Thanks, Brooklynbridge. By “this country”, do you mean Kings County, New York? If not, well, in Thailand the new junta has talked about the monarchy quite a bit. Ought a far-reaching analysis of the current situation in the country not address the place of the monarchy and the effect of its post-1957 revival on Thai politics and society?
No real point on the absence of affiliation, Mr Saxer. I just found it curious. Your being a German in no way restricts your horizons, of course. Your piece makes this very clear. That having been said, the FES is the vehicle of a political party, a party with a distinguished history and a proud ideology. And your role in Thailand is to serve as a promoter of that party’s vision and priorities.
In contrast, the absence from your analysis of the monarchy is of pretty clear analytical relevance. It transcends the merely curious.
I am not sure how relevant the situation in Malaysia is compared to Indonesia. Malaysia at the time of its independence had about 50% chinese population before the ruling party forced many of Chinese Malaysians to migrate overseas due to unpopular ‘bumiputera’ policies. There are probably 4 major ethic groups in total in Malaysian politics overall? It is a necessity o have Chinese party in Malaysia.
I don’t think your analogy works for Indonesia with so many ethnic groups, almost 10x population of Malaysia, different political interests and longer postcolonial history.
The way I see is that there are more that Malaysia can learn from Indonesia rather than the other way around. It’s easy enough looking from the perimeter that all ethnic groups should have equal political representation. In reality, that will still take many more years to achieve.
Young Indonesians know better than toeing the ethnic lines anyway. They want to see results and not just rich oligarchies dictating Indonesian political course. It means very little who lead political parties as long as things get done better.
Democracy in Indonesia is only 16 years old and for such a short period time the progress has been a fascinating. There will be more to come for sure. And Malaysia needs to play catch up.
Asinine this par: “One could contest that the real issue for Thai middle classes is the fear of an emerging middle class in the regions that then threatens the position of the Bangkok middle classes.”
Why should Bangkok middle class feel threatened at all by growing middle classes elsewhere in the country?
That is a very good analysis. So-called “populist” policies are in fact important re-distributive policies. The inequalities of wealth in Thailand are gross and far worse than anywhere else in the region. Many of Pheu Thai’s policies may have been clumsy and flawed but all of them represented a critical move in the right direction. The point about wealth redistribution is that it is not simply about fairness it is about fully harnessing the nation’s energies.
I found the most useful part of this to be the analysis of the pro-coup discourses.
I think I would label the “Red Corruption” circle simply “Corruption”. I see the Corruption discourse varying on two different dimensions: (A) red corruption vs (B) corrupt politicians generally; and (1) corruption causing financial loss vs (2) corruption undermining electoral democracy. For example:
A1. Thaksin is more corrupt than any previous politician. The rice mortgage program is ruining the country. We have to kick Thaksin and his cronies out before he bankrupts the country.
A2. Thaksin was elected, but it doesn’t mean anything, because he bought people’s votes.
B1. All politicians are corrupt. We need reforms to increase checks and balances on politicians.
B2. The electoral process has been corrupted by vote-buying. We need reforms before elections.
(Just to be clear, I am not agreeing with these points of view; I am just saying that they represent strands of though among coup supporters.)
On the “Red Threat” discourse, I think an important element which Marc doesn’t mention is the monarchy. I think a lot of coup supporters have a visceral feeling that Thaksin and his supporters are not as loyal to the monarchy as they should be. We see this coming out in the junta’s noisy show of hunting down lese majeste suspects.
As for a way out, I am gloomy. I think it’s going to be difficult to gain acceptance for the sort of social contract that Marc envisages. Sadly, I think things will have to deteriorate into a fairly dire state before the middle classes will start to think that maybe real democracy isn’t so bad after all.
I think the key transformative enabler will be the right leader. What I believe is needed is a politician that
– is perceived as being one of the “good” people, both honest and competent,
– is genuinely committed to democratic principles, and
– has broad electoral appeal
Thailand hasn’t had anybody like that for a long time (ever?). The only potential candidate that springs to mind is Chadchart.
The only bit that really interests me is the last section “The way out of the transformation conflict” and it is here that reveals Saxer as being not that progressive but quite reactionary.
At one point Saxer suggests that any progressive coalition aiming for democracy “needs to give the middle classes something in return for bankrolling the state”. First of all the burden of taxation in Thailand comes from VAT, not income tax. And, as a proportion of income, the burden of taxation would therefore fall on the poor not the middle classes. VAT is a regressive flat-rate tax system.
