China’s human rights record over the last 60 years is worse than Burma’s but hey history can be ignored or at least conveniently rewritten (put a spin on it),if you are in politics (or even if you are just writing a paper ain PoliSci lol)
The “West” having invested so much in supporting the Burmese opposition over the years need a happy ending in Myanmar. After happy endings are not happening elsewhere (Ukraine, Iraq, Palestine…). This may mean turning a blind eye to a less than optimal democratic transition in Myanmar. ASSK may not become president, then again, her charismatic credentials as a defender of universal human rights are a little in tatters given an unwillingness to condemn anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar.
Finally the “penny has dropped”, no longer just a virtuous political dissident, ASSK is a politician courting the largely Bamah electorate in her constituency. This is not to criticize her for inevitably entering into the political fray, rather it is to condemn a certain naivety in the West and the logic of contemporary media needing to reduce political conflict to a black and white struggle between the ‘goodies’ and the ‘baddies’. ASSK is (was?) an extraordinary combination of Mother Theresa, Gandhi and JFK that gave to the Burmese opposition an emblematic figurehead, one that one could only empathize with, a figure so lacking elsewhere. Yet would a deal where the NLD wins a crushing majority in the parliamentary elections in 2015, but she is a Prime Minister (job to be created) or VP, under a president drawn from the previous civilianized junta (She Man?n) be such a bad thing seen from the outside? Indonesia’s transformation drive by relics of the New Order may have some lessons here.
Gareth Robinson makes the important point about the regional context. Given the situation in Thailand held up previously as an example of democratization, the benchmarks for rating democratization have been somewhat downgraded. If in a middle income Asian country the Thai middle class seem to have demonstrated the shallowness of their commitment to representative democracy, should we be too demanding on an emerging LDC?
Personally I dont agree with most of points raised in the article. The author seems to be left oriented scholar who compared the two leaders very superficially and like other leftists he did not miss to brand Modi as anti Muslim.
The leader who has been into active politics since his youth and the other who has been picked up by a strong political party PDI-P (who was already facing leadership crisis) can not be compared.
Jokowi is certainly a good man having clean record(as projected by media) given his 9 yr of experience as mayors of two cities, however there are so many aspirant leaders in Indonesia both in PDI-P and other coalition groups and have good records but not popularized as him, can be really very challenging in coming future.
The reference about Amartyasen who never criticized the previous govts for their corrupt practices, and Arundhati Roy, who is not a think tank but just one of the novelists in India is not enough.
Emjay you asked ‘What is the value, precisely, of Thais bothering to elect anyone at all’.
You may have noticed that Thaksins political team was elected via a democratic system and as such he was officially answerable to the Thai people. This is why Thaksins attempt to obtain an amnesty for himself and his rivals ultimately failed. The people successfully stopped him because under the democratic system the people, even the minority, retain considerable power over the government.
The fascists on the other hand installed themselves via the barrel of the gun and are answerable only to themselves. They have since given themselves a full amnesty surpassing even the wildest fantasy’s of Thaksin, yet under the fascist system the Thai people have absolutely no means to intervene and demand any accountability what so ever from their new self appointed leaders.
In one system the people clearly possess the power to stop the government in its tracks while under the other system the people are irrelevant, afraid to speak up and their only role is to be subservient mindless pawns who are dictated to.
This is precisely why it is worthwhile for Thais to stick to the electoral system, so that from time to time, when push comes to shove they can thwart the most outrageous acts of their national leadership.
Yes, torture probably did occur under Yingluck’s administration, as it also appears to under the fascists. However it is only under the democratic system that there is any hope at all for the elite to be held accountable for such actions.
Its public knowledge that the fascists have already put Thaksin’s highly controversial amnesty proposal and infrastructure budget on steroids while morphing them a little to suit their own needs and to maximise the benefits to their clients. Why would they break this trend and hold back on torture?
I suspect that like the other controversial issues they have simply put the existing torture practices on steroids and morphed them a bit to suit the specific needs of themselves and their clients. Its a business as usual approach if you will. ‘Inflate and take’
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
This post is an extension of some thoughts I shared recently on a thread about education, however I felt the content was quite relevant to this thread so I expanded a little below.
