A magnificent piece of writing that the Generals should carefully study.This present coup is nothing but an attempt to re-establish the power of the entrenched elite and eliminate the opposition once and for all. In the future there should be only one party in control, namely the Democrat Party, and their members should reign supreme in the judiciary, the bureaucracy, and all the organs of state, before a next general election is held, if ever.
First, Mr Saxer chooses not to indicate that he is the resident director of the Bangkok office of the German Social Democratic Party’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation (see http://www.fes-thailand.org/wb/pages/english/our-team.php). Many New Mandala readers will know this, and one thus has to wonder why the brief line on his background at the end of his piece omits any mention of it.
Second, for all its length and its author’s status as “a long-time observer of Thai politics”, the piece does not include the words “king”, “palace” or “monarchy”. This curiosity (to be gentle about it) is significant because of its relevance to Mr Saxer’s hope that Thailand’s so called middle class can be brought on board in support of democracy. His analysis needs to confront the question of whether Thai society of today, in which (unlike even in the fairly recent past) systems of status are so thoroughly reinforced by the mindless exaltation of a poorly understood “institution”, really harbours a “middle class” as that term is conventionally understood in societies like that of the Federal Republic of Germany. If the answer is “no”, then Mr Saxer’s analysis would seem to rest on false premises.
You make at least one point that is obviously true; democratic government was not been truly functional in Thailand ever since the aborted election in April 2006. I suggest it simply has not been allowed to be and, instead of being nurtured, there are major powers in the land – the military and the network monarchy at the forefront – which have set out deliberately to obstruct, even destroy it. The latest disruption could very easily have been avoided given two things; a military that believed it had an ultimate responsibility to support the King’s appointed government; and a monarch who was both willing and able to give a healing and conciliating hand to the disputing parties. My guess is that, if the military had actually performed its function properly, royal intervention would not have been necessary in any case. The role of the military is absolutely crucial; far from being the saviour of the nation, it is the greatest impediment to a functioning democracy and I am certain the latter will not be achieved until the military is put in its place and kept there.
Since the first recorded history of Human race on writings, there is no such thing as fair and being objective entirely.
People have views on certain issues/people and hence they talked about it and discussed it. If they found a new thing during the discussion they might change the way they view the issues/people and that is how academics work. To side on one side while being as factual as possible and question on the other side.
There is nothing wrong to be negative (realist), what is wrong is when people stop talking about it and went into delusional state (optimistic!)
Many newspapers/magazine/academics etc have interviews or tried to ask Prabowo about his involvement in 1998 Riot and other human abuse incident, most the time he answered either “Which company are you from?” or “I am just subordinate”.
That is the reality. The next time Indonesia to get into big financial crisis, and god forbid if Prabowo is President, he will probably said “Not my fault, I was not responsible for it”. The “Not-my-fault” mentality.
Of course, you could always inform the readers on one reliable and known media/writings/newspaper that is 100% fair and objective. I doubt there is any, because it does not work that way.
Quite your best copy-and-paste job ever, which gets my thumbs up because it is the only piece I have read here – or anywhere actually – which sets out a plausible case for the US not to oppose the coup. That is not to say that I agree with it entirely!
Before we even talk about what Democracy Indonesia run under, we should go back and revise on couple basic on what is under Democracy. For example, something we called human right and something we called freedom of speech.
We do not know how Jokowi will be like if he is to be elected, but what we do know that Prabowo is rather famous(infamous) to breach this 2 basic rights under democracy.
Human right abuse, Prabowo Checked (too many to list, but 1998 is rather recent known event), Jokowi Unknown.
Restriction to freedom of speech, Prabowo Checked (the alleged punching incident and Facebook “Devil reincarnate” incident) , Jokowi Unknown.
About Nationalism and awareness, you cannot expect the citizens who are alienated, abused and treated as a fool (for distributing false news and threatened for freedom of speech) to have that, right? Not to mentioned that how the politicians are elected through connections+money rather than meritocracy.
And I do not understand your “the greater good and the good of many far outweigh personal interest”. If we are electing someone under Democracy, we are electing on OUR PERSONAL INTEREST, which is an irony when you mentioned about Representative Democracy.
Most of the time, this is not really an issue of what government system Indonesia heading towards but rather, how will the next President leads Indonesia in the next 5 years. A country who has dictator or monarch does not equal a bad country, the same goes with, a country who has a President under Democracy will always be a good country. It just does not work that way.
Well, here’s progress – bravo (brava?) for at least attributing the source of this particular massive copy’n’paste.
Any serious reason why you felt compelled to reproduce all of it here (in breach of Bangkok Post’s copyright admonitions, by the way) – rather than provide an intro/extract and then link to the original?
Are these copy’n’paste jobs intended as some kind of stand-in response to the many questions you’ve been asked and have ignored?