Secondly the Bangkok middle classes already derive huge benefits from the Thai state – jobs, education, social status, income security. The one group who have been left out of the Thailand’s economy growth have been Thailand’s poor (who pay a larger proportion of their money in taxes than the middle classes) and, as we know, the only political initiative that has addressed their needs was the Thaksin-led one.
Saxer then mentions Thai middle class concerns over “corruption, incompetence and abuse of power”. My view would be that these concerns are not genuine but mask other deeper concerns that Saxer ignores. If these concerns were genuine why then would these middle classes so readily accept an illegal military coup – the ultimate abuse of power – and that such coups have always resulted in incompetent rule and appalling corruption? And why no more nuanced reading of who the Thai middle classes actually are?
One could contest that the real issue for Thai middle classes is the fear of an emerging middle class in the regions that then threatens the position of the Bangkok middle classes.
Despite the hackneyed fantasies of Western academics what marked out the Red Shirts was that they represented an emerging and aspirational middle class of the regions. And these aspirations were not built on kowtowing to the monarchy network or accepting the rule of the military as the ultimate arbiter but preferred entrepreneurialism and democracy. This was the real threat to Bangkok’s middle classes who’ve pretty much always been the backers of Thai coups – they were about to be usurped by a smarter, more mobile, more energetic middle class from the regions so they reverted to support for authoritarianism to secure their position.
And it is Saxer’s final paragraph where he writes of “Catering to the hopes and needs of the vast majority, the capabilities approach offers a powerful political platform, and a way to win an electoral mandate without patronizing “populist” handouts” that reminds me too much of Suthep and the PDRC’s rhetoric. Vague proclamations of aiming for a “Good Society with full capabilities for all” is not a particularly coherent idea – it’s one of those typically nebulous phrases that nobody can really define but nobody would want to disagree with.
In my view Saxer would do better in supporting the democratic aspirations of Thais. These aspirations have been very clearly expressed time after time and supported policies that re-distributed wealth and encouraged entrepreneurialism even if they were flawed.
Or should it be that only the kind of Western country Saxer hails from that is allowed to vote in flawed governments?
Devil is in the detail Marc. You don’t spell out the “reassurances” and “safeguards” the elites should be getting. Neither is the “something” that middle classes out to get in return for bankrolling the state mentioned. Oddly, only when it comes to what you note as the majority population do you state what they should be willing to part with for the sake of the ‘Good Society with full capabilities for all.’ In all humility, while the majority may be coerced to part with their “quick gains” and go back to the middle men profiting from the rice they grow or made to pay more for their health care, to ask that they put one person one vote to the guillotine as a pre-condition to their eventual emancipation may be a lot to ask, no?
Money can be washed and hid, but the stain of blood, is not so easily rid. Prabowo, you have been duly advised. Your skeletons are still intact, and they are jangling.
As this is already the second time someone refers to my work position, I wonder what the significance is?
Mr. Saxer, you must be either incredibly naive (or incredibly mendacious) to pose such a question. I would assume that at some point in your education you would have been exposed to the notion that the ethics of responsible scholarship demands that one be up front concerning one’s affiliations that have a bearing on the phenomenon studied. The fact is, you are the director of an organization that is a wing of a major German political party. Therefore, there is the question as to how much of your analysis is based on empirical observation and how much of it reflects the political policies and aims of your parent organization. Academic ethics demand that in such a situation, an upfront declaration of your affiliations so that a reader can properly place your arguments in context of possible biases. Now, I’m aware that you are fully cognizant of everything that I mentioned above; however, I shall humor you this one time. Every researcher and scholar has biases, so it’s no sin to identify them. What is a sin is to attempt to hide them, which is why your omission seems so suspicious. Thus, the question remains, “why?”
As there are no Chinese parties in Indonesia, Chinese-Indonesians remain appendages to established parties, like MCA and MIC (for some Malaysian Indians) are parasitic to UMNO in Malaysia. As DAP is a multicultural (though mostly Chinese) party in Malaysia, and strives to promote secular multicultural and multireligious paradigms, Indonesia needs
an analogous party in Indonesia, to truly
strive for democracy. I am sorry, Chinese voting for parties that would never be headed by an ethnic Chinese, in Indonesia, is not democracy. Indonesia remains backward, if not prejudicial, in how Chinese-Indonesians are treated (not that others are’t also treated poorly for various reasons). And, no, a parasitic party, analogous to MCA, in Malaysia, beholden to the ruling party of the day, is not democratic either. For the first time, Mostly Malaysian-Chinese DAP ran a female Malay candidate in Perak. She did not win, but the principle is absolutely correct and should spread widely. Indonesia should reach the point where perhaps Chinese or Batak parties are running Javanese candidates, and not the other way around. That is the goal, even if a high bar to meet.