Given the fascist nature of the interim constitution and the ‘Appointed puppet drafters only’ methodology being employed to develop the permanent constitution, it can seem quite incredible just how passive and subservient the Thai masses are being under the circumstances.
To provide some context I have to keep reminding myself that Thailand is a country where most grown men and women are so thoroughly brainwashed since childhood, as to their own inferiority compared to the elites, that it is still customary, demanded and acceptable for them to throw themselves at the feet of individuals of certain official rank and crawl around down there for as long as asked, in total subservience without so much as a second thought to their own dignity.
In fact the brain washing is so thorough that photos of such grovelling often become a possession of great family pride.
If you want to be issued your masters degree in Thailand after years of hard work, no problem, the final required task is to grovel your way up to the podium, hands and knees thanks you lowly creature! And don’t forget to pay 3000 baht for the priveledge before you leave. No Im not joking. You have to pay gratitude for the right to grovel at Thai graduation ceremonies.
There’s very few places on earth where brainwashing of the general population into such mindless subservience under a small group of elites has been this complete.
Foreigners often express astonishment that the people dont rise up more staunchly to challenge the current possey of oppressors, but ask yourselves this, is it realistic to expect someone who will humbly grovel for hrs on end at the feet of an elitist in fancy dress to then suddenly stand up and have a moral argument with the same elitist when a political line is crossed?
Its probably not very realistic at all when the boot licker has been conditioned since birth to not even ask him/herself why on earth he/she would stoop to crawl around at someone’s feet in the first place.
It seems to me that this multi generational inferiority conditioning has left a mountain of deeply rooted psychological baggage which goes a long way towards explaining the current rather peculiar status quo, whereby the masses humbly sit back and observe as the elites expertly massacre their rights with a goal of permanency.
Many, maybe even most Thais know deep down in their hearts that what is happening to their human and political rights is indeed heinous, however in my opinion, its the combined intimidation of the military along with the invisible yet equally powerful boundaries erected via the multi generational inferiority conditioning that stops most from taking action to defend their human rights.
There is a massive psychological chasm that needs to be crossed by millions of Thais before meaningful resistance to the selfish goals of the elites will reach a critical mass.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
Well, Jaidee, I guess one friendly suggestion deserves another. Get hold of a dictionary and look up the difference between “qualification” and “contradiction”.
When I say that the initial amnesty protests were “more broadly based” than the subsequent Shutdown crowd, I meant just that.
They were “more” broadly based than the very narrow died-in-the-wool Thaksin-hating Yellow crew that ran with Suthep and Luang Poo. But there is a vast difference between that and your belief that “the people” were out in the streets.
A few of the more radical Redshirts and associates criticized the Amnesty Bill in the media, and I think at least Nattawut abstained from voting.
It was heartening to see Sombat gather 5K dissident Reds at Rajprasong to stage a Red protest, aimed at the amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep, but “the people” (Red variety) showed up at Muang Thong with 50K to express their support for the government. They very clearly did not join the larger protests.
I suspect the vast majority of Reds held their breath and their tongues as they struggled with the recognition that their democratically elected government was giving them the finger all the way from Dubai, and that the feckless, arrogant PT were also likely committing political suicide in the process.
So, no, it was not “the people” who stopped the Amnesty Bill, because a great number of “the people” knew that to protest against this fragile administration was to threaten its downfall. The crowds that protested in November were overwhelmingly “yellow”.
Unless, of course, you agree with Suthep’s assessment of what “the people” were up to.
neptunian: yeah!
Jokowi’s coming presidency: a cautionary note
We should all thank the heavens that we were spared rule by Prabowo, who would certainly have subjected us to “brutal machismo” and the even more sinister “superficial pomp.” Indonesia’s poor will gladly suffer evictions as long as they can avoid Prabowo’s unbearable pomp-ful machismo.