[…] Un point rapide sur l’implication et les commentaires étrangers sur ces élections, et plus particulièrement sur la ┬л mafia ANU ┬╗. Cette dernière, menée par MM. Mietzner et Aspinall n’a cessé de prendre parti pour Joko Widodo, en dénigrant Prabowo Subianto sur des bases parfois justifiées, mais fort souvent motivée par ce qui semble se rapprocher de la pathologie psychiatrique (il faut aussi reconna├оtre que ces deux experts voyaient le PDI-P réaliser un score de plus de 25% aux législatives… et n’ont toujours pas fait amende honorable sur la prévision manquée). Ces bons messieurs et leurs bons étudiants ne cessent d’encourager l’Indonésie ├а poursuivre sa transition démocratique, ce qui est un objectif noble. Cependant, alors que les dernières estimations laissent envisager un succès de Prabowo Subianto, ces m├кmes défenseurs de l’expression démocratique indonésienne enjoignent les citoyens indonésiens ├а ne pas voter pour Prabowo Subianto. O├╣ comment encourager la démocratie par le déni de démocratie, tout en prenant allègrement les Indonésiens pour des idiots. […]
This is disappointing. Concerns about Prabowo are legitimate. And critically monitoring this election, its candidates, and democracy in Indonesia more broadly is important.
But some of Ed and Marcus’ critiques, I think, are overly partisan. I don’t think there’s much of anything Prabowo could’ve said to assuage their fears or prove his commitment to democracy. Maybe that’s their point.
If I could add something more to this piece though, it’d be to note that the concerns and frustrations that Prabowo brought up are valid and worth addressing. They should be taken seriously. These are concerns that scholars like Ed and Marcus themselves, I believe, have written on. How can Indonesia continue to hold elections while not letting them be defined by money politics and post-election violence? How can Indonesia find the right balance between a centralized state and decentralized power? How can Indonesia deal with the paradox of democracy whereby a majority of voters sometimes elect a candidate who is undemocratic? Or a candidate who doesn’t equally protect the civil liberties of all constituents?
These are questions that go far beyond Indonesia. It’s possible to be critical of the state of democracy in Indonesia without necessarily being anti-democratic.
Liam, no, err I mean yes. But hey, when so many Oz academics are openly rooting for a tomb busting second coming of the malign influence of Kalla, this time as steadying elder hand to a blank page like Jokowi, balance must be restored with a wee bit of truth telling, don’t you agree?
Those with enough skin in the game will remember how the Islamist incrementalist Kalla, during one of his anti Chinese and Christian pogroms, had the Makassar Industrial Estate burned and trashed, along with Aust businesses and a considerable amount of our hardearned [perhaps even your parents’] that shouldn’t have been wasted by the profligate NT Govt and in any case should have been used for indigenous welfare. Remember how J.K and his Kalla Lines shipping fleet were banned from entering Darwin Harbour? Didn’t know that either? Small matter of corruption and animal cruelty as I recall. The Modis and Erdogans are not Western democrats, neither is Prabowo, nor is Kalla. Balance, please.
Writer: W Scott Thompson
Published: 30 Jun 2014 at 17.05
There was a time when Thai-American relations were almost a love affair. The Americans got the kingdom off the hook with the British and French, who wanted retribution for Thai participation alongside the Japanese in World War II.
The US sent a succession of distinguished ambassadors and more junior officers to Thailand, the best of whom always learned Thai and mingled in the provinces. For example, Ambassador Young, appointed by President Kennedy, whose son, Stephen Young, has recently written an essay on the US Embassy on Wireless Road.
Stephen Young has given extraordinary evidence of the blindness at the embassy to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s completion of the conversion of Thai governance to money politics. But in fact, for 20 years students of Thailand have tried to warn the embassy that Thaksin was something different from the rest.
When I mentioned at the embassy Thaksin’s efforts to influence the media through his wealth, the reaction was, so whats new about that?
When his style of governance, revealed after 2001, that he planned to stay in government house forever, the embassy’s reaction was, He got the votes, didnt he? But democratic theory nowhere in the world considers the mere accumulation of votes a sufficient condition of representative rule.
The American problem is two fold. In the first place, diplomats get few points for knowing anything about a country to which they are assigned with the exception of language training, which still plays a role in representation. Theyre rewarded for getting scoops, in the same manner as journalists, and for being one step ahead with gossip on the diplomatic cocktail circuit.
The second problem is that America is still, however diminished, such an international colossus that it can try to dictate a worldwide agenda. In the late 1970s, human rights became a priority. So assistant secretaries would traipse around the world inspecting human rights achievements. But it was a joke, governments would let out a few political opponents, and the revolving door then locked up a few others.
Here in Bangkok, the ambassador worked closely with the very Thai government official appointed to put the best Thai face forward.
The next stage was democracy. The entire world must be seen to be building democracy, and ambassadors got points in Washington if the country to which they were assigned was making progress.