An overtly multicultural party, made up of several ethnic and cultural groups, that consistently supports secularism, human rights, judicial fairness and tolerance (not pseudo-Pancasilism), where Chinese, Balinese, Ambonese, Batak, Minang, Papuan, etc. all have some voice, and ANYONE OF THEM, can lead the party, and not just a Javanese. That is the the place to start to engender democracy for all Indonesians. NO parasitism and no proxies; genuine voices and contributions by, and for, ALL Indonesians.
[…] attention has focused on Prabowo’s vaguely stated – but increasingly clear – desire to get rid of direct presidential elections should he win, and thus avoid having to face another popular […]
Prabowo seorang bohong setentu. Ini cukup.
Jika ingin menyokong satu orang, lebih baik jika orang memilih Jokowi di akhirnya. Ini pendapat saya sahaja. Untuk saya, Prabowo dengan banyak darah di tangan senampaknya.
I think Dr. Nambiar has correctly assessed the position of the Prime Minister from an economic growth perspective of a country experiencing growth slowdown.
Malaysia, which relies on international trade and foreign direct investment to drive the economy, especially now that it is facing a growth slowdown (almost for more than a decade now), needs external stimulus for a range of reasons.
With nothing happening at the WTO, and the government not prepared to undertake unilateral economic reforms (including trade reforms), the TPP appears to be the best bet, to ensure domestic structural reforms (which is needed to overcome the growth slowdown), and also capture marginal gains through this preferential trade agreement.
There will be social cost — no doubt.
But again that is his view. Others may have different views.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Thanks, Brooklynbridge. By “this country”, do you mean Kings County, New York? If not, well, in Thailand the new junta has talked about the monarchy quite a bit. Ought a far-reaching analysis of the current situation in the country not address the place of the monarchy and the effect of its post-1957 revival on Thai politics and society?
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
No real point on the absence of affiliation, Mr Saxer. I just found it curious. Your being a German in no way restricts your horizons, of course. Your piece makes this very clear. That having been said, the FES is the vehicle of a political party, a party with a distinguished history and a proud ideology. And your role in Thailand is to serve as a promoter of that party’s vision and priorities.
In contrast, the absence from your analysis of the monarchy is of pretty clear analytical relevance. It transcends the merely curious.
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Well said. I agree 100%.
Striving for safety
I am not sure how relevant the situation in Malaysia is compared to Indonesia. Malaysia at the time of its independence had about 50% chinese population before the ruling party forced many of Chinese Malaysians to migrate overseas due to unpopular ‘bumiputera’ policies. There are probably 4 major ethic groups in total in Malaysian politics overall? It is a necessity o have Chinese party in Malaysia.
I don’t think your analogy works for Indonesia with so many ethnic groups, almost 10x population of Malaysia, different political interests and longer postcolonial history.
The way I see is that there are more that Malaysia can learn from Indonesia rather than the other way around. It’s easy enough looking from the perimeter that all ethnic groups should have equal political representation. In reality, that will still take many more years to achieve.
Young Indonesians know better than toeing the ethnic lines anyway. They want to see results and not just rich oligarchies dictating Indonesian political course. It means very little who lead political parties as long as things get done better.
Democracy in Indonesia is only 16 years old and for such a short period time the progress has been a fascinating. There will be more to come for sure. And Malaysia needs to play catch up.
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Asinine this par: “One could contest that the real issue for Thai middle classes is the fear of an emerging middle class in the regions that then threatens the position of the Bangkok middle classes.”
Why should Bangkok middle class feel threatened at all by growing middle classes elsewhere in the country?
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
That is a very good analysis. So-called “populist” policies are in fact important re-distributive policies. The inequalities of wealth in Thailand are gross and far worse than anywhere else in the region. Many of Pheu Thai’s policies may have been clumsy and flawed but all of them represented a critical move in the right direction. The point about wealth redistribution is that it is not simply about fairness it is about fully harnessing the nation’s energies.
Have a happy Independence Day.
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
I found the most useful part of this to be the analysis of the pro-coup discourses.
I think I would label the “Red Corruption” circle simply “Corruption”. I see the Corruption discourse varying on two different dimensions: (A) red corruption vs (B) corrupt politicians generally; and (1) corruption causing financial loss vs (2) corruption undermining electoral democracy. For example:
A1. Thaksin is more corrupt than any previous politician. The rice mortgage program is ruining the country. We have to kick Thaksin and his cronies out before he bankrupts the country.