Thank you, New Mandala, for your continued insightful analysis.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
My hopes are beginning to be raised about what General Prayuth and the NCPO may achieve :
First – at least they are making moves towards greater income equality – eg. re. such long over-due reforms, as inheritance and land tax : http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/427398/ncpo-pushing-inheritance-tax-law
Second – long over-due GENUINE equality between the regions, if not de-centralisation or federation. For example, they’ve adopted Professor Chai-Anan’s very sensible proposal that every province – jangwat – have ONE representative to the NLA, i.e. 77 regional representatives to the NLA, representing each province.
It’s early days, but it now seems to me General Prayuth is making a good start to reform.
Did Indonesians fluke it?
Not sure what the point of this article is. The authors seem really confused.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
Thank you SteveCM I think I’ve got it now,
Thaksin had a lot of unaccountable money sloshing around after his term as minister and deputy PM.
Ah well the generals don’t have to worry about anything like that they are not going to reveal their assets to anyone before of after their turn at the trough.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
Thaksin was a minister (including Foreign Minister & Deputy Prime Minister) in governments from 1994 – i.e. before TRT’s 2001 election win and the ensuing assets trial.
Confused Thai Educators
Well said Jaidee … I agree with what you and others can speak …. e.g. “Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
тАХ Howard Zinn … it’s difficult to do what is right in Thailand now because doing so results in military detention, perhaps brutalisation, and perhaps death. This is Thailand now.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
It would be tough on Emjay to defend anything –
Amnesty proposal for politicians BAD
Amnesty declaration for Military GOOD
Budget for infrastructure by Elected Govt BAD
Budget for same Infra by Military GOOD
Therefore, anything by barrel of gun GOOD, anything by elected people BAD. QED (genius level IQ not required)
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
We know that Thaksin concealed some of his assets.
Could someone explain how Thaksin would benefit from this? I know I’m a bit thick, but surely he would benefit more if he overstated his assets then when he topped up his bank account from illegal sources it wouldn’t show.
Can someone explain to an old duffer?
The impossible necessity of collaboration
Pakatan is not only inimical to Malaysian progress, it is inimical to member parties. Pakatan is worse than a bad marriage; it is a devil’s den created not in heaven. Anwar Ibrahim and Hadi Awang and Lim Kit Siang and Wan Azizah and Khalid Ibrahim have nothing whatsoever in common, other than advancing their own interests. The notion that the Islamic zealot Hadi Awang would associate with the secular Lim Kit Siang, reflects very poorly on the immature state of Malaysian politics. This ridiculous cabal must be ended now. Anwar is finished, but doesn’t get it. PAS wants an Islamic State and Hudud, but pretends it doesn’t. PKR is so divided ideologically, it is embarrassing. The notion that Hadi would approve Puan Wan Azizah as MB for Selangor is a ruse, and anyone does not see that Hadi Awang did not become a feminist overnight, is a fool. UMNO will never be beaten by a useless Pakatan consortium of incompetent parties, that range from barely Shaf’i Islam (more like Hanbali Islam) at one end to a total agnostic at the other. Anwar’s failure to pick a successor, and his manipulation of his own wife and daughter is reprehensible. Sham trials do not make a man a saint (just ask Kassim Ahmad, who had a sham trial and never claimed to be a saint, but is as close to one, as Malaysia has). Pakatan is done; is useless; and should end once and for all. DAP will never get Malay votes and PAS will never get moderate Malay and many non-Malay votes. PKR, in principle, is the only party that can take on a possible UMNO candidate like Zahid Hamidi (very aggressive and bigoted) or a Hishamuddin Tun Hussein (less aggressive and also less competent than many). Let’s get real and stop all this Pakatan Sandiwara, which is draining Malaysia. In case you haven’t noticed, Malaysia is becoming more Islamic and more divisive, and the gap between zealots and moderates is growing. Pakatan cannot solve this problem, and never could. It is very simple: Puan Wan Azizah is competent, but PAS will never agree to a woman in Putrajaya and I doubt any UMNO-appointed Ulama council will, either. Nobody in DAP can win Malay votes. Tok Aziz and Hadi Awang are inimical to the Constitution and a moderate Malaysia. Anwar’s selfish belief he is Allah’s gift to Malaysia, is only exceeded by Mahathir’s equal belief. There is one and only one chance and this is it: PKR must appoint Muhammad Nizar Jamaluddin as head of PKR and as PKR candidate to run against PAS, DAP and UMNO/BN. Nizar should leave PAS and join Wan Azizah wear he belongs. Nizar is the most honest politician in Malaysia (maybe tied with PKR’s Baru Bian, a good man, but as a non-Malay Bumiputera, has little chance in Putrayaja). Nizar has multicultural parentage, is so popular, that he is friends with members of ALL parties (UMNO not so sure