Here in Thailand, it became quite amusing. In 1980, the parliament came into being, replacing a military regime. In fact the parliament was not the location of power. But the appearance that Thailand was “building democracy” gave the then ambassador something to crow about in Washington. But in fact, he suffered the personal humiliation of not even being able to call on the Thai prime minister for as long as a year. But in Washington, his reputation went unblemished. Now we have the spectacle of the current ambassador, Kristie Kenney, opposing a change of governance in Thailand by much the same method that she showed her support in the Philippines in her previous ambassadorship, when the now imprisoned president, Gloria Arroyo, was seeking any road that might lead to her remaining in charge.
Now it is true, in the words of a 17th century British diplomat, that an ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country. The operative word is country. It is not on the job description of an ambassador to promote herself or himself. It is on the job description, however, for the embassy to represent the home country honestly and honourably, at least as best it possibly can, and to report thoroughly on developments within the country that might impinge on the relationship between countries. In 50 years of watching, and occasionally participating in diplomacy in the third world, Ive never seen an envoy get it so wrong as Ms Kenney.
Of course it was a corollary that by definition coups détat were bad things. But we used to be somewhat discriminatory about coups. In 1966 I was in a small African country led by a Marxist dictator, who was overthrown by the army and police. The celebration of the American embassy was palpable. We just waited for one Western power to recognise the new army and the police regime to recognise it, and then to send it urgent supplies of the arms necessary to defend itself. The disguise as food aid was rather thin, given the weight of the boxes. We supported the coup détat because it was in our interest. There are numerous other such examples.
There was understanding in Washington that not all countries were the same and a one size fits all policy simply couldnt work. Now, however, the automatic condemnation of a coup détat has a knee jerk quality to it, and even the Europeans have come to see it the same way. The political elite in Thailand should bear in mind this ambassadors background in the Philippines, and put in context the unique character of the American condemnation of the new government in Bangkok.
The fact is that numerous American diplomats, academics, and NGO officials have worked with their counterparts in Thailand to nourish democratic roots. Thousands of Thais choosing to be educated abroad in democratic countries has also helped.
True, there have been too many instances of blood-thirsty colonelssoon to be field marshals who have thrown aside nascent democracies, for the sake of the prize at stake. But the recent Thai coup is in many ways the converse. Given the Night of the Long Knives that Thaksin set in motion, the revenge-oriented policies in the South that reignited the insurgency, and the continual enlargement of his family fortune, raises the question of whether Thaksin sees “democracy” as a tactic to ensure his perpetual rule.
On the contrary, what I have learned about General Prayuth Chan-ocha is that he is a professional, from a modest family, his father a provincial teacher, with no evident interest in accumulating a fortune. He ascended the commanding military heights because he was seen as the best. He was always seen as a good man to have on your side, precisely because of his brains and professionalism. My guess is that he will be a significant force in Thai politics for at least five years, the minimum time needed to root out the personal allies of Thaksin.
The past is prologue. The so-called Bangkok elite in the second half of the 20th century fostered policies that generated great wealth for the kingdom. It was slow to see the necessity of a fair distribution of the winnings. I dont know of a single example in history that is any different; countries that get rich quickly invariably permit those responsible for the growth to keep a disproportionate share for themselves. Its the story of America and Britain following the industrial revolution and subsequent great surges in wealth.
Today, in America, the biggest challenge is growing inequality. The innovators are getting richer and richer while the middle-class slips inexorably backwards. This engenders profound reactions, which will in the next decade inevitably force tax reform.
America should be working with, not against, the new rulers. The kingdom faces painful and sensitive transitions in the next decade, and we should be grateful that there are strong hands at the wheels of change.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
W Scott Thompson, professor emeritus of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, is an expert on Southeast Asia now living in Bali and Manila
Similar to any coup in Thailand, resistence to the current junta would probably come from the most unlikely sections of society. Very few had taken note of Jattuporn and Nattawuth prior to the 2007 coup and the left-wing political faction had been considered to be insignificant before it was later mobilized into the Red Shirt movement. If one wish to see whether ordinary hard-working Thais have the potential to become defiance to the junta’s rule, it is advisable to observe the reaction of small state lottery retailers to the junta attempt to fix the retail price at 80 baht. It has been known that the state sells the lottery at 76 baht to retailers and 72 baht to wholesellers nationwide. Therefore, most small retailers who have to buy lottery from wholesellers, usually pay nearly 80 baht for each lottery and they would earn nothing if they are force to sell at 80 baht. In a act of defiance, a small vender near Nang Lerng Race Track put out a sign ” I brought the lottery at 80 baht from a wholeseller, how much do you want to pay for it?”
The coup staged for benefit of the ruling class in the overly centralized country can not comprehend and and act in the best interest of the majority of the people. The junta would therefore end in a failure by this short-coming.
Thais will never tolerate Thaksin? You mean Thaksin’s opponents including the minority of Bangkok dwelling mall inhabiting I phone wielding anti democrats brainwashed by the ancien regime won’t tolerate him.