A2. Thaksin was elected, but it doesn’t mean anything, because he bought people’s votes.
B1. All politicians are corrupt. We need reforms to increase checks and balances on politicians.
B2. The electoral process has been corrupted by vote-buying. We need reforms before elections.
(Just to be clear, I am not agreeing with these points of view; I am just saying that they represent strands of though among coup supporters.)
On the “Red Threat” discourse, I think an important element which Marc doesn’t mention is the monarchy. I think a lot of coup supporters have a visceral feeling that Thaksin and his supporters are not as loyal to the monarchy as they should be. We see this coming out in the junta’s noisy show of hunting down lese majeste suspects.
As for a way out, I am gloomy. I think it’s going to be difficult to gain acceptance for the sort of social contract that Marc envisages. Sadly, I think things will have to deteriorate into a fairly dire state before the middle classes will start to think that maybe real democracy isn’t so bad after all.
I think the key transformative enabler will be the right leader. What I believe is needed is a politician that
– is perceived as being one of the “good” people, both honest and competent,
– is genuinely committed to democratic principles, and
– has broad electoral appeal
Thailand hasn’t had anybody like that for a long time (ever?). The only potential candidate that springs to mind is Chadchart.
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
The only bit that really interests me is the last section “The way out of the transformation conflict” and it is here that reveals Saxer as being not that progressive but quite reactionary.
At one point Saxer suggests that any progressive coalition aiming for democracy “needs to give the middle classes something in return for bankrolling the state”. First of all the burden of taxation in Thailand comes from VAT, not income tax. And, as a proportion of income, the burden of taxation would therefore fall on the poor not the middle classes. VAT is a regressive flat-rate tax system.
Secondly the Bangkok middle classes already derive huge benefits from the Thai state – jobs, education, social status, income security. The one group who have been left out of the Thailand’s economy growth have been Thailand’s poor (who pay a larger proportion of their money in taxes than the middle classes) and, as we know, the only political initiative that has addressed their needs was the Thaksin-led one.
Saxer then mentions Thai middle class concerns over “corruption, incompetence and abuse of power”. My view would be that these concerns are not genuine but mask other deeper concerns that Saxer ignores. If these concerns were genuine why then would these middle classes so readily accept an illegal military coup – the ultimate abuse of power – and that such coups have always resulted in incompetent rule and appalling corruption? And why no more nuanced reading of who the Thai middle classes actually are?
One could contest that the real issue for Thai middle classes is the fear of an emerging middle class in the regions that then threatens the position of the Bangkok middle classes.
Despite the hackneyed fantasies of Western academics what marked out the Red Shirts was that they represented an emerging and aspirational middle class of the regions. And these aspirations were not built on kowtowing to the monarchy network or accepting the rule of the military as the ultimate arbiter but preferred entrepreneurialism and democracy. This was the real threat to Bangkok’s middle classes who’ve pretty much always been the backers of Thai coups – they were about to be usurped by a smarter, more mobile, more energetic middle class from the regions so they reverted to support for authoritarianism to secure their position.
And it is Saxer’s final paragraph where he writes of “Catering to the hopes and needs of the vast majority, the capabilities approach offers a powerful political platform, and a way to win an electoral mandate without patronizing “populist” handouts” that reminds me too much of Suthep and the PDRC’s rhetoric. Vague proclamations of aiming for a “Good Society with full capabilities for all” is not a particularly coherent idea – it’s one of those typically nebulous phrases that nobody can really define but nobody would want to disagree with.
In my view Saxer would do better in supporting the democratic aspirations of Thais. These aspirations have been very clearly expressed time after time and supported policies that re-distributed wealth and encouraged entrepreneurialism even if they were flawed.
Or should it be that only the kind of Western country Saxer hails from that is allowed to vote in flawed governments?
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Any “long term observer of Thai politics” will understand why Marc Saxer does not include certain words in his analysis.
Clearly, Suriyon, you are not familiar with this country.
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Devil is in the detail Marc. You don’t spell out the “reassurances” and “safeguards” the elites should be getting. Neither is the “something” that middle classes out to get in return for bankrolling the state mentioned. Oddly, only when it comes to what you note as the majority population do you state what they should be willing to part with for the sake of the ‘Good Society with full capabilities for all.’ In all humility, while the majority may be coerced to part with their “quick gains” and go back to the middle men profiting from the rice they grow or made to pay more for their health care, to ask that they put one person one vote to the guillotine as a pre-condition to their eventual emancipation may be a lot to ask, no?