about). He is close to Tok Aziz, but he is well-liked by Lim, and the reason he is well liked is because he was an excellent and fair MB of Perak, before he was illegally removed by UMNO and the Sultan, to which he responded with grace and dignity, a rare commodity in Malaysia. I will say it once, and I hope I am heard, NO ONE but Nizar (and, if non-Malays were allowed, Baru Bian) can beat the strong-willed Zahid, a likely candidate for UMNO in GE 14. Any other opposition choice is a pipe dream, for anyone who knows anything about Zahid Hamidi, a man who has a passion for leather jackets and motorcycles (think Malaysian West Side Story). If anyone in their right mind thinks Pakatan can beat UMNO’s worst candidate, they need a long vacation. PAS may join UMNO anyway. If Puan Wan Azizah is reading this, tell your husband he is done, and woo Nizar Jamaluddin until you are exhausted, and ask Nurul to help you.
THIS will possibly lead to the placement of a competent, humane, multicultural, intelligent, honest and objective Prime Minister in Putrajaya; anything short of Nizar, will hand UMNO another victory, and you heard it here first. Pakatan must split and PKR must grow up and end Anwar’s boisterous, yet destructive, reign over PKR.
It is time form fresh blood and I have identified which blood type PKR needs. The best DAP can do, is support PKR’s efforts informally, and the best PAS can do, is keep quiet and stop pushing (along with some Malay NGOs) Malaysian into a SE Asian version of Turkey, Pakistan or, worse, Saudi Arabia or Qatar (with all the Malay freelance Jihadists going back and forth). It is time for the opposition to stop silly Sandiwara shows, grow up and pick a good candidate. I have identified that candidate. Tunku is gone, as is most of Malaysia’s civility, but in Nizar, you will find that civility and integrity, still exists. ACT NOW.
Myanmar as middle power
Prophetic?
Hopefully not!
http://www.google.co.nz/url?url=http://www.dictatorwatch.org/articles/monkeypaw.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=w03xU_r8EYnr8AXV5YCABw&ved=0CBMQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFkWkHEgQNIHYpVgNcObZbPYxpIwQ
“……there is likely to be less fighting around the country as all other armed groups, none of which are themselves democratic and many of which are not
even caring about the people they are supposed to represent, would take various business deals, superficial power sharing and customary lies and false promises from the military government.
As there will definitely be more to go around this time, the involved parties will be more than satisfied. The question of Federal States will be forgotten.
There will be more employment opportunities for the majority of the population with large
numbers of the people currently in foreign countries coming back to Burma. There will be easier communication and travel within Burma and Asia as a prime requirement for successful trade.
At what price
To get there, Burmese people will be required to give up all the freedom they currently enjoy however restricted under the military. They would not recognise it, until it is lost. Where people live and what people eat and what people do will be dictated by multi-national companies according to their ever shifting global strategy and their needs. All rural land will be occupied and turned to smoke belching, soil destroying factories leaving behind graveyards of damage whenever the economic wind changes. One of the most diverse virgin forests left on earth with many inhabitant animal species not even catalogued will be gone in record time. All
traditional farm lands will be mechanised. Every single possible mineral including gems and rare earth mineral will be dug up, further destroying the land and at the same time poisoning it. Rich coastal fishing grounds will turn into toxic algae bloom giving full time occupation for Environment Protection NGO’s.
Social disruption will be unimaginable. As the minimum wage, which around the world has reduced in real terms, is going to be further cut for the unskilled labour force, people will be having to work two or three jobs of meagre salaries to make ends meet with prevalent marital and family disintegration. Farmers currently walking to their fields carefree will have to take a 10 dollar equivalent ride from urban slums to their factories for the new employment. These newly landless majority Burmese (people living in Burma) forced to seek employment in the factories in urban area will also be exposed to the usual urban ills of social indifference and callousness, crimes-petty and violent, pollution, drug addiction and prostitution.