Whether it’s next month next year or in 10 years this will end. It always does. The clock can be stopped but it can’t be turned back.Lets just hope there isn’t massive bloodshed.And one more thing Vichai, Bangkok is not Thailand and isaan manifestly outnumbers you. Disenfranchise them at your peril.
“Thaksin is a malignancy that Thailand will never tolerate.”
“Thailand”? Really? Seems a rather sweeping term – and repeatedly belied by those inconvenient election results. Now, if it were qualified by saying “the shadow powers-that-be in Thailand” then the claim starts to acquire some accuracy – just as this same key factor is also glaringly absent from the first paragraph.
Oh please, comparing LKY to Prabowo ? Are you joking ? What is the infant mortality rate in Indonesia ? What is the infant mortality rate in Singapore ? Hitler ? Chiang Kai-shek ? Nasser, Mao, Qaddafi ? You forgot Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, Najib Razak, and definitely forgot Mahathir. In fact, it is to Mahathir, that Prabowo should be compared to, and both come out smelling very bad. William, your attempt at political evolutionary biology is funny, but has no basis in reality. Prabowo’s age is irrelevant. Mahathir is almost 90 and has had four or five heart bypass operations, and yet continues to ruin and abuse Malaysian human rights, from behind the curtain. Facts are facts, so enough drivel, Prabowo committed human rights abuses, and he committed them
DIRECTLY. He could just as easily commit them
at the age of 86 (god forbid he is in politics that long). Nobody on NM has ever said, PRABOWO WAS THE ONLY ONE who has committed abuses, BUT tell me, for all his failings, has Jokowi ever committed any human rights abuses, even indirectly ? If you can’t answer that, and you happen to be Indonesian, I advise you not to vote.
Indonesia by nature is currently running representative democracy, not direct democracy. In Political Parties, written in 1911 by Robert Michels, it mentioned that this system tends to lean towards corrupt oligarchy, which is currently too deeply rooted and indeed destructive. The most surefire way to get rid of corruption? Total purge of current (way too corrupted) system. For one, the most stable and productive form of goverment is guided democracy WITH citizens possessing a healthy awareness and nationalism. Say whatever you want, but most Indonesians nationalism is pathetic at best. To change this is a must.
After all, the greater good and the good of many far outweigh personal interest. In this individualist society (yes, f*ck Jakarta, for example… and no, I’m not even gonna hide that contempt), this current society trend will lead Indonesia to ruin, both in society and its national character. You might protest of my mention of Jakarta, but IF you know what going on behind the apparent gleam of metropolis ‘society’, you might want to vomit. I’m not going to mention conspiracy topics like other country’s black ops, cultural invasion, or such, but surely the fact that if nationalism died then the country is as good as corpse is not too hard to understand, no? Proof? Lets see who’s still even remember national anthem and motto. Heck, even pathetic social trends like ‘alay’ culture and rampant brand consumerism is clearly a bad sign if one think logically. Which most people clearly don’t, Indonesia is still a developing country after all.
Besides, I’m sure as hell don’t want a president that can be ‘directed’ by ‘The Big Mom’. Ain’t gonna risk that.
Indonesia by nature is currently running representative democracy, not direct democracy. In Political Parties, written in 1911 by Robert Michels, it mentioned that this system tends to lean towards corrupt oligarchy, which is currently too deeply rooted and indeed destructive. For one, the most stable and productive form of goverment is guided democracy WITH citizens possessing a healthy awareness and nationalism. Say whatever you want, but most Indonesians nationalism is pathetic at best. To change this is a must.
After all, the greater good and the good of many far outweigh personal interest. In this individualist society (yes, f*ck Jakarta, for example), this current society trend will lead Indonesia to ruin, both in society and its national character. I’m not going to mention conspiracy topics like other country’s black ops, cultural invasion, or such, but surely the fact that if nationalism died then the country is as good as corpse is not too hard to understand, no? Proof? Lets see who’s still even remember national anthem and motto. Heck, even pathetic social trends like ‘alay’ culture and rampant brand consumerism is clearly a bad sign if one think logically.
After all, I’m sure as hell don’t want a president that can be ‘directed’ by ‘The Big Mom’. Ain’t gonna even risk that.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
A magnificent piece of writing that the Generals should carefully study.This present coup is nothing but an attempt to re-establish the power of the entrenched elite and eliminate the opposition once and for all. In the future there should be only one party in control, namely the Democrat Party, and their members should reign supreme in the judiciary, the bureaucracy, and all the organs of state, before a next general election is held, if ever.
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
A curious piece, in at least two regards.
First, Mr Saxer chooses not to indicate that he is the resident director of the Bangkok office of the German Social Democratic Party’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation (see http://www.fes-thailand.org/wb/pages/english/our-team.php). Many New Mandala readers will know this, and one thus has to wonder why the brief line on his background at the end of his piece omits any mention of it.