The perils of loyalty
Money can be washed and hid, but the stain of blood, is not so easily rid. Prabowo, you have been duly advised. Your skeletons are still intact, and they are jangling.
Striving for safety
Maybe also relevant to this article,
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/07/01/gerindra-s-christian-chinese-wings-support-jokowi-kalla.html
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Mr. Saxer, you must be either incredibly naive (or incredibly mendacious) to pose such a question. I would assume that at some point in your education you would have been exposed to the notion that the ethics of responsible scholarship demands that one be up front concerning one’s affiliations that have a bearing on the phenomenon studied. The fact is, you are the director of an organization that is a wing of a major German political party. Therefore, there is the question as to how much of your analysis is based on empirical observation and how much of it reflects the political policies and aims of your parent organization. Academic ethics demand that in such a situation, an upfront declaration of your affiliations so that a reader can properly place your arguments in context of possible biases. Now, I’m aware that you are fully cognizant of everything that I mentioned above; however, I shall humor you this one time. Every researcher and scholar has biases, so it’s no sin to identify them. What is a sin is to attempt to hide them, which is why your omission seems so suspicious. Thus, the question remains, “why?”
Sukarno’s two bodies
[…] time, Prabowo is running as, in effect, the new Sukarno, the nationalist who loudly insists that he will not bow to […]
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Apparently you can’t be affiliated with a democracy-building organization and then write about democracy?
Ah, but “social democracy” is not equivalent to democracy qua democracy. And therein lies the point.
Striving for safety
As there are no Chinese parties in Indonesia, Chinese-Indonesians remain appendages to established parties, like MCA and MIC (for some Malaysian Indians) are parasitic to UMNO in Malaysia. As DAP is a multicultural (though mostly Chinese) party in Malaysia, and strives to promote secular multicultural and multireligious paradigms, Indonesia needs
an analogous party in Indonesia, to truly
strive for democracy. I am sorry, Chinese voting for parties that would never be headed by an ethnic Chinese, in Indonesia, is not democracy. Indonesia remains backward, if not prejudicial, in how Chinese-Indonesians are treated (not that others are’t also treated poorly for various reasons). And, no, a parasitic party, analogous to MCA, in Malaysia, beholden to the ruling party of the day, is not democratic either. For the first time, Mostly Malaysian-Chinese DAP ran a female Malay candidate in Perak. She did not win, but the principle is absolutely correct and should spread widely. Indonesia should reach the point where perhaps Chinese or Batak parties are running Javanese candidates, and not the other way around. That is the goal, even if a high bar to meet.
An overtly multicultural party, made up of several ethnic and cultural groups, that consistently supports secularism, human rights, judicial fairness and tolerance (not pseudo-Pancasilism), where Chinese, Balinese, Ambonese, Batak, Minang, Papuan, etc. all have some voice, and ANYONE OF THEM, can lead the party, and not just a Javanese. That is the the place to start to engender democracy for all Indonesians. NO parasitism and no proxies; genuine voices and contributions by, and for, ALL Indonesians.
Prabowo Subianto: vote for me, but just the once
[…] attention has focused on Prabowo’s vaguely stated – but increasingly clear – desire to get rid of direct presidential elections should he win, and thus avoid having to face another popular […]
Jangan tertipu – Prabowo (masih) ingin menghapus pemilihan presiden secara langsung
Prabowo seorang bohong setentu. Ini cukup.
Jika ingin menyokong satu orang, lebih baik jika orang memilih Jokowi di akhirnya. Ini pendapat saya sahaja. Untuk saya, Prabowo dengan banyak darah di tangan senampaknya.
The TPP: Najib Razak’s Gordian Knot
Hi Sharaad,
I think Dr. Nambiar has correctly assessed the position of the Prime Minister from an economic growth perspective of a country experiencing growth slowdown.
Malaysia, which relies on international trade and foreign direct investment to drive the economy, especially now that it is facing a growth slowdown (almost for more than a decade now), needs external stimulus for a range of reasons.
With nothing happening at the WTO, and the government not prepared to undertake unilateral economic reforms (including trade reforms), the TPP appears to be the best bet, to ensure domestic structural reforms (which is needed to overcome the growth slowdown), and also capture marginal gains through this preferential trade agreement.
There will be social cost — no doubt.
But again that is his view. Others may have different views.
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Excellent, insightful essay. The author’s affiliations are immaterial — address his arguments, not his personal situation.