With much of the social structure gone with change of power in family hierarchy according to the earning, basic culture as well as communal culture will be lost forever. These have been the exact experience in Latin American countries in the last 20 years. http://www.prb.org/Source/ 58.1PopulDynamicsLatinAmer.pdf
And these things will happen with no prior knowledge or understanding by the majority of people who are going to be affected. One has to remember that the current social system has survived in the same slow, happy state for at least a millennium. Recent military interference causing hardship needs be removed. But what in store is not that, it is wholesale destruction of
the current social structure.”
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
Emjay at least we can agree on the fact that Thaksin is and always has been far from the ideal beacon of democratic light.
However I find your message somewhat confused. Here’s an example, first you were ‘astounded’ that I would do something so outrageous as to call the broad based group of protesters who halted the amnesty bill ‘The people’. Ok Noted.
Then you immediately go on to state that ‘Without a doubt, the initial protests were more broadly based than the subsequent Shut down protesters’.
Hmmmm? Just for the record. Its quite clear that I was referring to the amnesty bill protesters who came from many camps and not the shut down protesters who had a different set of goals, motivations and overall protester demographic.
So Emjay, you immediately went from being ‘astounded’ that I would call the diverse amnesty bill protesters ‘the people’ to stating that the people who stopped the amnesty bill were a ‘broadly based’ group. ???? Is that logical for you?
You then went further to point out that Thaksin was betraying the red shirts with the amnesty bill. That’s true, he was, which is precisely why staunch red shirts were amongst the protesters who brought down the amnesty bill. They were really peeved that their friends would be left to rot in jail while Thaksin walked free.
So when I refer to a ‘broadly based’ (your own words) group of protesters that in fact included yellow shirts, red shirts, and tens of thousands of non aligned citizens who just felt the amnesty was wrong as ‘The people’ why on earth would you be so Astounded?
You then take what I consider an astounding step of accusing me of ‘sleight of hand rhetoric’ for referring to what was clearly a politically diverse group of protesters ‘the people’.
Emjay, perhaps you can enlighten me as to the appropriate term for a politically diverse group of human beings representing nearly all tiers of Thai society and political camps who were protesting the proposed amnesty bill? Should I have called them yellow shirts because that extremely wealthy group funded and controlled the stage?
Also, a friendly suggestion, try responding without immediately contradicting your own statement in the next sentence. You might find that’s best left to others.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
With all these obscure arguments, are you trying to say that the Military has the Buddha given right to “rule” Thailand? Write a constitution as it pleases them? AND you consider them more legitimate than an elected Govt?
For me, anytime somebody holds a gun to my head for no other reason than to tell me what to do, and how to live, IT IS WRONG (sorry NM for the caps) – hat goes for the Thai Military or ISIS in Iraq / Syria now
Please state your stand…
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
Jaidee: It’s hard to know where to begin, so I’ll begin with your “yes, we tortured a few folks” moment.
“Yes, torture probably did occur under Yingluck’s administration, as it also appears to under the fascists. However it is only under the democratic system that there is any hope at all for the elite to be held accountable for such actions.”
The first TS administration was directly responsible for a series of violations of human rights, from attempts to muzzle the press to more than one thousand extrajudicial executions. The people of Thailand returned that government in a landslide, not exactly an advertisement for the efficacy of “democratic accountability”. TS himself made it clear that neither “democracy” nor human rights were “goals” for his administration, at one point enunciating the principle that an elected government is above the law, at least as far as human rights abuses are concerned.
We often give lip-service to the notion that TS is not and has never been a champion of liberal-democratic values or procedures, but then go on to make arguments and indulge in bloated rhetoric that forget, ignore or simply deny that very thing. The first time many of us became aware of the CC was when they made the blatantly corrupt decision to allow TS to sit in government despite his concealment of assets. I suppose many now would salute that particular piece of CC dissembling as a defense of democracy rather than condemning it for what it was: the first in a series of “fascist” manipulations of the checks and balances to ensure that democratic outcomes are also their outcomes.