Second, for all its length and its author’s status as “a long-time observer of Thai politics”, the piece does not include the words “king”, “palace” or “monarchy”. This curiosity (to be gentle about it) is significant because of its relevance to Mr Saxer’s hope that Thailand’s so called middle class can be brought on board in support of democracy. His analysis needs to confront the question of whether Thai society of today, in which (unlike even in the fairly recent past) systems of status are so thoroughly reinforced by the mindless exaltation of a poorly understood “institution”, really harbours a “middle class” as that term is conventionally understood in societies like that of the Federal Republic of Germany. If the answer is “no”, then Mr Saxer’s analysis would seem to rest on false premises.
Thailand’s coup: same same but different?
You make at least one point that is obviously true; democratic government was not been truly functional in Thailand ever since the aborted election in April 2006. I suggest it simply has not been allowed to be and, instead of being nurtured, there are major powers in the land – the military and the network monarchy at the forefront – which have set out deliberately to obstruct, even destroy it. The latest disruption could very easily have been avoided given two things; a military that believed it had an ultimate responsibility to support the King’s appointed government; and a monarch who was both willing and able to give a healing and conciliating hand to the disputing parties. My guess is that, if the military had actually performed its function properly, royal intervention would not have been necessary in any case. The role of the military is absolutely crucial; far from being the saviour of the nation, it is the greatest impediment to a functioning democracy and I am certain the latter will not be achieved until the military is put in its place and kept there.
Don’t be fooled – Prabowo (still) wants to get rid of direct presidential elections
Since the first recorded history of Human race on writings, there is no such thing as fair and being objective entirely.
People have views on certain issues/people and hence they talked about it and discussed it. If they found a new thing during the discussion they might change the way they view the issues/people and that is how academics work. To side on one side while being as factual as possible and question on the other side.
There is nothing wrong to be negative (realist), what is wrong is when people stop talking about it and went into delusional state (optimistic!)
Many newspapers/magazine/academics etc have interviews or tried to ask Prabowo about his involvement in 1998 Riot and other human abuse incident, most the time he answered either “Which company are you from?” or “I am just subordinate”.
That is the reality. The next time Indonesia to get into big financial crisis, and god forbid if Prabowo is President, he will probably said “Not my fault, I was not responsible for it”. The “Not-my-fault” mentality.
Of course, you could always inform the readers on one reliable and known media/writings/newspaper that is 100% fair and objective. I doubt there is any, because it does not work that way.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Quite your best copy-and-paste job ever, which gets my thumbs up because it is the only piece I have read here – or anywhere actually – which sets out a plausible case for the US not to oppose the coup. That is not to say that I agree with it entirely!
Prabowo Subianto: vote for me, but just the once
Before we even talk about what Democracy Indonesia run under, we should go back and revise on couple basic on what is under Democracy. For example, something we called human right and something we called freedom of speech.
We do not know how Jokowi will be like if he is to be elected, but what we do know that Prabowo is rather famous(infamous) to breach this 2 basic rights under democracy.
Human right abuse, Prabowo Checked (too many to list, but 1998 is rather recent known event), Jokowi Unknown.
Restriction to freedom of speech, Prabowo Checked (the alleged punching incident and Facebook “Devil reincarnate” incident) , Jokowi Unknown.
About Nationalism and awareness, you cannot expect the citizens who are alienated, abused and treated as a fool (for distributing false news and threatened for freedom of speech) to have that, right? Not to mentioned that how the politicians are elected through connections+money rather than meritocracy.
And I do not understand your “the greater good and the good of many far outweigh personal interest”. If we are electing someone under Democracy, we are electing on OUR PERSONAL INTEREST, which is an irony when you mentioned about Representative Democracy.
Most of the time, this is not really an issue of what government system Indonesia heading towards but rather, how will the next President leads Indonesia in the next 5 years. A country who has dictator or monarch does not equal a bad country, the same goes with, a country who has a President under Democracy will always be a good country. It just does not work that way.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Well, here’s progress – bravo (brava?) for at least attributing the source of this particular massive copy’n’paste.
Any serious reason why you felt compelled to reproduce all of it here (in breach of Bangkok Post’s copyright admonitions, by the way) – rather than provide an intro/extract and then link to the original?
Are these copy’n’paste jobs intended as some kind of stand-in response to the many questions you’ve been asked and have ignored?
Jokowi and Prabowo reflect a decade of frustrations with SBY
excellent article!
Prabowo Subianto: vote for me, but just the once
An illuminating profile of Prabowo’s educated supporter
Don’t be fooled – Prabowo (still) wants to get rid of direct presidential elections
[…] Un point rapide sur l’implication et les commentaires étrangers sur ces élections, et plus particulièrement sur la ┬л mafia ANU ┬╗. Cette dernière, menée par MM. Mietzner et Aspinall n’a cessé de prendre parti pour Joko Widodo, en dénigrant Prabowo Subianto sur des bases parfois justifiées, mais fort souvent motivée par ce qui semble se rapprocher de la pathologie psychiatrique (il faut aussi reconna├оtre que ces deux experts voyaient le PDI-P réaliser un score de plus de 25% aux législatives… et n’ont toujours pas fait amende honorable sur la prévision manquée). Ces bons messieurs et leurs bons étudiants ne cessent d’encourager l’Indonésie ├а poursuivre sa transition démocratique, ce qui est un objectif noble. Cependant, alors que les dernières estimations laissent envisager un succès de Prabowo Subianto, ces m├кmes défenseurs de l’expression démocratique indonésienne enjoignent les citoyens indonésiens ├а ne pas voter pour Prabowo Subianto. O├╣ comment encourager la démocratie par le déni de démocratie, tout en prenant allègrement les Indonésiens pour des idiots. […]
Don’t be fooled – Prabowo (still) wants to get rid of direct presidential elections
This is disappointing. Concerns about Prabowo are legitimate. And critically monitoring this election, its candidates, and democracy in Indonesia more broadly is important.
But some of Ed and Marcus’ critiques, I think, are overly partisan. I don’t think there’s much of anything Prabowo could’ve said to assuage their fears or prove his commitment to democracy. Maybe that’s their point.
If I could add something more to this piece though, it’d be to note that the concerns and frustrations that Prabowo brought up are valid and worth addressing. They should be taken seriously. These are concerns that scholars like Ed and Marcus themselves, I believe, have written on. How can Indonesia continue to hold elections while not letting them be defined by money politics and post-election violence? How can Indonesia find the right balance between a centralized state and decentralized power? How can Indonesia deal with the paradox of democracy whereby a majority of voters sometimes elect a candidate who is undemocratic? Or a candidate who doesn’t equally protect the civil liberties of all constituents?
These are questions that go far beyond Indonesia. It’s possible to be critical of the state of democracy in Indonesia without necessarily being anti-democratic.
Don’t be fooled – Prabowo (still) wants to get rid of direct presidential elections
Liam, no, err I mean yes. But hey, when so many Oz academics are openly rooting for a tomb busting second coming of the malign influence of Kalla, this time as steadying elder hand to a blank page like Jokowi, balance must be restored with a wee bit of truth telling, don’t you agree?
Those with enough skin in the game will remember how the Islamist incrementalist Kalla, during one of his anti Chinese and Christian pogroms, had the Makassar Industrial Estate burned and trashed, along with Aust businesses and a considerable amount of our hardearned [perhaps even your parents’] that shouldn’t have been wasted by the profligate NT Govt and in any case should have been used for indigenous welfare. Remember how J.K and his Kalla Lines shipping fleet were banned from entering Darwin Harbour? Didn’t know that either? Small matter of corruption and animal cruelty as I recall. The Modis and Erdogans are not Western democrats, neither is Prabowo, nor is Kalla. Balance, please.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
America must not work against NCPO : W Scott Thompson
2 р╕Бр╕гр╕Бр╕Ор╕▓р╕Др╕б 2014 р╣Вр╕Фр╕в blogger [р╕нр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щ 38 р╕Др╕Щ , р╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щ , ID]
America must not work against NCPO
Writer: W Scott Thompson
Published: 30 Jun 2014 at 17.05
There was a time when Thai-American relations were almost a love affair. The Americans got the kingdom off the hook with the British and French, who wanted retribution for Thai participation alongside the Japanese in World War II.
The US sent a succession of distinguished ambassadors and more junior officers to Thailand, the best of whom always learned Thai and mingled in the provinces. For example, Ambassador Young, appointed by President Kennedy, whose son, Stephen Young, has recently written an essay on the US Embassy on Wireless Road.
Stephen Young has given extraordinary evidence of the blindness at the embassy to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s completion of the conversion of Thai governance to money politics. But in fact, for 20 years students of Thailand have tried to warn the embassy that Thaksin was something different from the rest.
When I mentioned at the embassy Thaksin’s efforts to influence the media through his wealth, the reaction was, so whats new about that?
When his style of governance, revealed after 2001, that he planned to stay in government house forever, the embassy’s reaction was, He got the votes, didnt he? But democratic theory nowhere in the world considers the mere accumulation of votes a sufficient condition of representative rule.
The American problem is two fold. In the first place, diplomats get few points for knowing anything about a country to which they are assigned with the exception of language training, which still plays a role in representation. Theyre rewarded for getting scoops, in the same manner as journalists, and for being one step ahead with gossip on the diplomatic cocktail circuit.
The second problem is that America is still, however diminished, such an international colossus that it can try to dictate a worldwide agenda. In the late 1970s, human rights became a priority. So assistant secretaries would traipse around the world inspecting human rights achievements. But it was a joke, governments would let out a few political opponents, and the revolving door then locked up a few others.
Here in Bangkok, the ambassador worked closely with the very Thai government official appointed to put the best Thai face forward.