Next up is your rather astounding claim that “the people successfully stopped” the YL administration from passing the amnesty bill, when in fact it was the very “people” who went on to “provoke” the coup (your “fascists) who led that minority uprising.
Without a doubt, the initial protests were more broadly based than the subsequent Shutdown performance, but to separate “the people” from “the fascists” in this particular case is just sleight-of-hand rhetoric.
Thaksin was on the verge of betraying his popular mandate, the electorate in general, and more pointedly, the hundreds of thousands of Redshirts who fought and watched some of their members die to defend TS and democracy.
I have supported the Reds for the past six years, engaging in endless, fruitless debates with people over all of the standard issues that divide the “reds” from the “yellows”, Thai and foreign alike. Like many, I got very tired of the constant cry of the yellows that we were TS supporters, that we loved TS, or even the ridiculous charge that we were paid by TS.
Supporting and attempting to promote in whatever small way the right of the Thai people to elect their leaders is not the same thing as “loving TS”, but pretending that repeatedly electing TS is somehow equivalent to creating democratic governance in Thailand is a pernicious falsehood that does nothing to promote the cause of liberal-democracy here.
As a life-long lefty I recognize the ancient, discredited strategy of not criticizing the Soviet Union for its horrors because it would ultimately weaken the case of socialism everywhere in the constant equating of criticisms of TS with support for the anti-democratic forces in Thailand. It was a politically moronic and ethically void strategy then and it is the same now, here in Thailand.
Had the “checks and balances” established by the vastly overrated ’97 Constitution functioned in the way that liberal notion suggests they should, TS would never have been allowed to take his seat in government and it is impossible to know where we would be at this moment insofar as Thai democracy is concerned.
One of the real “checks and balances” in Thailand, the only one that operates in the corrupt environment that is the upper echelons of Thai society, is now running the show without any legal, constitutional barriers to whatever they wish to do.
Which means of course that the only real “checks and balances” they will encounter will have to come from the people in the streets, once they have leaders to take them there. Those of us who support democracy in Thailand can only hope it won’t be the same group of hypocritical opportunists who take up the mantle once again.
Constitution? That is the Thai constitution right there. And it is no less real for being unwritten.
Of pragmatism and politics
“She Man”? That’s a good one!
Anyway I agree with you that a lot of “blue-eyed” NGO’s, academics and most politicians in the West are pretty naive about Burma. They don’t know too much about Burma’s history. The only book they might have read is Thant Myint-U’s, who grew up in the West, didn’t learn Burmese in school and his books are more or less “clip and paste” stuff with some self-aggrandising personal biographies of his ancestors.
I’ve been working at a University in the West for almost 40 years now and I’ve seen how young kids (students) are trained (almost brain-washed?) in the soft social science subjects (I do hard-core science) It’s all black and white pheromonic ideology, feel-good social conscience, no hard historical facts, no field trips or even interviewing people who really know. You just have to learn how to use buzzwords like stakeholder, self-empowerment, ethnic cleansing, IDP, LDC (which is not an LCD) etc. Well you have to “please” your thesis supervisors to get funding, no?
The stories that Burmese ex-pat dissidents tell are of course very biased, if not totally made-up, since these people are often seeking political asylum, refugee status, financial support or even a cheap Ph.D.thesis (on something related to “Myanmar”, not Burma anymore!) so that they can get a good job and live in some poshy neighbourhood in some Western country. Look at all the different groupings that Burmese dissidents have all over the world and who is funding them. An interesting topic for a social-media researcher who speaks Burmese would be to do a cluster analysis or simply just “entangle” all the links and friends and friends of friends and likes on Burmese Facebook pages. It’s quite astonishing what I observed about two years ago, not just what they say but also who is connected to whom etc. In those days Burmese were a bit too naive (or perhaps they want to show off) so their FB pages were not protected at all.