The next stage was democracy. The entire world must be seen to be building democracy, and ambassadors got points in Washington if the country to which they were assigned was making progress.
Here in Thailand, it became quite amusing. In 1980, the parliament came into being, replacing a military regime. In fact the parliament was not the location of power. But the appearance that Thailand was “building democracy” gave the then ambassador something to crow about in Washington. But in fact, he suffered the personal humiliation of not even being able to call on the Thai prime minister for as long as a year. But in Washington, his reputation went unblemished. Now we have the spectacle of the current ambassador, Kristie Kenney, opposing a change of governance in Thailand by much the same method that she showed her support in the Philippines in her previous ambassadorship, when the now imprisoned president, Gloria Arroyo, was seeking any road that might lead to her remaining in charge.
Now it is true, in the words of a 17th century British diplomat, that an ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country. The operative word is country. It is not on the job description of an ambassador to promote herself or himself. It is on the job description, however, for the embassy to represent the home country honestly and honourably, at least as best it possibly can, and to report thoroughly on developments within the country that might impinge on the relationship between countries. In 50 years of watching, and occasionally participating in diplomacy in the third world, Ive never seen an envoy get it so wrong as Ms Kenney.
Of course it was a corollary that by definition coups détat were bad things. But we used to be somewhat discriminatory about coups. In 1966 I was in a small African country led by a Marxist dictator, who was overthrown by the army and police. The celebration of the American embassy was palpable. We just waited for one Western power to recognise the new army and the police regime to recognise it, and then to send it urgent supplies of the arms necessary to defend itself. The disguise as food aid was rather thin, given the weight of the boxes. We supported the coup détat because it was in our interest. There are numerous other such examples.
There was understanding in Washington that not all countries were the same and a one size fits all policy simply couldnt work. Now, however, the automatic condemnation of a coup détat has a knee jerk quality to it, and even the Europeans have come to see it the same way. The political elite in Thailand should bear in mind this ambassadors background in the Philippines, and put in context the unique character of the American condemnation of the new government in Bangkok.
The fact is that numerous American diplomats, academics, and NGO officials have worked with their counterparts in Thailand to nourish democratic roots. Thousands of Thais choosing to be educated abroad in democratic countries has also helped.
True, there have been too many instances of blood-thirsty colonelssoon to be field marshals who have thrown aside nascent democracies, for the sake of the prize at stake. But the recent Thai coup is in many ways the converse. Given the Night of the Long Knives that Thaksin set in motion, the revenge-oriented policies in the South that reignited the insurgency, and the continual enlargement of his family fortune, raises the question of whether Thaksin sees “democracy” as a tactic to ensure his perpetual rule.
On the contrary, what I have learned about General Prayuth Chan-ocha is that he is a professional, from a modest family, his father a provincial teacher, with no evident interest in accumulating a fortune. He ascended the commanding military heights because he was seen as the best. He was always seen as a good man to have on your side, precisely because of his brains and professionalism. My guess is that he will be a significant force in Thai politics for at least five years, the minimum time needed to root out the personal allies of Thaksin.
The past is prologue. The so-called Bangkok elite in the second half of the 20th century fostered policies that generated great wealth for the kingdom. It was slow to see the necessity of a fair distribution of the winnings. I dont know of a single example in history that is any different; countries that get rich quickly invariably permit those responsible for the growth to keep a disproportionate share for themselves. Its the story of America and Britain following the industrial revolution and subsequent great surges in wealth.
Today, in America, the biggest challenge is growing inequality. The innovators are getting richer and richer while the middle-class slips inexorably backwards. This engenders profound reactions, which will in the next decade inevitably force tax reform.
America should be working with, not against, the new rulers. The kingdom faces painful and sensitive transitions in the next decade, and we should be grateful that there are strong hands at the wheels of change.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
W Scott Thompson, professor emeritus of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, is an expert on Southeast Asia now living in Bali and Manila
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/418158/america-must-not-work-against-ncpo
Thailand’s coup: same same but different?
Similar to any coup in Thailand, resistence to the current junta would probably come from the most unlikely sections of society. Very few had taken note of Jattuporn and Nattawuth prior to the 2007 coup and the left-wing political faction had been considered to be insignificant before it was later mobilized into the Red Shirt movement. If one wish to see whether ordinary hard-working Thais have the potential to become defiance to the junta’s rule, it is advisable to observe the reaction of small state lottery retailers to the junta attempt to fix the retail price at 80 baht. It has been known that the state sells the lottery at 76 baht to retailers and 72 baht to wholesellers nationwide. Therefore, most small retailers who have to buy lottery from wholesellers, usually pay nearly 80 baht for each lottery and they would earn nothing if they are force to sell at 80 baht. In a act of defiance, a small vender near Nang Lerng Race Track put out a sign ” I brought the lottery at 80 baht from a wholeseller, how much do you want to pay for it?”
The coup staged for benefit of the ruling class in the overly centralized country can not comprehend and and act in the best interest of the majority of the people. The junta would therefore end in a failure by this short-coming.
Thailand’s coup: same same but different?
Thais will never tolerate Thaksin? You mean Thaksin’s opponents including the minority of Bangkok dwelling mall inhabiting I phone wielding anti democrats brainwashed by the ancien regime won’t tolerate him.
Whether it’s next month next year or in 10 years this will end. It always does. The clock can be stopped but it can’t be turned back.Lets just hope there isn’t massive bloodshed.And one more thing Vichai, Bangkok is not Thailand and isaan manifestly outnumbers you. Disenfranchise them at your peril.
Thailand’s coup: same same but different?
“Thaksin is a malignancy that Thailand will never tolerate.”
“Thailand”? Really? Seems a rather sweeping term – and repeatedly belied by those inconvenient election results. Now, if it were qualified by saying “the shadow powers-that-be in Thailand” then the claim starts to acquire some accuracy – just as this same key factor is also glaringly absent from the first paragraph.
Don’t be fooled – Prabowo (still) wants to get rid of direct presidential elections
Oh please, comparing LKY to Prabowo ? Are you joking ? What is the infant mortality rate in Indonesia ? What is the infant mortality rate in Singapore ? Hitler ? Chiang Kai-shek ? Nasser, Mao, Qaddafi ? You forgot Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, Najib Razak, and definitely forgot Mahathir. In fact, it is to Mahathir, that Prabowo should be compared to, and both come out smelling very bad. William, your attempt at political evolutionary biology is funny, but has no basis in reality. Prabowo’s age is irrelevant. Mahathir is almost 90 and has had four or five heart bypass operations, and yet continues to ruin and abuse Malaysian human rights, from behind the curtain. Facts are facts, so enough drivel, Prabowo committed human rights abuses, and he committed them
DIRECTLY. He could just as easily commit them
at the age of 86 (god forbid he is in politics that long). Nobody on NM has ever said, PRABOWO WAS THE ONLY ONE who has committed abuses, BUT tell me, for all his failings, has Jokowi ever committed any human rights abuses, even indirectly ? If you can’t answer that, and you happen to be Indonesian, I advise you not to vote.
Prabowo Subianto: vote for me, but just the once
Psi-analysis? I always favor Wagner over metal anytime 😛
Prabowo Subianto: vote for me, but just the once
Indonesia by nature is currently running representative democracy, not direct democracy. In Political Parties, written in 1911 by Robert Michels, it mentioned that this system tends to lean towards corrupt oligarchy, which is currently too deeply rooted and indeed destructive. The most surefire way to get rid of corruption? Total purge of current (way too corrupted) system. For one, the most stable and productive form of goverment is guided democracy WITH citizens possessing a healthy awareness and nationalism. Say whatever you want, but most Indonesians nationalism is pathetic at best. To change this is a must.
After all, the greater good and the good of many far outweigh personal interest. In this individualist society (yes, f*ck Jakarta, for example… and no, I’m not even gonna hide that contempt), this current society trend will lead Indonesia to ruin, both in society and its national character. You might protest of my mention of Jakarta, but IF you know what going on behind the apparent gleam of metropolis ‘society’, you might want to vomit. I’m not going to mention conspiracy topics like other country’s black ops, cultural invasion, or such, but surely the fact that if nationalism died then the country is as good as corpse is not too hard to understand, no? Proof? Lets see who’s still even remember national anthem and motto. Heck, even pathetic social trends like ‘alay’ culture and rampant brand consumerism is clearly a bad sign if one think logically. Which most people clearly don’t, Indonesia is still a developing country after all.
Besides, I’m sure as hell don’t want a president that can be ‘directed’ by ‘The Big Mom’. Ain’t gonna risk that.
Prabowo Subianto: vote for me, but just the once
Indonesia by nature is currently running representative democracy, not direct democracy. In Political Parties, written in 1911 by Robert Michels, it mentioned that this system tends to lean towards corrupt oligarchy, which is currently too deeply rooted and indeed destructive. For one, the most stable and productive form of goverment is guided democracy WITH citizens possessing a healthy awareness and nationalism. Say whatever you want, but most Indonesians nationalism is pathetic at best. To change this is a must.
After all, the greater good and the good of many far outweigh personal interest. In this individualist society (yes, f*ck Jakarta, for example), this current society trend will lead Indonesia to ruin, both in society and its national character. I’m not going to mention conspiracy topics like other country’s black ops, cultural invasion, or such, but surely the fact that if nationalism died then the country is as good as corpse is not too hard to understand, no? Proof? Lets see who’s still even remember national anthem and motto. Heck, even pathetic social trends like ‘alay’ culture and rampant brand consumerism is clearly a bad sign if one think logically.
After all, I’m sure as hell don’t want a president that can be ‘directed’ by ‘The Big Mom’. Ain’t gonna even risk that.