I do agree that Thailand is no more democratic than Burma. Besides, it’s clear that China’s human rights record over the last 60 years is worse than Burma’s but hey history can be ignored or at least conveniently rewritten (put a spin on it),if you are in politics (or even if you are just writing a paper ain PoliSci lol)
Of pragmatism and politics
The “West” having invested so much in supporting the Burmese opposition over the years need a happy ending in Myanmar. After happy endings are not happening elsewhere (Ukraine, Iraq, Palestine…). This may mean turning a blind eye to a less than optimal democratic transition in Myanmar. ASSK may not become president, then again, her charismatic credentials as a defender of universal human rights are a little in tatters given an unwillingness to condemn anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar.
Finally the “penny has dropped”, no longer just a virtuous political dissident, ASSK is a politician courting the largely Bamah electorate in her constituency. This is not to criticize her for inevitably entering into the political fray, rather it is to condemn a certain naivety in the West and the logic of contemporary media needing to reduce political conflict to a black and white struggle between the ‘goodies’ and the ‘baddies’. ASSK is (was?) an extraordinary combination of Mother Theresa, Gandhi and JFK that gave to the Burmese opposition an emblematic figurehead, one that one could only empathize with, a figure so lacking elsewhere. Yet would a deal where the NLD wins a crushing majority in the parliamentary elections in 2015, but she is a Prime Minister (job to be created) or VP, under a president drawn from the previous civilianized junta (She Man?n) be such a bad thing seen from the outside? Indonesia’s transformation drive by relics of the New Order may have some lessons here.
Gareth Robinson makes the important point about the regional context. Given the situation in Thailand held up previously as an example of democratization, the benchmarks for rating democratization have been somewhat downgraded. If in a middle income Asian country the Thai middle class seem to have demonstrated the shallowness of their commitment to representative democracy, should we be too demanding on an emerging LDC?
A tale of two elections
Personally I dont agree with most of points raised in the article. The author seems to be left oriented scholar who compared the two leaders very superficially and like other leftists he did not miss to brand Modi as anti Muslim.
The leader who has been into active politics since his youth and the other who has been picked up by a strong political party PDI-P (who was already facing leadership crisis) can not be compared.
Jokowi is certainly a good man having clean record(as projected by media) given his 9 yr of experience as mayors of two cities, however there are so many aspirant leaders in Indonesia both in PDI-P and other coalition groups and have good records but not popularized as him, can be really very challenging in coming future.
The reference about Amartyasen who never criticized the previous govts for their corrupt practices, and Arundhati Roy, who is not a think tank but just one of the novelists in India is not enough.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
Jim Taylor says this recent Thai coup conducts “routine torture” and responsible for “thousands of disappeareds”.
Unless you provide proof Jim Taylor, I’ll count this as your usual vapid repertoire
of ….. misinformation.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
Emjay you asked ‘What is the value, precisely, of Thais bothering to elect anyone at all’.
You may have noticed that Thaksins political team was elected via a democratic system and as such he was officially answerable to the Thai people. This is why Thaksins attempt to obtain an amnesty for himself and his rivals ultimately failed. The people successfully stopped him because under the democratic system the people, even the minority, retain considerable power over the government.
The fascists on the other hand installed themselves via the barrel of the gun and are answerable only to themselves. They have since given themselves a full amnesty surpassing even the wildest fantasy’s of Thaksin, yet under the fascist system the Thai people have absolutely no means to intervene and demand any accountability what so ever from their new self appointed leaders.
In one system the people clearly possess the power to stop the government in its tracks while under the other system the people are irrelevant, afraid to speak up and their only role is to be subservient mindless pawns who are dictated to.
This is precisely why it is worthwhile for Thais to stick to the electoral system, so that from time to time, when push comes to shove they can thwart the most outrageous acts of their national leadership.
Yes, torture probably did occur under Yingluck’s administration, as it also appears to under the fascists. However it is only under the democratic system that there is any hope at all for the elite to be held accountable for such actions.
Its public knowledge that the fascists have already put Thaksin’s highly controversial amnesty proposal and infrastructure budget on steroids while morphing them a little to suit their own needs and to maximise the benefits to their clients. Why would they break this trend and hold back on torture?
I suspect that like the other controversial issues they have simply put the existing torture practices on steroids and morphed them a bit to suit the specific needs of themselves and their clients. Its a business as usual approach if you will. ‘Inflate and take’